Archers are overpowered for this period. I reduced mine to 5-8 attack for arrows, mostly 5, and it did wonders for the game play.Originally Posted by hung41584
The random factor should be counted into multiple characters/personalities for the AI. Multiple attributes should each have a linear scale reflecting the likelihood of that attribute surfacing, i.e. "cautious to chancing/conservative to aggressive": A chancing general will leave things more to luck and engage the enemy general although the percentage/conditions for success is not favorable. An older or experienced AI general is more likely to be cautious.
And the impression of AI "learning" could be given to a player by simply having the AI recognize and count its opponents past battle statistics--wins/losses. It would not therefore face an army led by a commander reputed to win 9 out of 10 battles without superior numbers and better troops, unless it is forced to do so. All these could be translated into numerical values and weighed according to applicable rules via “if, then”. You get the idea....
Also, AI learning on the battlefield level does not have to be so complicated as figuring out new counter tactics. The problem I see with the RTW AI is that it is impulsive and does not plan out its course. If, the AI wants to attack its neighbor, it should send out spies to figure out the kind of soldiers it has, for these are rock-scissors-paper units. If the armies of enemy faction are composed of strong archer units, then it should counter that by composing a large part of its force with missile units. If this doesn’t succeed in wins, then it should slowly increase the number of cavalry units for the sole purpose of running down the archers. My tactics rarely win me battles, my units do. I win on battle fields, mostly because I manage to make the right units while the AI fails to do so.
Bookmarks