Wish List: targetable spells

[st.patrik]

Time for another suggestion that's too late and too much work to be implemented

I have always wondered why spells are not targetable. After all, regular missile troops can pick whether to fire at commanders, mages, archers, etc., so why not troops that hurl magical attacks toward the opponent?

Say I'm Ulm, fighting against a feudal independant - If I could have my smith aim his 'blade wind' at the longbowmen, rather than at the knights who it won't trouble in the least it would be sweet

Here's why it wouldn't work though: suddenly certain spells would become really overpowered - like for example 'mind burn', and any other high precision damage dealer.

If there were a way to make it work without screwing the balance entirely I think it would add an element of strategy currently lacking. And it would be sweet

[Daynarr]

Well, targeting commanders and spell casters specifically is no longer possible for anyone. Best thing you can do is order someone to attack rearmost enemies (ground troops and flyers) archers don�t have even that so they can shoot at closes enemies, enemy archers, large units and cavalry (not sure I missed something). On the other hand AI that handles targeting for units (archers, spellcasters) has been greatly improved so you will see much less friendly fire (its still there but on specific occasions and not nearly as much as it was in DOM I) and casters wont even use spell on targets they can't harm with it and will pick target and spell they can do most harm with it. For example, my fire level 9 pretender uses FIRE DARTS even if he can use fireball against enemies as he can send lots of them and they are very accurate. It�s not uncommon for him to get about 100 kills in first 10 turns.

[Psitticine]

On the same subject of good spell and target selection, I love the way the AI won't let you give it useless orders. I was just playing with a prophet who had Divine Blessing set as his first round spell. Well, he'd been in a field awhile and all his sacred troops were . . . well, let's just say they were all Ex-Parrots.

The unit refused to cast the spell, as it would affect exactly NOBODY, as he himself is always blessed and nobody else was eligible. Instead, he picked the much more appropriate action of unleashing a fire bolt from his magic weapon.

Smart fellow, my prophet. Knows just when it is safe to disobey the soon-to-be-Allmighty!

[Nerfix]

Yes, yes, supayes, supawundeba,SUPAWUNBAYES!
Finaly some combat AI improvements!

[st.patrik]

Thanks for the info -

It makes sense that the archers and mages have the same targeting capabilities, so if even the archers have more limited options then they are aligned - just not the way I was suggesting

So is the idea that we can trust the mages to make smart decisions? Is that only with regard to choice of spell, or does it also extend to target for that spell? e.g. is my astral mage as likely to target a militia-man as a dangerous enemy mage when casting 'mind burn'? Will he cast 'flying shards' (the crappest spell ever IMO) at the knights or at the lightly armoured infantry?

[Daynarr]

Mages will make good choices in spells (although you can tell them what to cast) and targets as well. For example, my pretender from before (level 9 fire) wasn�t shooting fire darts at enemy who were engaged in close combat with my troops, but at enemy that was behind them, or if there was no such enemy he would use more accurate spells, like incinerate to avoid hitting his own troops. All in all i think I saw him make only 1 friendly kill so far while he killed about 500 enemies total.

Oh yeah, it's true AI will ignore commands that will be useless in battle (like casting arrow fend if there is no enemy ranged troops on the field and he will also restrain himself from using gems if the battle is easy to win.

[Endoperez]

Oh the joy! This is better than what I dared to dream! Anyways, some questions for you about the mage AI:

IF a mage has skill in multiple paths, how does he decide what to spells to use? Does the fatique the spell causes taken into account? What about storm/ rain and their effects on the fire magic?
If the mage has gems and no (intelligent) orders, does he summon or does he cast? From what this depends?
Is there any situation in which the mage casts a wrong spell more often than not?

The Last one interests me most. Does the AI have any faults? And will the players be able to use them? Like getting the mages to use the gems with Call of the wind...

[Nerfix]

I think they fixed the "nuke spells at trivial enemies" syndrome.

[Mortifer]

Awesome.
'Spellcasting AI' wasnt really good, Im glad that it will be tweaked and fixed.

[Psitticine]

I've found spellcasting AI to be quite good overall. In fact, I think it might be the strongest part of the tactical AI in Dom II.

The AI is conservative when it comes to using gems against weaker opponents, but doesn't hesitate to bring out the big guns when threatened. It is also very good about casting appropriate defensive spells.

Sometimes I'll wonder for second why it chose a seemingly pointless spell, like Holy Avenger by/on a priest that'll probably not get attacked, but then I realize the priest in question really didn't have anything more useful to cast that round anyway.

I've noticed a tendency to lean on conjuration, but that might just be because that's what I have researched for them most often. Bit of a contaminated sample there, if you know what I mean.

It is also very good at targetting. The only problem I've seen is when I was playing the flame-retardent Abyssians and had one group of Militia along for the ride. (Hey, they volunteered!) In one particular battle, my most powerful mage used some fire spells that didn't act as any threat to my regular guys, but were a bit hard on those soft-skinned Militia. I think that decision may have been weighted by the overall desperation of the battle: we were badly outnumbered and the enemy Pretender God was present on the field of combat. (Our guys took it on the chin in the end; it wasn't pretty!)

Other than that incident, the AI seems to do a pretty good job of trying not to toast your guys while frying the enemy. The "arrow-in-the-back" syndrome has been greatly reduced, especially with one particular beta-patch, and is now rather rare. I only run into problems when either I've given orders that force the situation (oopsie) or things have gotten either truly desperate or utterly chaotic.

The large spells are used fairly rarely because of their cost. Sometimes, I'd like to see them used more often, just for the pure joy of watching them go, but I can't argue with the conservation of gems. It can be a pain to keep your mages stocked with them if they are pushed into constantly using them up.

The portion of the combat AI that I'd like to see improved is in the "mad rush towards the enemy" department. Keep it together, lads! If Illwinter were to turn their hand towards AI improvements some day, I'd suggest they start with that and wait until Last to see if there's anything to tweak with the spell-casting.

Oh, Last minute thought: I have seen the spell-casting AI conjure things in back that can't seem to make it up to the front line in time to be a part of the battle. That particular problem is the only thing I've found I don't like, but it might be a part of the fact I lean too heavily on Conjuration research. They may just not have anything better to do at those points beause I haven't researched them the spell options, but I can't say for sure. (It'll take more playing to find out . . . yeah, that's a good excuse to play more . . . )