The fatal flaws of scripting mages...

[thejeff]

The only cases of the AI deviating that I know of come down to either not possible or gem use.
Not possible is usually not in range.

The gem use is a real problem, but I still think the better solution is to improve the "enemy strength" algorithm.

I don't like the AI scripting on/off idea.
In the original example, you could just teleport in a cheap mage with hold/hold/retreat to burn his gems if he has scripting off, followed by the Mind Lord who will slaughter them because they have no gems left. If he leaves scripting on, they don't follow the script for the cheap mage or the Aboleth and die anyway.

It just means you have to work a little hard to exploit the problem. It doesn't fix it.

[Sombre]

The AI appears to deviate even if the spell is possible and you have the gems to power it if it decides the spell isn't a good idea. I don't have an example of this to hand, but numerous people have reported it.

[Gandalf Parker]

Hmm I use hellbind heart quite abit against one unit and havent had a problem. Maybe the mage was set too far back on the battlefield? (I dont remember the range settings on that)

[Baalz]

Both mages were set all the way forward, enemy mage was scripted to hold X5 (it was an agreed up trade).

[Nick_K]

Of course, thematically it makes sense that sometimes mages would make a mistake. They don't know that a lone enemy is actually loaded with magic items or whatever. When they have heavy weight of numbers on their side, it makes sense that sometimes the mages would make the wrong decision

[Micah]

This is probably going to sound weird, but how about if the game processed the combats multiple times? The first time through the combat would be run using gems and executing retreat orders. If the battle is easily won (less than 10% casualties and no commander deaths) the battle would be rerun without the use of gems or the execution of retreat orders. If the gem-comservation run results in a large swing in the outcome (more than the 10% casualty threshold or commander death) the results would be discarded, otherwise they would be used.

By only rerunning battles that are lopsided to begin with this method wouldn't be giving any "second chances" to land/avoid a lucky blow. The results of a battle will never be changed using this method, only the resources that go into winning it.

This gets rid of the need for the AI to have to perfectly assess the strength of the opposition with a complex formula that will inevitably have holes in it and lets it see what actually happens. It's a bit unthematic that mages can never be surpried by a small force with big guns, but eliminating the frustration of dealing with the AI's flaws seems like a very worthwhile tradeoff to me. I'm sick of seeing my mages flee in terror from a scout that my PD caught when I have an uncastled lab, or the mage I have around to buff an SC and split flee from a pack of overgrown birds, leaving his SC buddy around to die when the real army gets there later in the turn.

Single-target charm-type spells should always be cast as scripted though, since getting a unit is even better than not losing one, and since they single-target there is no chance of overkill.

It might up the turn processing time a bit, but since only lopsided battles will be rerun (which generally process fairly quickly, with the exception of SCs taking down armies) I don't think it would be a major resource-hog.

[Sir_Dr_D]

I have had the opposite problem before.

I was Atalntis and was prepared for a big attack against vanheim. Vanheim teleports in 2 SC's. (one might have beena golem.) The mages waste all their gems on those two opponents. In the same turn vanhim atatcks with his big army. Of course since my mages have no gems, i get slaughtered.