|
mkeogh76 -> RE: How does the A.I works and is it any good ? (2/4/2018 1:02:35 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tevans
You guys seem to be missing my point. Ageod's AI is dynamic. It reacts to what you're doing. Long term planning doesn't matter since it evaluates it's situation on a turn by turn basis. In a lot ways that's the same exact way I play the game. I don't recruit new units unless I need them. I don't buy replacement points unless I need them. My moves for a turn are based on what's currently happening in the game. The turn by turn evaluation by the AI means that it's making decisions based on the current situation. Not something that may or may not happen 10 or 15 turns in the future. Sure some things could be improved with Ageod's AI but Athena is perfectly capable of giving you a good game even in longer campaigns and scenarios. A lot of times I don't even mess with the default settings.
In my experience playing these games going back to the original Birth of America, I don't agree as to Athena holding-up as a competent opponent in the longer campaign scenarios and my current 1701 Spanish Succession campaign is once again bearing that out.
It's 1706 in my campaign and it's getting close to being over. Despite giving the AI boosts as to activation and detection and playing with handicaps such as the "player only" historical attrition option and a higher activation setting, I've already opened-up a 40-50 point NMP lead over the AI. It's not hard to figure-out why I'm easily winning- I set long-term goals for my campaign and set about taking some steps every single turn towards them. The AI simply can't compete when I'm able to methodically plan while it's doing everything on a turn-by-turn basis. I'm currently clobbering it, and it's only going to get worse. So, I'm getting close to shelving this campaign. It's been very similar to my experiences with my other Ageod games: a lot of fun in the early to mid game, but then degenerating into a tiresome, lopsided beatdown as my planning comes into fruition.
Long term planning matters a LOT in these games which I think is a huge part of their appeal. However, the AI's inability to be able to do so becomes a serious handicap in the longer scenarios. To me, Ageod's AI is just a convenient and always available opponent that handles the game's basic mechanics reasonably well, but that's all it really is. Don't require it to do too much and it's fairly decent, but it will struggle if taxed with too many options over too long of a time period.
Anyway, that's been my experience with these games, but you claim otherwise. I disagree, but that's where I'll leave it.
EDIT: It appears Ageod even recognizes the struggles of its AI over the long-term. I just got a message in my event log of my current campaign stating that my NMP has been lowered for game balance purposes with my being rewarded with additional VP and EP in exchange. It also appears that the AI's NMP got a boost. (It looks like I lost 5 NMP and the AI gained 5.) I suspect my having an NMP 50 points higher than the AI's may have triggered this balancing event. It's the first time I've seen this in an Ageod game which suggests that they are actively trying ways to prop up their AI in the long scenarios.
Also, I don't save-scum in Ageod games. In fact, even if I wanted to then Ageod's crazy save-game system works against the player trying to do that. Further, I don't think that I'm any great shakes as a player. If I took on an experienced PBEM player then I'd probably get my head handed to me, but my experience as a solo player of these games has repeatedly shown that the AI will not hold-up as a CHALLENGING opponent (rather than just an opponent) in a long-term scenario against any semi-competent player. (There are exceptions: playing the AJE's Cantabrian Wars scenario as the Romans can be extremely tough.)
|
|
|
|
