安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题
I'm okay with it getting better productivity the higher the difficulty, that it can hire its hero units for free (at least for any difficulty past 'easy'), that it gets a population growth bonus adjusted to difficulty after unit losses.
The problem with the cheating AI is the pacing: If it's super aggressive it just spams 1-3 military structures in every zone and converts as much population as possible (up to all of it) into military - something that a player actually bound to the gameplay mechanics can't compete with. This just creates a stone wall that you either can't get through (frustrating) or smash through and then the AI folds, with the rest of the game being unspectacular cleanup (boring).
What you'd expect from higher difficulties is the AI playing more aggressive, but also better. Sadly most games don't have any high difficulty scripts at all that make the AI play better by having it start using advanced tactics or more micro control for its units. Instead higher difficulty typically only translates into "more free resources for the AI" or "less for you, player". The AI in strategy games and similar ones hasn't really evolved despite experiments with such, constantly highlighting the possible potential that devs are never interested to tap into as much as the audience is.
The bugs represent a good opportunity to put the AI on a good foundation, rooted in actual gameplay instead of a cheated economy that make it either frustrating or boring. I doubt this is on their list though, given the fact that the AI wasn't even mentioned in this patches' "known issues" list.
first of all if a dev team has difficulty implementing a system that doesn't keep losing progress every major patch for years, you can confidently say there is absolutely zero chance you will ever see a better AI, due to limited human capabilities.
second, they don't even have control on their own codebase to be assured they don't break something they previously implemented. this suggests the code is spagetti which is impossible to implement proper ai system on even by an expert.