Why Don't My Mages Cast the Spells I Tell Them To?

[Gandalf Parker]

Sometimes I think that the RPGers have an advantage in Dominions over the strict strategy-game people. Maybe not in winning, but in our stress levels. When something happens in the game that I dont like I role-play it out in some sort of logic and continue on.

incorrect battle reports:
"Stupid followers are too afraid of me to report correctly"

mage wont follow script:
"I keep that idiot on a far flank or use him to test province defenses"

troops get inflictions:
"these guys have earned a retirement adding to the PD of this province now that Ive recruited replacements for them

I do a pretty good storyline AAR in my head. If only I wasnt so lazy to type it out.

Gandalf Parker

[curtadams]

QXel said:
2-Yep, I guess so. But 4 Falling Fire onto 10 Militias while 20 HI or 10 HC chop my poor lava warriors ... Well, I don't comment any further, I'll be rude ...
Edit : It's doesn't make much sense anyway, because, if I remember well, Falling fire damage is armor piercing. So, casting it on a heavily armored unit isn't a so bad idea.

My impression is that the AI prefers casting its spells where they will to the most enemy damage/least friendly damage, NOT where they will help the most. My mages prefer to blast militia rather than heavy cavalry even when the cavalry will be a grave danger and the militia will be irrelevant. I suspect it just sees that firing at the militia will cause much more damage (which it will, of course) and so it ignores the cavalry.

[Edi]

It also depends on what magic is available to them. If all you have is flying shards or fire darts, they'll use it on the militia, because then there is at least some chance of actually doing damage, whereas heavy cavalry is virtually immune to those spells (heavy armor + shield), but if you have a fire mage who can use fireball or flare, those heavy cavalry will start suffering rather immediately.

Edi