AI ammo still infinite?

[Lampros]

Note the title. I'd like this fixed if this is still the case though...

[willsama974]

Had forgoten about that one, good reminder :)
I already, re-suggested what we had discussed in the forum about wardogs:
Being able to cross their hex like we do with our mercs.
Sharing their line of sight.
Both seem to have been forgotten, or burried in our long tchats ;)

[holy-death]

I agree. It's both annyoing and unfair that the AI can fire non-stop. Giving them limit of 10 arrows/bolts per battle should be enough.

[MightyPion]

I can fully assure that AI throwing weapons are not unlimited, and iirc never were.

[willsama974]

We talk about bows and x-bows :)

[Lampros]

Автор сообщения: Mightypeon

I can fully assure that AI throwing weapons are not unlimited, and iirc never were.

Not throwing weapons only but general ranged weapons.

[Morris Nine]

I think it should be modified right now. This is a serious problem.
Please change this to DEV high priority.Please.

Because the goblins is so notorious for their unlimited poison arrows.

(Wow !! They are coming,I gotta run !!)

[willsama974]

I hope it is still planned, if not already in.
I tend to kill all range units first, so i don't really know if an archer can shot more than 10 times :(

[Overhype Studios]

The problem here is that we then have to also teach the AI to pick up ammo from the ground and change quivers in the inventory which is more work than it sounds at first.

Also, assume dedicated archers have 2-3 stacks of more arrows in their backpack and Goblins with the quick hands perk can just change them with no action costs. So even if me made ammo limited and gave them additional quivers not much would change.

However, if the ammo was limited it would be of course better for the realism but we will have to see when and if we get around to work on this.

[Tegga21]

Автор сообщения: Overhype Studios

The problem here is that we then have to also teach the AI to pick up ammo from the ground and change quivers in the inventory which is more work than it sounds at first.

Also, assume dedicated archers have 2-3 stacks of more arrows in their backpack and Goblins with the quick hands perk can just change them with no action costs. So even if me made ammo limited and gave them additional quivers not much would change.

However, if the ammo was limited it would be of course better for the realism but we will have to see when and if we get around to work on this.

It would make a difference in my current game, had no idea they had unlimited ammo, turtled up to avoid zerging across swamp with my ambushed group half injured, now i find out turn 21 they are still firing every turn...

FIX

[DreadKatak]

I agree. I just lost a very veteran run to trying to run the enemy out of ammo.

[Mr.M]

I disagree. So they just add bags and belts + quickhand on every ranged unit and tadaa they can carry 50 shots with them...

[DreadKatak]

Автор сообщения: MrMonokel2000

I disagree. So they just add bags and belts + quickhand on every ranged unit and tadaa they can carry 50 shots with them...

Ta-da, that isn't infinite and still preferable. It isn't really an argument in the first place. Why not just give player-controlled units infinite ammo as well, then?

[NM9G]

Автор сообщения: DreadKatak

Автор сообщения: MrMonokel2000

I disagree. So they just add bags and belts + quickhand on every ranged unit and tadaa they can carry 50 shots with them...

Ta-da, that isn't infinite and still preferable. It isn't really an argument in the first place. Why not just give player-controlled units infinite ammo as well, then?

I guessing that the infinite ammo is an easy solution to a quality of gameplay experience problem. Sure it could be satisfying occasionally in a tough battle to pre-equip your troops with shields and wait out their ammunition while shieldwalling, but that would make it better for a lot of ranged encounters to wait out their arrows as a general strategy. This would make for a poor gameplay experience that would be dragged out costing the player time and giving the player a bad recollection of how long battles would become. Players already complain when large scale battles and weiderganger fights take a significant amount of time.

In conclusion, it is better for the gameplay experience, and quick fixes a balance issue with ranged enemies that the AI has infinite ammo. This requiring the player to take the initiative to advance upon the enemy (unless you as the player hold the ranged advantage, in which if you really wanted to make the enemy archers less effective, you should just have your troops carry crossbows + ammo, and switch to melee a round or two before they reach you).

[Boiadeiro]

Автор сообщения: Overhype Studios

The problem here is that we then have to also teach the AI to pick up ammo from the ground and change quivers in the inventory which is more work than it sounds at first.

Also, assume dedicated archers have 2-3 stacks of more arrows in their backpack and Goblins with the quick hands perk can just change them with no action costs. So even if me made ammo limited and gave them additional quivers not much would change.

However, if the ammo was limited it would be of course better for the realism but we will have to see when and if we get around to work on this.

How about putting something like: "Enemies have infinite ammo, so do not expect them to ever run out of arrows or bolts" in the loading screen tips? It is what it is, what's the point of dancing around it.

[Stal Hamarr]

Автор сообщения: NM9G

Автор сообщения: DreadKatak

Ta-da, that isn't infinite and still preferable. It isn't really an argument in the first place. Why not just give player-controlled units infinite ammo as well, then?

I guessing that the infinite ammo is an easy solution to a quality of gameplay experience problem. Sure it could be satisfying occasionally in a tough battle to pre-equip your troops with shields and wait out their ammunition while shieldwalling, but that would make it better for a lot of ranged encounters to wait out their arrows as a general strategy. This would make for a poor gameplay experience that would be dragged out costing the player time and giving the player a bad recollection of how long battles would become. Players already complain when large scale battles and weiderganger fights take a significant amount of time.

It would be the player's choice to turtle and wait for them to run out of ammo.
It's not like the game would be force on you a 30 turns long battle of turtling. So no "poor gameplay experience" there. It's an option.

And a very valid option in some scenarios, like mass goblins in bad terrain, or in a lone wolf company where you can't have several dedicated archers to counter enemy ranged fire.