AI thoughts

[Loopy]

The game is basically based around making the AI not behave the same. Certain abilities (like target, or anything that uses runes) simply don't work for enemy units or against player units. Others would require a lot of in-depth thought to use.

The way things work now is that enemy units aren't being commanded by an overall AI, but instead work individually. This makes sense in that all of your non-hero battles wouldn't be against coordinated enemy forces, and non-coordinated enemy forces wouldn't understand the extent of your powers, thinking that the units you used Loki's Touch on were permanently mind controlled or defected or w/e. So in this respect I don't think it's unrealistic that it causes a lot of chaos and interfighting when you use Loki's Touch, that's how a smaller force in supposed to defeat a much larger one.

It would be really cool if there were two different AIs, with a special, stronger one for Hero vs. Hero combat. Normal fights would be you vs. an uncoordinated but much bigger horde and Hero fights being you vs a similar opponent with similar skills.

[Zechnophobe]

First, I want to point out that predictable AI is actually a big part of what makes this game fun. Think of fights that involve more chaotic things such as heros with big single target nukes, or 'dispel'. These fights are generally less fun. I think having consistent AI will generally be for the best.

Second, the Ai behavior effects the quality of certain abilities. In KBAP, most enemies would avoid Mystic Eggs in favor of real units, making the spell particularly strong. If enemies prioritized it, it would be much weaker. We cannot evaluate AI behavior solely on what 'makes sense' for the unit, as much as how balanced it makes all abilities.

Another good example of that, is that in previous games, ranged units would occasionally not move and then shoot, to deal more damage with less risk. They'd just randomly decide to melee. This behavior made them a lot weaker than they otherwise could be.

[Karlos]

I see it differently than Zechnophobe, for me the more unpredictable the AI is - in any game - the more fun it is. And I guess that's sort of a holy grail for videogame developers - to make the AI as close to a human behavior as possible. Whenever you see or read a review criticizing the AI it's almost always because it's too predictable.

So for me it'd be awesome if enemy units behaved as closely to a human player as possible. I.e. they wouldn't attack enraged stacks let alone prioritize them, AI dragons, archdemons, inquisitors and some others would behave more intelligently, enemy heroes would cast Target (then all other stacks would be greyed out for your lower level units) and so on.

[Zechnophobe]

Originally Posted by Karlos

I see it differently than Zechnophobe, for me the more unpredictable the AI is - in any game - the more fun it is. And I guess that's sort of a holy grail for videogame developers - to make the AI as close to a human behavior as possible. Whenever you see or read a review criticizing the AI it's almost always because it's too predictable.

So for me it'd be awesome if enemy units behaved as closely to a human player as possible. I.e. they wouldn't attack enraged stacks let alone prioritize them, AI dragons, archdemons, inquisitors and some others would behave more intelligently, enemy heroes would cast Target (then all other stacks would be greyed out for your lower level units) and so on.

Except what you described is completely predictable behavior. If they never attack enraged stacks, that's predictable. What's unpredictable is if they SOMETIMES attack enraged stacks. Being intelligent is not the opposite of being predictable.

People only think they want unpredictable AI's. What they really want, is more intuitive, predictable, AI's.

[Loopy]

The OP never said anything about the predictableness of the AI, only about the intelligence. They aren't one and the same. That said...

Any intelligent opponent must be predictable. The idea that unpredictableness = intelligence is the complete opposite of reality. Intelligence implies a plan of action and a plan of action implies predictability.

Disabling spells like Target, Fear, Sheep would be painfully unfun for players if enemy heroes actually utilized them to 100% efficiency. A lot of things would need a lot of balance changes if that were the case. The game would literally be impossible fighting a powerful mage hero with a non-mage otherwise.

[Bhruic]

Originally Posted by Loopy

The OP never said anything about the predictableness of the AI, only about the intelligence. They aren't one and the same.

It's not necessarily about intelligence, per se, it's about what would make an AI "better". And by "better", I mean conform to what the player is looking for in an AI. I mean, it's nice that you could completely disrupt the enemy ranks by hitting them with Loki's Touch, but does that make for better combat? Is it preferrable that that happen? What about the AI's targeting of things like the Ice Spikes from Lord of the North? If the AI doesn't target them, they become somewhat worthless - unless you luck into one blocking the AI's path - but if they do target them, the AI tends to spend turns attacking them rather than moving towards your army to attack it. And suchforth.

Basically, do people prefer having spells and abilities that allow them to semi-exploit the AI's poor decision making, or would that make combat more difficult than they are hoping for?

[camelotcrusade]

Interesting discussion here.

Personally, I think learning to exploit the AI is a large part of what a strategy game like KB is all about. Since the troop and spells are somewhat random or in limited supply, I find myself re-inventing or adjusting my tried-and-true methods several times each game. I like that about KB a lot and I appreciate that my experience learning the AI sticks with me even as my circumstances change.