What do you think about the future FFH AI?

[calmon]

In moment the AI is very limited in using spells, national features and using some FFH only things.

For me the AI is essential. I don't want a opponent which can't use his own national advantages.

What do think about the upcoming (AI improvments are one main spots in "ice" schedule i think) possibilites of the AI?

 

[Psychic_Llamas]

i disagree, the ai use spells quite well, in the games ive played. ive had domination cast on me before and i was shoked that the AI would be so... inteligent. ive also had meteor and fireball cast on me a few times by normal civs casters (not heroes). it would be nice if they used the spells more, but they ARE using them. they also seem to know when to use their world spells, which is good, though ive never seen the lanun use their spell.

 

[feydras]

You've had the AI use Fireball and Meteorstorm against you?! Are you sure? I play a lot of FfH and have been playing it since it came out and i don't believe i've ever seen the AI use either of these spells. Actually, i don't think i've ever seen an AI Archmage or Mage.

- feydras

 

[Eldric IV]

I have been fireballed before. And Ring of Flames.

 

[cephalo]

I don't worry too much about the AI. I like to imagine stories when I play. All I'm generally aware of regarding it's quality is that they do put up some resistance to my taking of their cities, which allows the story to continue. I've heard there are some glaring AI inadiquacies in not only FFH but also in the native BtS. However, I've played a few games of FFH and I haven't noticed a one... uh... except in the case of Hyborem.

Better AI is always better I guess, but I don't really care that much as long as it doesn't cramp my style. I don't win wars because my enemy is dumb, I win because I'm the ultimate, peerless warrior and a super-genius leader of men (dwarves, elves).

 

[Jenaelha]

I feel that AI is a major part of the enjoyment. If I'm laughing at the stupidity of an AI move too often, I'll loose interest in that game. For me, the AI is certainly FfH's weakest point. I think magic, trading, and solo hero adventuring stand out in my mind as the poorest performers at the moment. Workers building forts is annoying, too. (remember the armies of invading catapults or scouting adepts? things have improved)
But, I read through these forums how AI is crafted and I can appreciate how difficult it really is. It appears that it's one thing to create a fantastic world for us to play a quite another to instruct the AI how to use it.

 

[Mortenart]

I feel that AI is a major part of the enjoyment. If I'm laughing at the stupidity of an AI move too often, I'll loose interest in that game. For me, the AI is certainly FfH's weakest point. I think magic, trading, and solo hero adventuring stand out in my mind as the poorest performers at the moment.

I agree. What the team has done (and continue to do) with FfH has been amazing, the only missing piece is the AI, but I`m sure they`ll get to grips with it eventually. There`s no sense of acheivement when you take a city in turn 300 that`s only defended by a single warrior, or obliterating the enemy with fireballs/meteors when you know that they can`t do the same back to you.

 

[Mailbox]

Aggressive AI and No AI building requirements empower the AI to a huge degree, it's almost like playing a completely different game.

 

[Mortenart]

Aggressive AI and No AI building requirements empower the AI to a huge degree, it's almost like playing a completely different game.

True, they do help, but I use Aggressive and No AI building requirements and still find many enemy cities only guarded by a single warrior, even late in the game.

 

[Mailbox]

True, they do help, but I use Aggressive and No AI building requirements and still find many enemy cities only guarded by a single warrior, even late in the game.

I've honestly never seen this, the AI gets archers fairly early and if not, always seems to defend with axemen if they have them (and in stacks). It makes attacking much tougher, especially before catapults. I usually get invaded with chariots and axemen, and horsemen pillage everything in my borders if I'm not actively fighting them.

Maybe I just have bad (or good, if you look at it from a challenge standpoint ) luck though.

 

[feydras]

I've never had a problem with the AI not defending its cities adequately but the game balance starts to swing once i can field Mages and swings dramatically once i get Archmages. Like Mortenart said it takes the challenge out of the end game once you can hit the AI with meteors as they can't do the same. For my skill level Monarch is challenging up until midgame and then it is a cake walk due to the spells. If i bump up the difficultly level then i get creamed before i ever make it to midgame. Yeah, i could just play the Khazad or forego my Mages/Archmages but i love them too much.

I like it if the team would temporarily tone down the power of Fireball and Meteor storm just until the AI can be made to use them effectively.

- feydras

 

[onedreamer]

the AI's problem is not on using magic, but that it fails to create the conditions to do so and to do it in a strategically useful way. This may mean certain or all AI don't use magic -at all- in certain games. But it also means, in a general way, that the AI doesn't know how to use it. The fact that the it will make a mage cast a spell doesn't mean it is doing it with the right criteria, and anyways the truth is that when it does, it's just a chance and not the result of pursuing a defined strategy.

 

[Mortenart]

I like it if the team would temporarily tone down the power of Fireball and Meteor storm just until the AI can be made to use them effectively.

I second that.

Some Civs seem better at utilising aggressive AI/NBR than others. The Sidar/Svartalfar, for example, seem right at home flooding my lands with stacks of catapults, cavalry, champions etc, but Cassiel will declare war with Dad`s Army (that`s a British reference) guarding his cities. I was able to virtually wipe him from the map with Maros and Bambur alone. Granted, you wouldn`t expect all Civs to be equally skilled, but some Civs need tweaking or they just become cannon fodder.

 

[BeefontheBone]

I second that.

Some Civs seem better at utilising aggressive AI/NBR than others. The Sidar/Svartalfar, for example, seem right at home flooding my lands with stacks of catapults, cavalry, champions etc, but Cassiel will declare war with Dad`s Army (that`s a British reference) guarding his cities. I was able to virtually wipe him from the map with Maros and Bambur alone. Granted, you wouldn`t expect all Civs to be equally skilled, but some Civs need tweaking or they just become cannon fodder.

"Mr Mainwaring! Mr Mainwaring! There's some demons here to see you!"
"Demons? Don't be stupid, Pike. Let me have a look at these demons of yours."

 

[Mortenart]

"Mr Mainwaring! Mr Mainwaring! There's some demons here to see you!"
"Demons? Don't be stupid, Pike. Let me have a look at these demons of yours."

Don`t panic!! They don`t like it up `em!

 

[Medicine_Man_55]

FfH is radically different from BtS in so many ways that I'm surprised the AI can cope at all. I'm pretty sure working on the AI is on the devs list of things to do though. I also wouldn't be surprised to see them modify or alter many of the less used spell schools too.

 

[Zarkraz]

I've seen some problems... there was a Sheaim civilization that obviously never built any planar gates, which makes them a joke.

The AI *clearly* needs to build and deploy more assassins when confronting superior forces, to take low-hanging fruit. All too often, I've seen humans put together a few heroes/big units, a few cannons, a few spellcasters, and a trickle of reinforcements to hold captured cities, then proceed to roll up an AI tribe which should be able to slow down the advance, except they're too dumb to kill *anything*.