Artificial stupidity

[Arker]

Graeme Dice said:
I told you that units do exactly what they are ordered to, which is completely correct except in the case of heroic quickness, and that any deviation is actually you not understanding how the orders work. You responded by telling me that I shouldn't say that with a straight face because the AI "always uses 'stay behind troops' even when it's not the order given". Since the AI does not "always uses 'stay behind troops' even when it's not the order given" but instead only uses stay behind troops when no other order is possible,

Nice backpedalling there.

So it turns out, contrary to your past flames, we *agree* that the behaviour I'm seeing is the behaviour that's programmed into the game, you just want to try and make a big deal out of the fact you don't like how I phrase it. And it takes you seven pages to admit that, and even now you're still obfuscating and trying to claim you were right all along.

That's pathetic. Really pathetic.

I told you that you were wrong as that's certainly not a bug.

I don't believe I ever said it was a bug, although you keep attributing that to me. I said it was annoying.

You seem to be confused about the difference between erroneous or buggy behaviour, which is what happens when a unit has heroic quickness, and fuly explained behaviour following the orders the commander has been given, which is what happens every other time.

Nope, I'm not confused about it at all, despite all your attempts to confuse me.

They're two different issues. They're both annoying. As I said a couple pages back...

Why would it be silly? Dominions does not reward mixing troop types like you seem to think it does. Add slow troops, and they will hardly even see combat unless the enemy is strong enough to kill all of your centaur warriors. If that's the case, then Pangaea doesn't have any troops that would be able to stand up to the enemy anyways.

Not at all. Pangæa has much heavier troops than the centaur warriors. Do you ever play them?

I think you need to actually try it out.

I have.

20 centaur warriors will easily kill 80 light infantry. I'd be surprised if they would take more than 5 losses. Pangaea has no heavy infantry worth mentioning,

OK, now I know you've never played Pangæa!

That's got to be some kind of record for an absurd assertion!

Pangæa, for your information, has Minotaurs. And War Minotaurs. The latter may well be the heaviest infantry in the game.

It's not like you'd ever recruit a minotaur or a satyr. The minotaur will trample into the enemy, killing three or four troops, then get swarmed and kiled.

So you do realise they exist after all!

Well, yeah, if you send one out alone that'll happen. Twenty five or thirty of the suckers, with some cheap support, cut through enemy armies numbering into the hundreds like a hot knife through butter.

The satyrs are either light infantry, which is almost universally useless in Dominions, or require large amounts of resources, and thus can't be built in sufficient quantities.

Light infantry are less effective than they should be, which is why I suggested a modification to the AI that would improve the situation, yes, but if you think they're useless you're just not using them right.

Javelin equipped units already almost always throw two or three javelins if you put them on fire closest, so I'm not sure what your complaint is about javelin equipped troops.

IF you set them up on the battlefield right, right for Dominions that is, not right in any realistic sense, then yes, you can get that out of them. If they're foot troops, at least.

If they had retrograde movement, they could be used more realistically, and more effectively. Since it's possible to fudge it with foot troops, it's not such a big deal there - but horse archers are another matter.

[Graeme Dice]

Arker said:
Nice backpedalling there.

Who's backpedalling? It's not my fault that you were the one who started this entire argument by telling me that "I can't believe you can say that with a straight face." I mean, you're the one who posted "Actually, that's the point, they DON'T just do what they're ordered to do." Now you're claiming that they _do_ act as ordered.

So it turns out, contrary to your past flames, we *agree* that the behaviour I'm seeing is the behaviour that's programmed into the game, you just want to try and make a big deal out of the fact you don't like how I phrase it.

I suggest that you might want to go back and re-read page 3. You'll note that you wrote "I don't see how you could say that with a straight face, knowing that there are several final orders that can be given, yet as discussed in this thread the AI always uses 'stay behind troops' even when it's not the order given?" And you might also want to go re-read page 2, where you state that "Actually, that's the point, they DON'T just do what they're ordered to do."

I don't believe I ever said it was a bug, although you keep attributing that to me. I said it was annoying.

"Actually, that's the point, they DON'T just do what they're ordered to do." If that's not calling something a bug, then nothing is.

Not at all. Pangaea has much heavier troops than the centaur warriors. Do you ever play them?

Yes, I've played Pangaea several times. Their only troops that could be called "heavy" are satyr hoplites, minotaurs, and centaur cataphracts. Hoplites are mediocre compared to centaur warriors. The same gold cost in centaurs would win easily. Cataphracts require huge numbers of resources, as do minotaur warriors.

I have.

Then you haven't run very many test games. I certainly hope you're not using Saber Cherry's combat simulator.

Pangaea, for your information, has Minotaurs. And War Minotaurs. The latter may well be the heaviest infantry in the game.

Both are useless for their gold and resource cost compared to centaur warriors.

So you do realise they exist after all!

I realize that they exist, I also realize that they aren't worth their cost. They might be worth it if they didn't have trample so that they would actually use their equipped weapons instead of fatiguing themselves after a half dozen turns.

Well, yeah, if you send one out alone that'll happen. Twenty five or thirty of the suckers, with some cheap support, cut through enemy armies numbering into the hundreds like a hot knife through butter.

In order to field 25-30 minotaurs in a reasonable amount of time, you'll need an order 3 scale, and probably a fortress or a castle. That puts your pretender at a 240 - 320 point disadvantage compared to the person who takes sloth 3, a watchtower, and recruits centaur warriors instead. Those minotaurs will be taken out very easily by any kind of battlefield magic.

Light infantry are less effective than they should be, which is why I suggested a modification to the AI that would improve the situation, yes, but if you think they're useless you're just not using them right.

If you spend 1000 gold on light infantry, and I spend 1000 gold on heavy infantry, you will end up losing, since I'll have about 75% as many troops as you, yet each one can kill two or three (or more) of yours.

IF you set them up on the battlefield right, right for Dominions that is, not right in any realistic sense, then yes, you can get that out of them. If they're foot troops, at least.

It's not hard to set them up right. You put them in a single block in the middle of the field on "fire closest".

If they had retrograde movement, they could be used more realistically, and more effectively. Since it's possible to fudge it with foot troops, it's not such a big deal there - but horse archers are another matter.

Since foot archers can reach across nearly the entire battlefield, what possible advantage do you hope to gain by using mounted archers? You aren't going to do significantly more damage by having them move closer, the combat model isn't detailed enough for that.

[Arker]

Graeme Dice said:
Now you're claiming that they _do_ act as ordered.

Not at all. I'm claiming the same thing all along, and you have posted numerous times agreeing with it.

When there are no enemies in range of their spells, and no buffs are applicable, they go to 'stay behind troops.' Even when that's NOT the order they were given.

"Actually, that's the point, they DON'T just do what they're ordered to do." If that's not calling something a bug, then nothing is.

Not really. If it was intentionally designed to work that way, it wouldn't be a bug per se. It would still be annoying, and perhaps a design decision that, in retrospect, wasn't optimal. It might be a good thing to reconsider. That doesn't really make it a "bug."

Then you haven't run very many test games. I certainly hope you're not using Saber Cherry's combat simulator.

Never used it.

As far as the minotaurs vs centaurs thing, look, that's a pointless discussion. You use what you like, I'll use what I like.

But I think that IF what you were saying about the Minotaurs, and the entire light infantry line, were true, that would be every bit as close to a 'bug' as the problem with mages I started the thread about. What's the point in having different troop types if the combat engine is so silly that your best tactic is a big pile of one troop type in the centre of the screen?

Fortunately the combat engine isn't as bad, in my experience, as you seem to think. It does have some rough spots, some things that could be improved, of course.

If you spend 1000 gold on light infantry, and I spend 1000 gold on heavy infantry, you will end up losing, since I'll have about 75% as many troops as you, yet each one can kill two or three (or more) of yours.

I don't doubt that at all.

I wouldn't do that, though. I'd spend perhaps 700 on the heavies, the last 300 on the lights, and deploy them to screen or flank. I think I'd win, and again, if I wouldn't, that would seem to be a 'bug' at least by your standards.

It's not hard to set them up right. You put them in a single block in the middle of the field on "fire closest".

If that's the extent of your tactical thinking, I guess a lot of this makes more sense now

Since foot archers can reach across nearly the entire battlefield, what possible advantage do you hope to gain by using mounted archers? You aren't going to do significantly more damage by having them move closer, the combat model isn't detailed enough for that.

No, actually, it's definitely not that bad. Archers hit a LOT more at close range than all the way across the battlefield.

They could also be used to 'pull' enemy squads into disadvantageous positions.

[Graeme Dice]

Arker said:
But I think that IF what you were saying about the Minotaurs, and the entire light infantry line, were true, that would be every bit as close to a 'bug' as the problem with mages I started the thread about.

Bugs are things that don't work as designed, not problems with the design.

I wouldn't do that, though. I'd spend perhaps 700 on the heavies, the last 300 on the lights, and deploy them to screen or flank. I think I'd win, and again, if I wouldn't, that would seem to be a 'bug' at least by your standards.

I highly doubt that you'd win. The lights won't do anything to the heavies, and will be killed in a single hit each.

If that's the extent of your tactical thinking, I guess a lot of this makes more sense now

Tell you what. I'll set up a game on the battle simulation map where we can each send 1000 gold worth of non-sacred troops with no mage support into a province with neutral dominion. You can pick any nation, and any troops you want, then set them up however you want. I'll pick 1000 gold worth of purely heavy infantry from any nation that you don't want and stick them in a single block as far forwards as possible. We can see which wins the battle. It won't be the army that wasted gold on low protection troops.

[KissBlade]

Don't forget the obligatory two or three advance militia as arrow catchers =).

[Strider]

Moderators have sent PMs to some of the posters in this thread. It hasn't had enough of an effect. I'm locking this one up.

[Mindi]

I’d like to make a statement here and I hope everyone is listening. When a moderator asks you to cut out some unacceptable behavior, you cut it out, it’s as simple as that. I don’t care who started it, but a moderator’s intervention should be the end of it.

We’re pretty relaxed around here, I don’t have to step in often and in general I think we have a pretty good community that knows how to act like adults and police their own posts. HOWEVER, I want to be clear here and say that the type of behavior posted in this thread will not be tolerated. Neither will childish behavior like “well he started it!” as an excuse for retaliation or taking an argument to another area of the forums after a thread lock. I will not hesitate to reward childish behavior with childish punishments, such as time outs! This is probably a good time for everyone to familiarize yourself with the Board Rules again. Consider this your reminder of the rules and a final warning.

We’re about to have an increase in traffic and community activity with the much anticipated release of Dominions 3. Lets remember to treat one another with respect so that these forums can be enjoyable for all.

[KissBlade]

Buying 25-30 minotaurs is just about the biggest waste of gold ever. Also I wonder wat you mean by "cheap support" since 25 - 30 minotaurs are very expensive. Also I assure you, unless you plan on your "cheap support" doing all the gruntwork, 25-30 minotaurs cannot wipe hundreds of troops. Plus at that stage of the game, the centaur's faster movements will prove much more useful at reaching the backline of casters that will wipe your minotaurs easily.