Artificial stupidity

[Twan]

One thing is sure, impossible AIs are really fast... to cast the most destructive global enchantements.

In my last game against a pack of impossible AIs they have casted Burden of Time, Foul Air and Perpetual Storm before turn 30 and Wrath of the Sea some turns after, resulting in a nightmare situation... especially for them (the funniest being Jotunheim casting Burden of Time when they have access to the best mortal troops, and Man casting Perpetual Storm forcing their superior longbowmen to fight in melee).

As I play Machaka and don't have any astral mage, I'm condemned for the moment to watch AIs spoiling the world but, as they can't adapt their strategies for their own spells, I'm finally in a better position than most.

[Graeme Dice]

Twan said:
In my last game against a pack of impossible AIs they have casted Burden of Time, Foul Air and Perpetual Storm before turn 30 and Wrath of the Sea some turns after, resulting in a nightmare situation... especially for them (the funniest being Jotunheim casting Burden of Time when they have access to the best mortal troops, and Man casting Perpetual Storm forcing their superior longbowmen to fight in melee).

I'd think that perpetual storm would actually benefit Man (or Pythium) greatly, as it removes the need to carry around a staff of storms to enable wrathful skies or Summon air power. Caelum wouldn't be able to fly around anymore, so they might not want it cast.

[Twan]

Yes for an human it's not a bad choice, but the Man AI prefer to use hordes of archers unable to fire in the storm than Wrathful Sky (the Man AI mages seem to be mostly used for 3-4 Call of the Winds per turn and as many Swarm per fight, choices especially funny when birds can't fly).

[Arker]

Graeme Dice said:
Then he either had absolutely no spells to cast that would reach any enemy targets

Exactly what I've been saying!

I want a replay because you are claiming behaviour that does not happen in the actual game.

And yet, immediately above, you are quoted recognising once again that this behaviour *does* happen. In the very same post. It's enough to make me seriously question your sincerity.

No, it's not a better deal. 20 centaur warriors will trash 80 light infantry with perhaps a half dozen losses. 20 centaur warriors will also trash 40-60 hoplites without severe losses

True, if you tried to make an entire army out of just the one unit. But that would be rather silly.

Use a heavy infantry core, then the archers as support. And yes, eighty light infantry will be more effective in that role than 20 centaur warriors.

Centaur warriors are good for making a fast, sneaking army to scout and take out poorly defended provinces. And I usually play CB, where they're much less expensive. Ludicrously cheap, actually. The point was just that, with a small improvement to the battlefield AI, they *and many other units* could be usable in a more realistic, thematically appropriate, and fun, manner. And modmakers wouldn't need to make them ludicrously cheap to get people to use them.

[KissBlade]

Arker said:


True, if you tried to make an entire army out of just the one unit. But that would be rather silly.

Use a heavy infantry core, then the archers as support. And yes, eighty light infantry will be more effective in that role than 20 centaur warriors.

Eh ... no it really wouldn't. Assuming we're talkign about the typical e9/n9 white centaurs, I don't think you've ever seen what they're capable of. They literally don't die to anything short of heavy cav/knights.

[Nerfix]

Try them out and then make your judgement.

[Graeme Dice]

Arker said:
And yet, immediately above, you are quoted recognising once again that this behaviour *does* happen. In the very same post. It's enough to make me seriously question your sincerity.

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

True, if you tried to make an entire army out of just the one unit. But that would be rather silly.

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.

Use a heavy infantry core, then the archers as support. And yes, eighty light infantry will be more effective in that role than 20 centaur warriors.

I think you need to actually try it out. 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, so you'd have trouble making such a mixed force anyways. 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. 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.

Centaur warriors are good for making a fast, sneaking army to scout and take out poorly defended provinces. And I usually play CB, where they're much less expensive.

They are also just about the best non-sacred national troop type available. Jotunheim is probably the only nation that has better troops. Centaur warriors have a good chance of killing an air queen with life draining weapons and quickness.

Ludicrously cheap, actually. The point was just that, with a small improvement to the battlefield AI, they *and many other units* could be usable in a more realistic, thematically appropriate, and fun, manner.

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.

[Arker]

KissBlade said:
Eh ... no it really wouldn't. Assuming we're talkign about the typical e9/n9 white centaurs

Wrong assumption. We were talking about standard centaur warriors. Similar to the white centaurs, but cheaper and not sacred.

[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. Pang�a 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 Pang�a!

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

Pang�a, 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.