​Despite the fact that the AI is trying to do better, will it be improved in 6.0? Considering the fact that Archaon and others from Chaos Warriors for example still can't use mechanics limited to the units they have on hand. Not to mention Sieges, in the battles themselves and all that. For as TopKek#2685 said,"Nah, AI doesn't know how to play as Khorne and with the new changes, they will have no money to sustain themselves even."

I upvoted your thread. 

Ill upvote.

 And just going to say no, they probably won't make any improvements along those lines. A lot of us were asking for legendary difficulty improvements since immortal empires inception IMO the ROC campaign ai was good, albeit very anti player. But the best they could do is give the ai more cheats and no actual improvements. This increases the difficulty of the early game, till about turn 50 and then the ai shuts down and doesn't put up much of a fight again.

So I don't see them actually improving the AI enough to actually use mechanics. 

​

TopKek#2685 wrote:

I don't think so. There needs to be more people chiming in on the idea of the AI using racial mechanics well, otherwise CA will just continue to make them for the player only. 

It would be nice if CA hired more people to do the actual coding implemenation for their interim patches and made this an actual thing for us, for the AI to understand how to play, to max out resource gain and combine that with effectibe strategy, to use racial mechanics effectively. So, just be good at what it does essentially. 

This would hopefully extend to other things; like sieges and in game battles. Just for the AI to make better decisions and be good at things. 

​And moreover, of course, there is no way to make the AI at human level, but to be closer to it, while you can make a difficulty slider depending on what level of difficulty you play on. Of course, sometimes it is interesting when the AI on Legend can spam a bunch of armies per turn, while starting to crush the mass that in fact...a little seems and interesting but a little wrong. This applies to recruiting an army, because that Archaon, that the Vampires and some other races that hire only low-ranked units and sometimes hiring in most cases that shooters or something else, which is not good. And sometimes annoying youtubers who abuse the stupidity of the AI, which begins even as something boring. But at the same time I understand those people who are also bored or causes anger when they are crushed by numbers, because in this case, you need to make a golden mean that was not boring and was interesting to play not only against players but also against the AI

​

TopKek#2685 wrote:
There needs to be more people chiming in on the idea of the AI using racial mechanics well, otherwise CA will just continue to make them for the player only.

Yup. The AI will not improve until CA makes it a more AI-friendly game. Using racial mechanics is one part of that, giving parity for all unit buffs is another. 

​

SafironDracolich#6190 wrote:

​

TopKek#2685 wrote:

I don't think so. There needs to be more people chiming in on the idea of the AI using racial mechanics well, otherwise CA will just continue to make them for the player only. 

It would be nice if CA hired more people to do the actual coding implemenation for their interim patches and made this an actual thing for us, for the AI to understand how to play, to max out resource gain and combine that with effectibe strategy, to use racial mechanics effectively. So, just be good at what it does essentially. 

This would hopefully extend to other things; like sieges and in game battles. Just for the AI to make better decisions and be good at things. 

​And moreover, of course, there is no way to make the AI at human level, but to be closer to it, while you can make a difficulty slider depending on what level of difficulty you play on. Of course, sometimes it is interesting when the AI on Legend can spam a bunch of armies per turn, while starting to crush the mass that in fact...a little seems and interesting but a little wrong. This applies to recruiting an army, because that Archaon, that the Vampires and some other races that hire only low-ranked units and sometimes hiring in most cases that shooters or something else, which is not good. And sometimes annoying youtubers who abuse the stupidity of the AI, which begins even as something boring. But at the same time I understand those people who are also bored or causes anger when they are crushed by numbers, because in this case, you need to make a golden mean that was not boring and was interesting to play not only against players but also against the AI

Well, CA can design certain templates, for decision patterns, make the AI do more efficirnt decision making. As it stands, the AI does in fact do good recruiting when it fights the player. From my experience, it tries to tailor the armies to my own armies every time we fight, goes after damage dealing units in battle. Often it is quite  "forgiving", in that it doesn't kill off units but let's them route and survive, much to its own undoing. So, CA does everything to accomodate the player, thankful as a I am, this would need tuning. So, going after my armies and actually trying to win the battles, by sending enough units, to damage mine and play effective wars, to force retreats and force me to regroup etc. This is difficult to do, becaudr you need to make enough engagements with the AI to actually follow through with its own army comps and if you win enough battles, it just collapses completely and dodges fights. So, there is also the long term game to consider and design, so that AI is always calculating, always making effective decisions. And most importantly, CA need to shift away from sticking to the pre campaign potential factions get and work kn making DYNAMIC potential, where bonuses apply throughout campaign, so that the AI can always stay ahead, always have enough money and bonuses and knows exactly how to behave and racial mechanics can help with that 100%, since they provide so much. Keep the former, develop the latter. Otherwise the late game will always be busted. 

​

TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:
Making the AI play like a human player shouldn't be the goal. The goal should be that the AI should simulate how factions would actually behave in the Warhammer world. And the player should be subjected to certain rules to make them behave like such a faction too. If I play like Elves or Dwarfs I should be concerned with manpower. If I play the Empire I should be concerned about Empire politics. If I play as Skaven I should be concerned about backstabbing underlings etc.

Completely agree. 

​

TopKek#2685 wrote:

​

SafironDracolich#6190 wrote:

​

TopKek#2685 wrote:

I don't think so. There needs to be more people chiming in on the idea of the AI using racial mechanics well, otherwise CA will just continue to make them for the player only. 

It would be nice if CA hired more people to do the actual coding implemenation for their interim patches and made this an actual thing for us, for the AI to understand how to play, to max out resource gain and combine that with effectibe strategy, to use racial mechanics effectively. So, just be good at what it does essentially. 

This would hopefully extend to other things; like sieges and in game battles. Just for the AI to make better decisions and be good at things. 

​And moreover, of course, there is no way to make the AI at human level, but to be closer to it, while you can make a difficulty slider depending on what level of difficulty you play on. Of course, sometimes it is interesting when the AI on Legend can spam a bunch of armies per turn, while starting to crush the mass that in fact...a little seems and interesting but a little wrong. This applies to recruiting an army, because that Archaon, that the Vampires and some other races that hire only low-ranked units and sometimes hiring in most cases that shooters or something else, which is not good. And sometimes annoying youtubers who abuse the stupidity of the AI, which begins even as something boring. But at the same time I understand those people who are also bored or causes anger when they are crushed by numbers, because in this case, you need to make a golden mean that was not boring and was interesting to play not only against players but also against the AI

Well, CA can design certain templates, for decision patterns, make the AI do more efficirnt decision making. As it stands, the AI does in fact do good recruiting when it fights the player. From my experience, it tries to tailor the armies to my own armies every time we fight, goes after damage dealing units in battle. Often it is quite  "forgiving", in that it doesn't kill off units but let's them route and survive, much to its own undoing. So, CA does everything to accomodate the player, thankful as a I am, this would need tuning. So, going after my armies and actually trying to win the battles, by sending enough units, to damage mine and play effective wars, to force retreats and force me to regroup etc. This is difficult to do, becaudr you need to make enough engagements with the AI to actually follow through with its own army comps and if you win enough battles, it just collapses completely and dodges fights. So, there is also the long term game to consider and design, so that AI is always calculating, always making effective decisions. And most importantly, CA need to shift away from sticking to the pre campaign potential factions get and work kn making DYNAMIC potential, where bonuses apply throughout campaign, so that the AI can always stay ahead, always have enough money and bonuses and knows exactly how to behave and racial mechanics can help with that 100%, since they provide so much. Keep the former, develop the latter. Otherwise the late game will always be busted. 

​Which sounds good, however, the AI still needs to be worked on so that the AI can:

1. pick the best and most effective artifacts for its LL;

2. take the right skills for each LL to specialize in which units they will specialize in;

3. Behavior in Sieges;

4. Improvements and behavior in battles and on the campaign map;

5. With what you said about units, then all need to coordinate the hiring of troops to find a balance between infantry, archers, cavalry, monsters, flying and vehicles so that in the future they are better defined with tactics and combat.

But yeah, drifting apart from the thread, CA should implement the use of racial mechanics. I find this secondary to the resource problem the AI has and the way it just gives up at certain situations and dodges the player, because the AI doesn't do long term strategy too much, but racial mechanics should be used a lot more on par with the main game template.

​

TopKek#2685 wrote:

​

SafironDracolich#6190 wrote:

​

TopKek#2685 wrote:

​

SafironDracolich#6190 wrote:

​

TopKek#2685 wrote:

I don't think so. There needs to be more people chiming in on the idea of the AI using racial mechanics well, otherwise CA will just continue to make them for the player only. 

It would be nice if CA hired more people to do the actual coding implemenation for their interim patches and made this an actual thing for us, for the AI to understand how to play, to max out resource gain and combine that with effectibe strategy, to use racial mechanics effectively. So, just be good at what it does essentially. 

This would hopefully extend to other things; like sieges and in game battles. Just for the AI to make better decisions and be good at things. 

​And moreover, of course, there is no way to make the AI at human level, but to be closer to it, while you can make a difficulty slider depending on what level of difficulty you play on. Of course, sometimes it is interesting when the AI on Legend can spam a bunch of armies per turn, while starting to crush the mass that in fact...a little seems and interesting but a little wrong. This applies to recruiting an army, because that Archaon, that the Vampires and some other races that hire only low-ranked units and sometimes hiring in most cases that shooters or something else, which is not good. And sometimes annoying youtubers who abuse the stupidity of the AI, which begins even as something boring. But at the same time I understand those people who are also bored or causes anger when they are crushed by numbers, because in this case, you need to make a golden mean that was not boring and was interesting to play not only against players but also against the AI

Well, CA can design certain templates, for decision patterns, make the AI do more efficirnt decision making. As it stands, the AI does in fact do good recruiting when it fights the player. From my experience, it tries to tailor the armies to my own armies every time we fight, goes after damage dealing units in battle. Often it is quite  "forgiving", in that it doesn't kill off units but let's them route and survive, much to its own undoing. So, CA does everything to accomodate the player, thankful as a I am, this would need tuning. So, going after my armies and actually trying to win the battles, by sending enough units, to damage mine and play effective wars, to force retreats and force me to regroup etc. This is difficult to do, becaudr you need to make enough engagements with the AI to actually follow through with its own army comps and if you win enough battles, it just collapses completely and dodges fights. So, there is also the long term game to consider and design, so that AI is always calculating, always making effective decisions. And most importantly, CA need to shift away from sticking to the pre campaign potential factions get and work kn making DYNAMIC potential, where bonuses apply throughout campaign, so that the AI can always stay ahead, always have enough money and bonuses and knows exactly how to behave and racial mechanics can help with that 100%, since they provide so much. Keep the former, develop the latter. Otherwise the late game will always be busted. 

​Which sounds good, however, the AI still needs to be worked on so that the AI can:

1. pick the best and most effective artifacts for its LL;

2. take the right skills for each LL to specialize in which units they will specialize in;

3. Behavior in Sieges;

4. Improvements and behavior in battles and on the campaign map;

5. With what you said about units, then all need to coordinate the hiring of troops to find a balance between infantry, archers, cavalry, monsters, flying and vehicles so that in the future they are better defined with tactics and combat.

Well, these are mostly minor things that should contribute to the main strategy. Like, racial mechanics should. The main issue, is that the AI doesn't do long term strategy and hits a wall in what it can do. Sure, they should be expanded on to look nice and pretty, but the meat and potatoes is the actual gameplay. So, if AI factions always have the resources to fight the player, they recruit better armies to fight you quicker and is able to do this early, mid and late game, until you stop playing and even if you outright beat everything the AI throws at you, it should still keep going on to make calculations, effective unit matchups and expand, as to make effective economies to make more money to build more armies and be very efficient in fighting both other AI and the player. This is just a foundation of what we SHOULD have in the game and if CA implement, then all the minor things, like; item matchups for a bigger power level, specialisation of skill trees, technologies and any other bonuses should be supplementary to that foundation, so that it maximises its strategy. 

Number 5 is exactly this - before it fights you. The way the AI works, is it sends any armies at you based on AR values it interprets it can win. In the early game this works, because the player hasn't built up enough aggregate victories, to better influence the AR and win easily. The main issue I touched on, is that in the late game this isn't effective, because late game you generally win a lot of battles and the AR is very favourable towards the player. So, the AI miscalculates. If you play the actual battles, destroy AI stacks, it sort of adapts to your playstyle. It doesn't and shouldn't make anything balanced, because balanced armies are easy to beat. The AI should prioritise fighting the player by building more cutting edge armies, to win and beat the player. On legendary difficulty, at least. Balanced armies only go as far IMO, considering the AI doesn't really know still how to use some of the stuff it has. Although, there is an argument to be made, it is a lot better at exploiting available space now that it was in game 2, it's better at targeting with spells and damage dealing units.

​

TopKek#2685 wrote:

But yeah, drifting apart from the thread, CA should implement the use of racial mechanics. I find this secondary to the resource problem the AI has and the way it just gives up at certain situations and dodges the player, because the AI doesn't do long term strategy too much, but racial mechanics should be used a lot more on par with the main game template.

​Yes, they may be minor additions, but they should also have a place in terms of adapting to the player and how to fight effectively against him. But at the same time...there are a lot of meanings in your words too, but still they need to make big expansions for the AI in terms of mechanics in order to also adapt to the player to some extent. And it is even possible to make it so that the AI could behave with different races in terms of lore and how they behave, both with other races and with players as TainBoCuailinge#8335 put it.

I don't think so. I would open a champagne if CA would make AI use sea lanes!