fushun
Posts: 2
Joined: 2/21/2011 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote:
ORIGINAL: fushun Some changes are definitely shifting game balance in favor of human player in a game vs AI. Stockpiling base feature and purchasing destroyed units, to name a couple. Unless AI scripts were tweaked accordingly. I would disagree. Stockpiling is to help the economics of the game work as intended. The AI ignores these limitations anyway. Destroyed units being bought back by PP's just removed some silly mechanics (pulling a small portion of a unit). Everyone was doing it as a matter of course. This just acknowledges that and provides a game mechanism to accomplish the same thing. As it was being done before, no impact to an AI game. PS: If you think they do hurt the AI, just increase the difficulty level. If that isn't enough, load up an Ironman scenario. AI as it is don't drains bases dry before abandoning, it is not capable of stockpiling in preparation for a siege. Stockpiling made these tricks easily done by human player. PP purchasing is not an equivalent of saving fragments, because latter is not always possible. Take surrendered units, or sunk carrier destroyed airgroups. More often it was a lucky survived xAK, then a plan. Now, for example, you can purchase back destroyed CA FP air groups for training, and AI don't. You can revive, prepare to 100% and train Indian brigades, surrendered in Singers. AI can't purchese back no surrendered island garrisones. Game breaking feature, really. Difficulty level defined only by the quantity of forces/resources available for AI is a joke, even if it is a gaming industry standard. Nobody wants to play against an idiot opponent no matter how much more units he has.
< Message edited by fushun -- 8/15/2011 7:55:05 AM >
|