I'm sure weighting factors into a lot of the AI combat decisions. You can see some of the weighting by looking at the bar in 1vs1, and it often does not do a good job of representing the actual balance in dissimilar units, particularly when one is a missile unit. CA has a really obvious weakspot with ranged units of any type. I highly suspect their weighting is flat out wrong for melee. Pri/sec bug or the strange charge effect types of issues with the weighting are possible.Originally Posted by Puzz3D
In weighting, I'm not sure how much the lethality, charge, and combat bonus parts factor in, nor discipline, morale, stamina, etc. I know fatigue plays a significant role as the bar shifts as fatigue changes. (It is a huge effect down in the "very tired" and "exhausted" range.)
Regardless of the weighting though, there is a bigger issue: Failing to use missile primary units as ranged attackers first and foremost is a major flaw. Whether or not they can win the melee is secondary. If they can win without losses by engaging in ranged combat, then why melee at all? Resorting to melee should be last resort, or used when the weighting (one that actually is correct) says they have a huge advantage.
P.S. Wouldn't surprise me if CA made a simple divisor or sign error. The game/stats have been full of these. Just for the sake of argument the melee test might have been intended as:
If missile unit melee > 2 * target unit melee, then attack
However, the actual formula might have gotten garbled so that the 2 is a divisor or on the wrong side, e.g.
If 2 * missile unit melee > target unit melee, then attack.
Bookmarks