AI thoughts

[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.