Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Правила обсуждений
Пожаловаться
And let's be honest, even if AI is "good", people would still figure out how to break it and exploit it's behaviour.
ChatGPT is cringe
I am so happy I'm not the only one who noticed this. The only strategy game I've seen where people don't constantly ♥♥♥♥ on the AI is AoE2 and that had about 2 decades worth of tournament play to be built off of and even then some people still do lol. RTS AI is woefully bad when you take away its cheats in pretty much every other game.
4X AI (what the campaign AI in this is most similar to) is also horrendous when its not cheating in... every 4X game? I genuinely have not seen a 4X AI that doesn't cheat at all but even with cheats they're all incredibly stupid.
Still, many people's upset comes from the fact the AI has been massively massively tuned down. Thus, the AI is worse than it used to be, which was already bad enough.
What was tuned down? It feels around the same imho. Except the focus fire thing they added in battles, which is an improvement. So battles are around the same, if not a bit better than in WH2.
On the campaign map in WH2 the AI would walk through the whole map to find the way with the least resistance - to sack Your least defended minor settlement. And on half their way they lost all their settlements either to me, or because it was far away to another AI they were at war with. Or when the chaos invasion halfway ended and there was only one AI stack left - You had to search the whole northern part of the map for it, because it would hide from anyone, which drags out the game "a bit", while You needed it to win if You enabled it. What does it do worse now?
The AI will pack armies around its cities and recruit chaff en masse and stick there as you threaten the area. That's pretty much the whole game really, it does not get past that.
Mostly in WH2 the AI developped faster and produced more / higher tier units. You simply had more battles with more *food* to bash on. Was it better? Well to a few people: yes. In all fairness, I think it's crap either way anyway. Another part of the upsetness comes from the fact WH3 did not improve on anything from WH3, but some will tell you "QoL stuff, UI, diplomacy, corruption system" list goes on. It's a matter of opinion and personal preferences. Truly though, it's been simplified overall, and it matters very little when you engage with non-engaging elements, such as the supposed opposition which is supposedly an "AI". Perhaps one last point of upset is the game relies so much over SP that when you realise how poor the experience is, you wonder how you can stack 3 base games + 235472491724436743541235467867345348503457360847592375156453458499789237419649583469847956879274293439456845709580934057203573469845 dlcs all costing so much to deliver next to no gaming experience at all.
NB: I might have exaggerated the numbers here.
Right now, and here I am not exaggerating at all, you can simply start your campaign and fully autoresolve it from turn 1 to the end with plenty of factions in L/VH. They will just regrow new monkey-armies made of t1 chaff and a lvl 1 lord.
It also comes from the economical changes made: you can legit start with 2 armies from turn 1 even in legendary and it's maybe more popular than it used to, I wouldn't know as I am no expert on the matter. But recruiting 4 - 6 units / turn and using 2 armies to attack from the get-go gives you snowballing power very very quickly, and as per nature, it keeps on going in the same direction.
Some factions cannot really go the AR way from turn 1 though, thinking of brettonia (who plays them anyway?) but there are others.
In terms of intelligence, I suppose when you're around ground 0, one does not notice if you get below anyway.
And i don´t think the AI developed faster or more in WH2, as the building and recruitment time, and slots, and money the AI has, is the same. As player You have now 4% supply lines instead of 15%, that´s why an early second or even third army to level a lord is more viable, because You can afford 11% more upkeep per army, but that was never an issue for the AI as it doesn´t have supply lines. And if the AI suicides their armies more often in WH2, it also means that they replace their early game units more often. If they defend more it´s less opportunity to do so, as they don´t disband units.
And speaking of "next no gaming experience". How many hours do You have in WH3? 10? 20? What is "next to no"? Also in WH2 they would "regrow monkey armies" and You could auto-resolve almost everything from the start, but usually You wouldn´t do it, because You win with less losses in manual battles, and three turns replenishment at turn 1 is bad, because after three turns You want the first province and one faction beaten to raise the second army - if You didn´t recruit a single lord who follows the main army for xp already.
I have 1.5k hours in WH3 and 6.3k in WH2. Arguably though since I always tended to leave the game open whilst playing SP but being afk, those number should be cut at least in half for WH2 and put down to ~ 1k hours maybe for WH3.
People are complaining the AI flees from losing battles, ending in permanent army chase for the player. It only really happens when the power difference between the 2 armies is catastrophic for the AI so it flees, naturally, and even abandonning the protection of its cities if need be.
And speaking of "next no gaming experience". How many hours do You have in WH3? 10? 20? What is "next to no"?
When the game is an entire simulation of autoresolve all through the game from turn 1 to the end. There, there is no gaming experience.
I'm not the only one who's experienced it which makes me wonder if you have at all played the game to talk about it. But I modded the vanilla game to give major buffs to the AI so that it'd be partly prevented. It still is full AR if you play WoC though, for the sake of giving an example.
I also modded WH2 too hard to speak for vanilla, but in WH2 if you AR from the start, you get overwhelmed pretty quickly and you're forced to play manual battles or accept battle losses pretty quickly which simply does not happen in WH3. Maybe not true in vanilla, I wouldn't know.
Last, I don't know why you make the asumption and three turns replenishment at turn 1 is bad but I really don't want to argue further with you regardless.
Good day to You. ;o)
I agree with what you said
For those above who think that the AI is bad, play with the mods that I mentioned above, to see that there is a solution, yes, it is enough for the company to want to listen to the players.
I find it interesting you think the AI is overall better in game 2 than it is in game 3.
The points you lay out above (both positive and negative) apply to both games.
In my experience, they are pretty much the same now. When game 3 first released, the major difference I noticed was the AI being hyper-aggressive to the point of absurdity but that was patched pretty quick. Note that I have not and do not use any major overhaul mods for either game and play close to vanilla (I use a bunch of graphical and small QoL mods).
When I said "In all fairness, I think it's crap either way anyway." I meant that both WH2 AI and WH3 AI are the same thing to me, as beating on T3-5 units is essentially the same as T1-3 units cuz in you could also get so massively ahead that your lord alone could potentially handle an elite army.
I remember once playing with Louen in WH2: he did beat 3 armies of chaos alone when the whole of my army was routed from their first encounter with army 1.
And yeah the AI was more aggressive at WH3 release, which was good imho as it forced the player to lose and trade stuff instead of simply steamrolling from turn 1 but to each their own. It felt more engaging to me as your decisions could alter the amount of things you'd gain from one turn to another, and hence furthermore as you dive into your campaign.
It's important indeed to consider the mods each use to compare what we're talking about as sometimes you can tweak the game so much it's not essentially the same anymore.
I ran my WH3 IE as such:
-Ultra aggressive & smart AI (title is a lie though)
-Better economy & military management AI
-More war & less peace
-More occupation AI
-No more AI attrition (this one is actually an AI nerf but it's among the top tier most stupid thing that alters one of the very rare actual game mechanic in the game, so)
-AI receives +50g for each building
-NNOBS - never obsolete AI lords and heroes
-Slow down, buddy! - less experience and level for characters (this one felt somewhat fundamental)
-AI recruitment & army compositions, updated for 2.3
-Minor settlement battle returner
-Tabletop caps: Immortal Empires BETA
-Tabletop caps - rebalance
On the side I also had "Stronger and Fairer AI" but I don't think I touched it much though, I don't remember precisely.
But since I only play MP now, I've put my grievances in the past anyway.
And @Zeek, if Triple G is one of your many alts, please delete it.