Hello everyone,
I do not know if this subject has ever been discussed before, but i cant search this forum on the term "AI"
I would like to share a tought about something and would like to know how other players feel about this.
It is about what i call the "standard built-in AI" that controls a human players units, when they are not directly commanded by the player. They have a set of rules by which they take action under certain conditions. We take this stuff for granted, we know an archer will fire at any enemy unit coming in its range, etc.
And all of this without any involvement of the player! We actually have a good computer assistant whilst playing, because, in fact, where would we be without this?
Okay, good until now. When i play 1v1 vs computer, and make it for instance a full scale imperial war, this computer players manages by some kind of wizardry to erase any army i send it. Now i know perfectly well how this is done. It controls every single of its units, like a chess player almost. Converting and healing with 15 monks, positioning his range units at the perfect spots and forwarding his melee units all the same time. Especially in scaled up warfare it knows to compensate its lack of vision by superior micro.
Point is, I can never reach that level of micro, the computer player will out-micro every mass attack. Well, thats ok for me, its just a computer player. I want to use this to illustrate the question i have: Why cant we be able to use 15 monks simultaniously?
-Why does our "built-in AI" behave the way it does? Is there any change made in it in AOFE? (it seems like my units tend to chase enemy units more then they do in AOC, making them spread out of formation)
- Why do rams never auto attack buildings (or any unit, they just stand idle until you command them)?
- Why dont monks auto-convert enemy units if they come in sight, like archers auto-attack modus?
- Why do my units have attack-stance when trained and wander off chasing enemy units, out of control. Can there be set a max range at which they chase from a certain point, so they keep guarding a certain area.
- Why does a castle built close to the enemy always start firing upon the buildings?
- Many more of this standard behaviour could be questioned or improved (suggestions anyone?)
Off course i know why, its because its made this way, to balance the amount of control we have to do.
I am not suggesting we should change all of this. It is they very basic of this game, but the tough of some improvements have been with me since i played Rise of Rome 12 years ago, where catapults used to fire upon your own units... how good would it have been if it just didnt do this!
But could it be possible to build a switch between different levels of computer auto-reaction assistance? Like the host decides in pre-game menu what level or modus to play.
Does any one have idea's like this concerning a units behaviour?
( my complaints mostly concerning idle rams, idle monks, idle villagers, and firing targets of towers and castles)
I do not know if this subject has ever been discussed before, but i cant search this forum on the term "AI"
I would like to share a tought about something and would like to know how other players feel about this.
It is about what i call the "standard built-in AI" that controls a human players units, when they are not directly commanded by the player. They have a set of rules by which they take action under certain conditions. We take this stuff for granted, we know an archer will fire at any enemy unit coming in its range, etc.
And all of this without any involvement of the player! We actually have a good computer assistant whilst playing, because, in fact, where would we be without this?
Okay, good until now. When i play 1v1 vs computer, and make it for instance a full scale imperial war, this computer players manages by some kind of wizardry to erase any army i send it. Now i know perfectly well how this is done. It controls every single of its units, like a chess player almost. Converting and healing with 15 monks, positioning his range units at the perfect spots and forwarding his melee units all the same time. Especially in scaled up warfare it knows to compensate its lack of vision by superior micro.
Point is, I can never reach that level of micro, the computer player will out-micro every mass attack. Well, thats ok for me, its just a computer player. I want to use this to illustrate the question i have: Why cant we be able to use 15 monks simultaniously?
-Why does our "built-in AI" behave the way it does? Is there any change made in it in AOFE? (it seems like my units tend to chase enemy units more then they do in AOC, making them spread out of formation)
- Why do rams never auto attack buildings (or any unit, they just stand idle until you command them)?
- Why dont monks auto-convert enemy units if they come in sight, like archers auto-attack modus?
- Why do my units have attack-stance when trained and wander off chasing enemy units, out of control. Can there be set a max range at which they chase from a certain point, so they keep guarding a certain area.
- Why does a castle built close to the enemy always start firing upon the buildings?
- Many more of this standard behaviour could be questioned or improved (suggestions anyone?)
Off course i know why, its because its made this way, to balance the amount of control we have to do.
I am not suggesting we should change all of this. It is they very basic of this game, but the tough of some improvements have been with me since i played Rise of Rome 12 years ago, where catapults used to fire upon your own units... how good would it have been if it just didnt do this!
But could it be possible to build a switch between different levels of computer auto-reaction assistance? Like the host decides in pre-game menu what level or modus to play.
Does any one have idea's like this concerning a units behaviour?
( my complaints mostly concerning idle rams, idle monks, idle villagers, and firing targets of towers and castles)