Slitherine

Just checking back in and wondering if they ever improved the AI to make it challenging enough to make it fun to play finally?

Please no fanboi comebacks just facts please. What's improved about it? Does it build decent armies in the DAG? or does it build any random armies at all in the DAG? What's the worst thing about it now? Are there any plans to greatly improve the AI in a PATCH?

Nope. They are planning some improvements, but multiolayer is the way to go.

Deeter

+1 to the "nope"
Whats more, if in historical scenarios the AI is very weak, on DAG games its weakness are still more evident as it does not start with a reasonably organized battle line you may see in many scenarios
It's army selection on DAG games is indeed random... just a little bit of everything thrown together and deployed in three random groupings with complete disregard of terrain, tactics or common sense. Completely worthless.
Cheers

Igorputski wrote:Just checking back in and wondering if they ever improved the AI to make it challenging enough to make it fun to play finally?

Please no fanboi comebacks just facts please. What's improved about it? Does it build decent armies in the DAG? or does it build any random armies at all in the DAG? What's the worst thing about it now? Are there any plans to greatly improve the AI in a PATCH?

Do you own the game? If so just load up the recent patches and judge for yourself....
If you wernt having fun before though, I doudt anything will have changed for you.

TheGrayMouser wrote:

Igorputski wrote:Just checking back in and wondering if they ever improved the AI to make it challenging enough to make it fun to play finally?

Please no fanboi comebacks just facts please. What's improved about it? Does it build decent armies in the DAG? or does it build any random armies at all in the DAG? What's the worst thing about it now? Are there any plans to greatly improve the AI in a PATCH?

Do you own the game? If so just load up the recent patches and judge for yourself....
If you wernt having fun before though, I doudt anything will have changed for you.

Yes I own the first one but haven't loaded it up since playing about 5 scenarios as the lesser of the two sides and thoroughly stomping the ai on highest difficulty. I was contemplating buying the other two expansions with the DAG if they had improved the AI to be a worthy opponent. Thanks for being honest I'll just save my money for something else. I don't play multiplayer as I just don't have time for it and grow easily bored an uninterested in games I have to wait a day on the turn. If I did play MPer I like to finish a game in 4 hours or less as well.

I agree with your comments, but what I would add is that there are quite a few people who play a lot, there are some opponents I play regularly who will make 5 or 6 moves in a few hours. I have even played one DAG battle to completion in a few hours.

So, with like-minded opponents then you can have a pseudo real-time experience!

However, I agree that for most players it seems to be 1 or 2 moves per night.

I think Morbio sums it up, if your worried that depending on MP to enjoy the game depends on waiting for people to take turns, then it is easy to work around...simply accept as many challenges as you can and issue as many as you can handle.... as you start rolling you easily can find you have 12-15-20 turns waiting for you upon return from work/school or whatever, by the time you finsh all those turns, chances are new ones will have rolled in...

In the recent Athens competition we each remotely played 4 games to completion on each of the 2 days. Guess it's down to agreeing in advance with an opponent that you will both be available for a set day - kinda like we do for face to face gaming.

Not sure it is in the road map, but I think it would be a great feature to be able to post a comment when you issue a challenge.

Then you can say what time zone you are, if you can manage quick-play or 1 move per day, or just say hi!

It's on the wish list already.

If they improve the AI, I'll never win a game.

You should definitely give MP a try, what do you have to lose? I'm actually not that big of a fan of the overall game system, but the MP system is superb and very well-integrated into the game, and I have had many epic and enjoyable games against a variety of opponents.

If you're worried about sitting around waiting on a turn, you can play a bunch of games at one time (up to 20?), and you are very unlikely to have to wait around long for someone to come back with a turn.

76mm wrote:You should definitely give MP a try, what do you have to lose? I'm actually not that big of a fan of the overall game system, but the MP system is superb and very well-integrated into the game, and I have had many epic and enjoyable games against a variety of opponents.

If you're worried about sitting around waiting on a turn, you can play a bunch of games at one time (up to 20?), and you are very unlikely to have to wait around long for someone to come back with a turn.

I can agree with this. I actually cut back my MP because it took up to much time. You can issue or just go and accept challenges. Just make sure you have an understanding significant other.

Igorputski wrote:Are there any plans to greatly improve the AI in a PATCH?

According to the roadmap, yes:

Planned A.I. Changes
These will be included as testing of them is completed.

1) Only charge when the chances of victory are high.
2) Shooters to only charge when almost sure of victory.
3) When charging usually select the target with the one with the most chance of winning.
4) When in a melee usually select the target with the one with the most chance of winning.
5) When shooting usually select the target with the one with the most chance of causing a cohesion test.
6) Usually charge where you can reduce an enemy’s cohesion.
7) Fragmented and poor units need to be less aggressive.
9) Review: Deployment logic.

See Deeter's comments. Multiplayer is the way to go. I usually have 7-8 games going concurrently.

76mm wrote:You should definitely give MP a try, what do you have to lose? I'm actually not that big of a fan of the overall game system, but the MP system is superb and very well-integrated into the game, and I have had many epic and enjoyable games against a variety of opponents.

If you're worried about sitting around waiting on a turn, you can play a bunch of games at one time (up to 20?), and you are very unlikely to have to wait around long for someone to come back with a turn.

Sorry but I like to focus on one game at a time not 2 not 3 not 20 or 23. I don't have time for MP as I might have 2 minutes at one time and 4 hours at another. Plus I don't like starting and stopping. With an AI I can play by my time and don't have to worry about anyone else or when their timeframe is equal to mine. There's plenty of good ancients games with a good ai was just hoping the makers of this one would have improved it to be challenging by now. I have a great time playing Gallic Wars and now the new one Greek Wars by HPS. Tin Soldiers:Julius Ceasar is fun and very challenging as well. Last and surely least if I have to play against a dumb ai I will play Rome Total War as at least the graphics are appealing during combat.

Thanks for all the input though. Maybe I'll check back in when I hear they finally did something about the ai.

According to the road map sticky there are many improvements planned for the AI but for me the major problem is game setup and organization for solo games using DAG.
Part of the problem is being solved in 1.2.7 which is due out shortly which allows the player to have less points than the AI but does not allow the player to have more points than the AI.
The road map sticky also mentions an “hot seat” option at some time in the future which would solve the above problem as well to overcoming the incompetent and disorganized setup by the AI by allowing the player to set up both sides and point totals before play would begin
Another problem not mention in the road map is the choice of maps or should I say lack of choice of maps. The random generator does not always pick an appropriate map for the forces involved.
To summarize I would like the ability to set up both sides including point totals and the to be able to choose an appropriate map for solo game with the DAG

So what's the ai like after this beta patch 1.2.7?

Igorputski wrote:So what's the ai like after this beta patch 1.2.7?

Except for the deployment logic, I think everything in the roadmap has been implemented in 1.2.8, and they have even added at least one more thing (the AI heavy units now ignore the player light ones, IIRC). Another thing that has made DAG battles against the AI more interesting is the option to play with different army sizes.

Although I have played only a couple of games with 1.2.8, I think the AI plays better now.

Having played a few more games this weekend, I have to say that I'm really enjoying DAG battles against the AI with the 1.2.8 patch. The AI seems specially better at picking individual combats. That, combined with giving the AI a point advantage (I'm playing with 300 points against the AI's 450), has resulted in some nice battles.

However, I have noticed a few areas where the AI could improve:

- sometimes a single, often heavy, AI unit becomes isolated and freezes in one place, like if it didn't know where to go. Those units are easy targets for rear attacks, or for concentrated shooting.

- the AI pays too much attention to the enemy light troops. I think it would be better if the AI heavy troops just ignored the human LF and LH and went straight for the heavies.

- poor troops in the hands of the AI just stay far away from the fight, while they could be effectively used to give support to the front line. I don't think that would be too risky, specially given that the AI usually fields four commanders.

As a final comment, I think I have not seen the AI trying to go after the enemy camp (although it does seem to know that it has to defend its own camp).