|
Is there any strategy game ever that have made higher difficulty setting meaningfully affect how the AI acts and don't just add a bunch of modifiers? Coding one set of decent AI is hard enough.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
Fangz posted:In the end it's not really possible in general to make AI that is 'harder' in a strategy game in a fair and fun way. Humans have an intrinsic advantage over AI opponents in a number of ways - for example, humans can choose to backstab an AI opponent regardless of their relationship level, and know exactly how much their actions are riling up their enemies and increasing their chances of turning on them. In buffing the AI you also have to buff them to create still a stalemate at the higher difficulty. More aggressive AI would probably mean that by the time you get to parts of the map you'll reliably find it has all consolidated into a single boring block. Instead of producing an interesting dynamic situation for you to interfere in. It's not impossible, but it's very difficult and CA definitely isn't good enough to pull it off
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
I see your point, but handicapping the player to make things harder by arbitrary means does the same thing. Attrition is a perfect example of this- they mitigate it so much on harder difficulty settings it might as well not even be there, instead of having an AI that deals with it the same as a human would- changing their marching stance or equipping skills accordingly. When I confederate with another faction, I look over the skills the AI has picked for their lords, to try and figure out what they were going for. For instance, I noticed they really, really like building dwarf lords around having high Ld bubble underway intercepting bonus stats on underway skills. Its not necessarily something human players would take, but I'm guessing it is favoring the AI to do this (perhaps it factors into their own autoresolved battles, or helps give them a leg up when attacking/defending human players in Badlands)
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
legendary is only hard until you get honest steal or the equiv to get your units up to par and murder lords who can solo your army in the first 10 or so turns if you don't route them via army break or kite.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Fangz posted:In the end it's not really possible in general to make AI that is 'harder' in a strategy game in a fair and fun way. Humans have an intrinsic advantage over AI opponents in a number of ways - for example, humans can choose to backstab an AI opponent regardless of their relationship level, and know exactly how much their actions are riling up their enemies and increasing their chances of turning on them. In buffing the AI you also have to buff them to create still a stalemate at the higher difficulty. More aggressive AI would probably mean that by the time you get to parts of the map you'll reliably find it has all consolidated into a single boring block. Instead of producing an interesting dynamic situation for you to interfere in. Honestly I'd kind of appreciate it if they increased AI income, upkeep costs, and aggressiveness. That way you get more fights and you need to win your victories better because the enemy is coming back with a stack sooner, but you can use the same mechanics, don't just get buried, and still gain some ground when you win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Kainser posted:Is there any strategy game ever that have made higher difficulty setting meaningfully affect how the AI acts and don't just add a bunch of modifiers? Coding one set of decent AI is hard enough. It's doable if the game is assymetric. For example in XCOM they could probably have gotten away with just hobbling the AI at lower difficulties (with only X enemies being allowed to act in a turn). Jeb Bush 2012 posted:It's not impossible, but it's very difficult and CA definitely isn't good enough to pull it off Any examples?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Huh, so the Total Warhammer wiki says that the higher difficulties enable new algorithms for the computer to make decisions easier off of. I'm guessing that's total bullshit and it's just really buffs and nerfs to various stats? If there are new decision making processes in the process I imagine it'd be hard to see them from the player perspective. Archonex fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
I agree with the above on legendary. I used to find how stacked it is against you interesting and wanted to finish all the campaigns on it. But I did a few and unless you're super good (which I'm not), it's basically this ultraconservative grind over hundreds of turns where you min/max, use the same efficient army compositions (and the same settlement compositions for that matter), wait for the AI to walk into ambushes, snipe one settlement at a time, etc. It's definitely a challenge and definitely satisfying to win. But I realized I spent all my time zoomed way out for battles constantly microing and not watching any of the spectacle. So now I switch it up by playing on hard or normal and putting together silly all-chariot armies or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:I see your point, but handicapping the player to make things harder by arbitrary means does the same thing. Attrition is a perfect example of this- they mitigate it so much on harder difficulty settings it might as well not even be there, instead of having an AI that deals with it the same as a human would- changing their marching stance or equipping skills accordingly. I'm not super happy with the AI attrition buff but I see some logic to it. The big one is that Set War Target would otherwise be used to completely gently caress with your allies. EDIT: VVV yeah, that's my point. The point is that they get away with this because intrinsically the AI isn't playing the same game as you. Fangz fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Fangz posted:It's doable if the game is assymetric. For example in XCOM they could probably have gotten away with just hobbling the AI at lower difficulties (with only X enemies being allowed to act in a turn). They actually did do this lol. The AI in XCOM didn't think any differently at any level, but it had a "goofup chance" that varied with difficulty. What this meant is that normally the AI would follow it's algorithms to make a decision, but there was a chance every turn that it would intentionally do something very dumb that it knew was bad. Things like deliberately moving a unit where it can be flanked or not targeting an exposed soldier. On Classic or Ironman this chance was 0%. But it was something like 10% on Normal and 20% on Easy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Huh, so the Total Warhammer wiki says that the higher difficulties enable new algorithms for the computer to make decisions easier off of. In the recent patch they noted that on easy/normal the AI will no longer be 100% efficient with campaign movement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Can I get my username changed to KARL FRANZ IS THE MOST BLOODTHIRSTY LORD WITH 52 MILLION KILLS?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:They actually did do this lol. The AI in XCOM didn't think any differently at any level, but it had a "goofup chance" that varied with difficulty. What this meant is that normally the AI would follow it's algorithms to make a decision, but there was a chance every turn that it would intentionally do something very dumb that it knew was bad. Things like deliberately moving a unit where it can be flanked or not targeting an exposed soldier. On Classic or Ironman this chance was 0%. But it was something like 10% on Normal and 20% on Easy. There is also a limit on how many enemies are allowed in combat. On easy after 5 enemies, other activated ones will retreat into the fog instead of taking offensive actions until you're back under 5 again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Any examples? It's not a binary, and different games pull it off to different extents. For all their other (oh god there are a lot of them) flaws, the GalCiv people did a much better job of making an AI challenging in non-obnoxious ways than a lot of strategy games. Even when you have to resort to mechanical buffs (and you will at least somewhat), there's a big difference in how unfun they are for the players. Having the AI ignore major game mechanics (like the attrition thing, or Civ V buffing AI happiness to the point that it's basically a non-issue) is more annoying to play against than, say, giving the AI an x% income buff. It's also much easier if you design the game mechanics with the AI in mind - asymmetry helps a lot (but is harder if players expect to be able to play most factions), but even in symmetrical games it matters a lot. Like, if it's true that attrition would just be impossible for the AI to deal with (I don't really buy this argument), then including it was a bad design decision. Or for another example, one of the reasons the Civ IV AI seems smarter than the Civ V AI is that the Civ V combat system, while more interesting in a lot of ways, is much harder to write good AI for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:In the recent patch they noted that on easy/normal the AI will no longer be 100% efficient with campaign movement. Huh, well that's something. Maybe there's more going on under the hood? I have a mod that at least somewhat normalizes the difficulty settings and i've noticed that the AI seems to be playing a lot smarter too. They'll actually recolonize settlements within a turn or two that get razed, seem to spy on their neighbors to time invasions, and will basically run a cold war in instances where there's no clear advantage in attackable territories.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Zore posted:There is also a limit on how many enemies are allowed in combat. On easy after 5 enemies, other activated ones will retreat into the fog instead of taking offensive actions until you're back under 5 again. Ha! Sort of like how thugs in a movie will patiently wait their turn for the hero to fight them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Does starting a campaign on hard and then turning battle difficulty down work properly? I just played belagar ironpants campaign, up to taking Karak Eight Peaks, and it didn't really feel like there were any more enemies than normal running about.Archonex posted:Huh, well that's something. Maybe there's more going on under the hood? I have a mod that at least somewhat normalizes the difficulty settings and i've noticed that the AI seems to be playing a lot smarter too. They'll actually recolonize settlements within a turn or two that get razed, seem to spy on their neighbors to time invasions, and will basically run a cold war in instances where there's no clear advantage in attackable territories. Link please.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
For fun I lined up one block of my guys in a big line and charged into a line-shaped enemy block, kind of like this / \ If you put the camera down near the 'open' end you get a nice cinematic charge with units clashing progressively closer to the camera.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Knobb Manwich posted:Link please. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=834927951 I think that's it. I can check when I get to the computer that has it installed. It tries to lessen the impact of hard stat bonuses. Though it keeps a small increment per stage. Also the setting you're looking for is the campaign difficulty. Battle difficulty's stat bonuses are just for morale, outgoing damage, and such.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Mr Gentleman posted:I agree with the above on legendary. I used to find how stacked it is against you interesting and wanted to finish all the campaigns on it. But I did a few and unless you're super good (which I'm not), it's basically this ultraconservative grind over hundreds of turns where you min/max, use the same efficient army compositions (and the same settlement compositions for that matter), wait for the AI to walk into ambushes, snipe one settlement at a time, etc. Still, it's tedious and frustrating. I've had a couple of legendary games I was winning and pretty confident I could have won, one as dwarfs and one as empire, but after the initial panic phase and getting my feet under me, it turned into a boring grind that wasn't fun to play.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Archonex posted:https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=834927951 Cheers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Still, it's tedious and frustrating. I've had a couple of legendary games I was winning and pretty confident I could have won, one as dwarfs and one as empire, but after the initial panic phase and getting my feet under me, it turned into a boring grind that wasn't fun to play. You reminded me of a natural progression of the game: -The genuinely 'difficult' part early on where certain outcomes in the first 10-20 turns really determine whether its even worth continuing or just restarting (I restarted a lot as Chaos because I am terrible with them) -The 'fun' part where it is still challenging and dicey, you get in tough, close fights that really feel like they matter but aren't blatantly unfair or frustrating -The 'boring' part where you build up momentum and you are the Big Man on Campus for the next 150 turns and spend most of your time dealing with petty rebellions than enemies that can actually put up a big fight. Maybe you get a nice fight or two vs several chaos doomstacks but after that its just piecemeal steamrolling what few shreds of civilization are left besides your mega empire. I know rubberband type difficulty can be un fun for its own reason, but at the same time it would be fun if there was some way for the game to kind of rise to the challenge of generally being a threat. I'm hoping as new factions get released there's more to the campaign that can provide this; maybe the Skaven under-empire makes some big comeback way late in the game that you have to deal with, or a massive greenskin Waaagh pouring in from the south comparable to the chaos invasion. Something!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Now that the first game is mostly complete, let's talk about what really matters, voice acting. Personally, I think Karl Franz's voice actor got it the best, providing the best combination of pomp, diction, and YELLING! Grombrindal is a close second. Gelt is probably the only character with a voice filter that I like, while Volkmar is entirely too posh sounding. Thorgrim, Ungrim, and Belegar are fine, but pale in comparison to Snorri. Wurzzag and Skarsnik are fun, but Azhag and Grimgor are kinda boring, murderous soccer hooliganism notwithstanding. Isabella, Kemmler, and Sigvald are the best of the "evil" guys, their sibilant menace a more effective counter to Archaon and Kholek's frankly crappy brutishness. Mannfred, Vlad, and Ghorst are just kinda boring. The Bretonnians are snooty caricatures, so that's fine. Orion's selection prompts have the correct amount of YELLING! but the VA couldn't stick the landing when trying to translate that to his quest battle speeches. Durthu's shifting root thing filter is effective, conlang aside. The Beastmen sound like bestial men, and the snozberries taste like snozberries. No, I'm not wasting time when I should be working, why do you ask?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Azhag is amazing, I don't know what you're talking about. YEEES, DIS'LL PLEASE DA IRON HAT
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
How is 'I WILL ENSLAVE THE WORLD' boring. I love Vlad's totally over the top Dracula Evil.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Me and Softnum had a go at it today! https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10254487/Gejnor-Numsoft1.replay https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10254487/Gejnor-Numsoft2.replay Who won? Watch and find out.... Me Aurubin posted:Now that the first game is mostly complete, let's talk about what really matters, voice acting. The VA is both amazing and mediocre at points, hearing the same voice across a plethora of factions is not so good, what IS amazingly good is the yelling while units are charging. There are many contenders but honestly i really, really REALLY like the way this game reinvented 'Blood for the Blood God!' because instead of just chanting it like normal they turned it into a warcry thats drawn out on "God" so it synchs up juuust as the two forces clash into each other. peer posted:Azhag is amazing, I don't know what you're talking about. YEEES, DIS'LL PLEASE DA IRON HAT STOP IT HAT I KNOW!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:Now that the first game is mostly complete, let's talk about what really matters, voice acting. I like Karl Franz's voice because it sounds faintly German and given that the Empire is supposed to be a stand in for the Holy Roman Empire this makes sense out the the British-saturated voices in the game. Try to pretend that Empire is basically Cobra and Franz is Serpentor, Gelt is Destro and Volkmar is Dr. Mindbender (with an English accent instead of a Russian one) Wurzzag is great. In his quest battles he sounds like the smuggest motherfucker "We're gonna steal their poo poo, boy won't they be pissed heee hee  "Durthu they should've gone more Treebeard. Instead they made him sound like the goddamn Predator. What baffles me about Brettonian units is even though they're all supposed to 'French' they gave the peasant units 'English' peasant accents because I guess they assume English speakers are too retarded to tell the difference between 'lower class french accent' and 'snooty french accent'
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:I like Karl Franz's voice because it sounds faintly German and given that the Empire is supposed to be a stand in for the Holy Roman Empire this makes sense out the the British-saturated voices in the game. KILL EVERYTHING WITHOUT A BEARD!!! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:What baffles me about Brettonian units is even though they're all supposed to 'French' they gave the peasant units 'English' peasant accents because I guess they assume English speakers are too retarded to tell the difference between 'lower class french accent' and 'snooty french accent' aristocrats speaking french/peasants speaking english is a real thing from a certain period of english history fwiw the bretonnian king is named after richard the lionheart, who was king of england and who (maybe, it's not actually known) didn't speak english at all
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:What baffles me about Brettonian units is even though they're all supposed to 'French' they gave the peasant units 'English' peasant accents because I guess they assume English speakers are too retarded to tell the difference between 'lower class french accent' and 'snooty french accent' Realize Bretionia is fantasy France, but maybe they're going with an actual medieval England thing with the French Nobles and the English peasantry. More likely most people just associate medieval peasants with an English accent  e:fb
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:aristocrats speaking french/peasants speaking english is a real thing from a certain period of english history fwiw I forgot about this, but did remember that for a time in England people Royal Court spoke French, not English. Cythereal posted:KILL EVERYTHING WITHOUT A BEARD!!! *Now we know why Empire guys grow out these comically huge moustaches. Figure a Dwarf will squint at them and be like "ehhh, close enough"* Also, is it "Beards and belts" or "Beards in belts" ? Because tucking one's massive beard into their belt before fighting does seem like a practical measure to take for safety purposes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
^ beards in belts Franz has the best delivery, it really is on point. The new Brett female lords (Fay not included) have an awful accent, hugely unpleasant to hear... It sounds more French Canadian than French. Clipped and nasal
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Because tucking one's massive beard into their belt before fighting does seem like a practical measure to take for safety purposes. Look closely at Irondrakes. Why yes, they have armor for their beards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Ammanas posted:Franz has the best delivery, it really is on point. The new Brett female lords (Fay not included) have an awful accent, hugely unpleasant to hear... It sounds more French Canadian than French. Clipped and nasal Cythereal posted:Look closely at Irondrakes. Why yes, they have armor for their beards. Well duh. Dwarf OSHA and all that. You're looking at centuries of beard- protecting engineering right there!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:I forgot about this, but did remember that for a time in England people Royal Court spoke French, not English. Not only the royal court, pretty much all the major aristocrats from the Norman Conquest and for the next few centuries were Norman and/or French, Richard the Lionheart's parents were Henry II, from Anjou (founder of the Angevin/Plantagenet dynasty in England that replaced the old Norman dynasty) and Eleanor of Aquitaine (you can probably guess where she was from in France), almost every other noble held major lands in their native France (though they probably didn't think of themselves as frenchmen, Franks and Normans perhaps) as well as England, eventually come the 14th century or so the Enlish territories became much more important especially for the monarchy as they were much stronger in England vis a vis the nobles than in France. There's a good reason you can get a good approximate guess for what a word is in French by just thinking of the English word for a thing and then pronouncing it an exaggerated French accent. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
There are legends of righteous grudges, carried by clans for whole generations, that flow like a river of truth from the terrible sin of shaving a Dwarf's beard. Of course they would have beard armor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:What baffles me about Brettonian units is even though they're all supposed to 'French' they gave the peasant units 'English' peasant accents because I guess they assume English speakers are too retarded to tell the difference between 'lower class french accent' and 'snooty french accent' actually this is the best thing about the Bretonnian voice acting, how all the peasants sound like West Country farmers while the knights and lords are caricatures of French people
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
wiegieman posted:There are legends of righteous grudges, carried by clans for whole generations, that flow like a river of truth from the terrible sin of shaving a Dwarf's beard. The war caused when the dipshit high elves had a dwarven ambassador shaved for daring to ask them why elves had attacked dwarven merchants was literally apocalyptic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind a mini campaign based around playing out the War of the Beard
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
The reason Warhams elves are great is they act exactly like elves in every other fantasy setting except everyone hates them for it and it leads to them loving everything up because they're idiots.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:41
|
|