Smith/Napoleon/Caesar etc?

[pezhetairoi]

Okay, so when I play around with my descr_Strat file I notice that every faction has a sort of enigmatic characteristic next to it-- napoleon, henry, smith, caesar, etc. What does it all mean? What's it do?

[Colovion]

it's supposed to make the AI perform in different ways

they all perform like idiots

don't even pay attention to those words, they're fantasy

[therother]

There is some info here.

[Kraxis]

Colovion now you are just being a nag.
Yes the AI is lousy, but to go into complainmode every time somebody mentions something is not a positive nor a very productive way to do stuff.
The personalities actually do work. Since I changed Seleucia from Stalin to Ceasar they actually hold their enemies back quite formidably. And interestingly enough they often form alliances with Egypt. I have never seen them expand but this time they do.
Sadly Carthage stays lousy against aggressive enemies eventhough I changed them from Henry to Napoleon.

[lars573]

Okay, so when I play around with my descr_Strat file I notice that every faction has a sort of enigmatic characteristic next to it-- napoleon, henry, smith, caesar, etc. What does it all mean? What's it do?

These are just the AI factions troop recruitment routines. Unlike what Colovion said (but he's just being a whiny idiot) they do work. They dictate what kind and in what ratio the faction is going to recruit troops. Read therother's guide to get the ins and outs of it.

[Nelson]

Unlike what Colovion said (but he's just being a whiny idiot) they do work.

lars, deep 6 the insults, OK?

[Colovion]

Sorry, I just call em as I see em.

and I was drunk, sorry; my anger gets the better of me when intoxicated

It's too bad insults are what are fostered through truthful interpretations of a flawed product. If you don't enjoy reading my posts, you're welcome to abdicate your eyes from them.

Good day.

[lars573]

Sorry, I just call em as I see em.

and I was drunk, sorry; my anger gets the better of me when intoxicated

It's too bad insults are what are fostered through truthful interpretations of a flawed product. If you don't enjoy reading my posts, you're welcome to abdicate your eyes from them.

Good day.

That might be true if your comments had been on the mark. They weren't, the recruitment routines work perfectly.

[Colovion]

simply recruitment isn't the entire aspect of the campaign AI, it transcends to what they do with those units

[tai4ji2x]

That might be true if your comments had been on the mark. They weren't, the recruitment routines work perfectly.

"perfectly" bah... they have an effect, for sure. but "perfectly"?!

[lars573]

The AI recruit ment routine has nothing to do with what the AI does in battles, just what they are going to bring to said battles. I've played the game enough to have a decent idea of what the army the AI is going to throw at me most of the time.

[Kraxis]

lars is right, there is a vast difference between Henry and Caesar, Stalin and Ghengiz and so forth. What you face is ultimately determined by these preferences. How you face them or in what numbers or how they fare has nothing to do with these preferences. So they work.

[tai4ji2x]

i never said anything about AI performance in actual battles. i'm just saying that these settings, although they have perfectly predictable outcomes, are not always optimal for any particular faction. hence i'd say effective, but certainly not "perfect"

[Kraxis]

To that I can agree. I think there is a lack of a personality that actually tried to build a balanced army (not smith). A bit of light infantry, a good center of heavy infantry and some heavy cavalry. You know a true Carthie setup. Napoleon is possibly the best to simulate it, but it lacks the heavy cavlary. The same with Ceasar. Then you only see the round shields. Henry means a severe lack of infantry of any quality.

So yes, the list is far too limited.

[Colovion]

i never said anything about AI performance in actual battles. i'm just saying that these settings, although they have perfectly predictable outcomes, are not always optimal for any particular faction. hence i'd say effective, but certainly not "perfect"

for me it seems that it doesn't matter what units they produce, because they're always wandering around in small groups - almost always leaderless, while the leaders wander around on their own

sometimes they get lucky and put their forces together, but even when a full stack comes at me - it has no leader. So until the campaign AI is a little more thoroughly fleshed out, I can't really see any nuances in their behaviours because they all act the same ways when broken down the the basics; like idiots.

[lismore]

it's supposed to make the AI perform in different ways

they all perform like idiots

don't even pay attention to those words, they're fantasy

Hi Colovion

If you change the file to napoleon, it gives more spectators for the general's suicide charge!

And more little weasels to chase down when they run away

[lars573]

for me it seems that it doesn't matter what units they produce, because they're always wandering around in small groups - almost always leaderless, while the leaders wander around on their own

sometimes they get lucky and put their forces together, but even when a full stack comes at me - it has no leader. So until the campaign AI is a little more thoroughly fleshed out, I can't really see any nuances in their behaviours because they all act the same ways when broken down the the basics; like idiots.

My personal theory on that is they were intended to collect into an army at some point and march on a target. Also the AI seems to use 1 or 2 fast moving units as scouts in your territory.