Game is too easy.

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Game is too easy.

This topic contains 9 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  Sathra 8 years, 4 months ago.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #97234

    idleray
    Member

    I’ve tried 1v7 Emperors teamed up together and became bored after about 25 turns of steamrolling AIs that don’t even put up a fight or work together and instead play like newbs trying to get T4 units.

    I don’t have the patience or personality for playing this game on MP, but I think having a legitimately challenging single player game is a reasonable demand. Currently the AI is just completely unable to play the strategic part of the game: strategic as in on the strategic map: Moving armies, positioning armies, building the right things at the right time (hint: not getting a whole load of infrastructure that motivates me to conquer them instead of getting my own).

    This means that the minute you bring even a little elementary strategy game experience to the table the game crumples due to the ineptitude of the AI, and whatever is “strategic” about this game because a boring slog of chores and clicking through events and busy-work.

    The only thing that is fun becomes the tactical side. The only reason why I’m pressing the end turn button is so I can fight the next battle. The actual strategic game becomes work. There are no rally points so I have to give each unit a waypoint. Just conquer each passive do-nothing AI and win before I can even research T4 units…at a rate of one skill every 1-2 turns.

    Something really needs to be done about the AI, and it actually seems to be reasonably simple, just create another tier of Difficulty above Emperor where the AI gets a more substantial resource advantage, and

    *Stops razing its cities and insteads defends them to the death. Scorched earth might seem strategic and inspired by the real world but in practice is utterly dumb. I can just progressively move closer and closer to the AI’s capital while it destroys itself.

    *Stops attacking ruins it can’t defeat with nearly no losses. Seriously this is dumb.

    *Stops building settlers: Good god this is one of the most grating things the AI does. Every other AI city I conquer has a useless settler unit that hides in buildings during combat that I have to rotate the battle map to find. It’s also tempting to just position my hero so that it deals minimum damage and gains maximum experience via ranged attacks.
    Just give AI the power of instantly setting up an outpost(even that will end up giving the player an advantage since I will just conquer those outposts) or compensate by giving them hidden bonuses so they don’t need new settlements at all.

    *At least has some idea of preserving its Throne City. So many times it looks like I’m sneaking up on a completely unsuspecting newb rather than a computer intelligence that knows I have the forces to conquer its Throne and maneuvers in response. Often in the first 10-15 turns I can eliminate 2 AIs just by blitzing their Throne Cities and they’re completely unprepared.

    AOW3 is a game that has more apparent complexities and moving parts than a game like Civ V which is very simple to pick up and play. However the bottom line seems to be that that Civ V can actually provide a decently interesting strategic experience because you have to make use of all its elements to win on the highest difficulties.

    TL;DR – Currently AOW3 is just you rush rush rushing everything you see and then the boring chore of moving all your units towards the remaining enemy cities until they’re all conquered. The combat is fun but there is no real strategic depth, and no epic battles unless you hold back on purpose and play sub-optimally on purpose.

    #97240

    Ravel1984
    Member

    *Stops razing its cities and insteads defends them to the death. Scorched earth might seem strategic and inspired by the real world but in practice is utterly dumb. I can just progressively move closer and closer to the AI’s capital while it destroys itself.

    *Stops attacking ruins it can’t defeat with nearly no losses. Seriously this is dumb.

    I definitely agree on these two points.

    The first point has been brought up a good number of times on the forums and I hope the devs address it soon.

    As far as the second point goes, I partnered with an AI a couple games just to see how it plays in general… and not only would it take losses clearing ruins – a lot of the time it would outright lose the entire stack. Then, instead of taking other objectives on the map/expanding the AI has to rebuild those units. I think this also contributes to the behavior in point #1, as the AI gets behind which kickstarts its raze & retreat behavior.

    I’m no programmer, but I imagine this behavior wouldn’t be too hard to fix – perhaps just requiring a bit more caution from the AI regarding treasure sites with questionable outcomes.

    #97243

    Stigrs77
    Member

    I don’t think it is necessary to boost the AI even more. It just needs to use the doctrine of Overwhelming Force. I believe that improving the AI is actually rather simple;

    1. It should leave a couple of ranged units in its cities to defend against scouts and independents. The rest should go into one or two invasion forces led by heroes.

    1 A) Because as long as they have one of those “stack bundles” near any of its frontline cities, it could re-take the city within a couple of turns.

    1 B) Not to mention that it won’t lose units pointlessly because it attacks with just enough of them to get the “probable victory” auto-combat feedback instead of attacking with everything it’s got in order to avoid losses altogether. They actually split armies in order to do this, and when they lose they do it again and again until the entire invasion force is gone. It is ok to let Squire and Knight give us a fighting chance like this, but from Lord and onwards I’d expect them to be merciless.

    2. As it is now, the AI avoids -any- confrontation with a major invasion force. Instead, it tries to nick poorly defended cities on the flanks or behind the front line. As many have noticed, when you march forward with one such force, they retreat to their Throne City sealing their own inevitable fate. In short, it is programmed to win battles, not wars. It should aggressively hunt down your heroes and confront your invasion force in the open instead of this cowardice.

    2 A) If their best stack bundle loses heavily against yours, defeat is inevitable anyways. At least, if they show up to fight before you get to take more than 1-2 of their cities, there is still hope to recover if they manage to kill enough of your invasion force to make further advances too risky.

    2 B) In addition to nicking easily conquered cities from you, which they already do and which would be a good strategy if #1 was fixed, there should be a decision-making of when to go for the “throat” (meaning your best heroes/armies). It is a high risk great gain sort of decision. If they beat your primary invasion force, you will be forced on the defensive, and so would they if you win. Thus, as you increase their economical advantage, they will show up with more units of higher tiers than you do and actually try to pull both your fangs and your claws at the same time. Therefore, this behaviour could be universal as long as the decision to take that risk is founded on a much better “autocombat calculator”.

    Improving the autocombat calculator so that you won’t get the “probable victory” prediction when attacking a city unless you have at least one full stack and/or 3x the numbers (regardless of tiers) is therefore the first thing Triumph has to do in order to improve the AI. I think it is the root cause of the poor AI.

    #97271

    ShortBear
    Member

    I’m not sure if you guys have played the latest beta patch but at least some of the issues are a little better. I’m playing against 3 AIs at king and there has only been one razed city. This occurred when the AI took one of my cities that it couldn’t have possibly defended. There have been quite a few large multi stack battles that have been initiated by the AI and no one has even gotten significant numbers of T3s yet.

    Maybe i’m just bad but this has been a pretty fun game.

    Edit:I’m playing with 200% research and city growth costs so maybe that has influenced it’s decision making .

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by  President.
    #97274

    ShortBear
    Member

    I think that a great solution would be to have “personalities” that could be picked randomly or given to each AI in setup. Stuff like “conqueror” “defender” Like we have now, “scorched earth” Because someone somewhere likes that probably, “builder” “expander” “Berserker”.

    Probably a lot more if I spent time thinking about it.

    #97276

    There are no rally points so I have to give each unit a waypoint. Just conquer each passive do-nothing AI and win before I can even research T4 units…at a rate of one skill every 1-2 turns.

    Ahh but there ARE rally points!

    City display, red flag.

    #97286

    ShortBear
    Member

    @zamina_mina_zangalewa

    Thank you! I had been wondering where that function was!

    Also bonus screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/eudNArrayij.jpg

    The game is seemed like it was basically won but I wasn’t expecting this

    #97287

    To add to AI oddities: The other day I played the next-to-last Commonwealth campaign scenario (pre-beta patch), and snatched my last opponent’s throne city when he was about to abandon it with his tons of stacks (probably to gear up for an attack on another of his recently lost cities nearby). He only had one stack of mediocre units in there, so I swept in with my flying super-hero. No complaints up to this point, to me this was just a quick raid to reduce his forces and deprive him of a turn’s income. Of course, in view of his still impressive army in the city’s vicinity I instantly retreated to a safe spot, leaving the city undefended.
    Now, what does my opponent do? Go into kamikaze mode by splitting his forces and moving them towards two of his nearby ex-cities, instead of just moving a single unit in to retake his throne and consolidate his position anew! In fact, I wiped out his entire army (and almost the leader himself before realizing I still needed an ally in this map, but that is another story) and even ‘held’ his ex-throne city long enough to absorb it…without a single move on his part to retake an abandoned, not absorbed, fully developed city just two hexes away from his nearest stack.
    So….WTF!?

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by  President.
    #97304

    idleray
    Member

    Oh wow I did not realise the thing about there being rally points. My bad. This does take away the tedium quite a bit I suppose, though my point about the AI needing improvement stands.

    #97389

    Sathra
    Member

    The AI is really hesitant to attack without an overwhelming advantage (probably why it goes after weak border cities).

    It was improved so it doesn’t mass only t3/4, and has more unit variety. That and it doesn’t defend very well against rushes at all.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.