![]() Somewhat central positions that are in the scripted range of target by multiple factions. 80% of the time an alliance between 3+ AI will break down anyway and the player will be dragged into a war against former allies.įor the AI going out of its way to attack the player, the only two factions which seem to hugely suffer from this are Kislev and Nurgle, probably Chaos Dwarfs too when they are added. If CA is worried about allies aiding the player too much just make war targets require more allegiance or limit calling an AI to attack a war target to only 1 active faction at a time so even if the player has 5 allied factions, it can only call 1 up to help at a time. Even if the AI keeps building armies and occasionally moves to a war target, it takes like 10-20 turns, nerfing the allied AI so it only build 1-2 armies and then has an AR disadvantage so it loses battles with a full army in garrison to half an AI army attacking a walled city very stupid. Like CA finally improved diplomacy in Warhammer then made the AI even more incompetent on purpose. That trip is insanely long- if it happened once I could have roleplayed it as Malekith sailing down to punish an attack on his ally but over 60 turns it happened 3 times, when I finally sent scouts up into Naggaroth I found Alith Anar had taken most of the DE regions so the AI was sending its best army on a 20 turn journey while losing its core territories, that is stupid and the scripting obviously needs tweaking at that extreme.įor WH3 the main part of anti-player bias I don't like is how factions take a dramatic hit just from allying with the player. I remember Malekith in WH2 showing up in the Southlands to attack me as Queek who had taken out Rakath who was allied with Naggarond. As I said before for me that isn't eighter an issue nor an example of "anti player bias", AIs attacking undefended settlements of highest threads in striking distance is scripts working as intended from my point of view.Īn AI that attacks past other AI within 3 turns isn't that bad- an AI that sails across half the world or sends armies 5+ turns away while its own regions are being attacked is a problem. ![]() On higher difficulties you can have 10+ armies from all direction within your territory and need to be able to deal with them so if 2 armies are too much for you just turn down the difficulty or learn how to deal with it. You also have an army nearby so whats the problem with actually defending there? OK is less then 3 turns of movement away from you thats basically striking distance and similar to being neighbors. Its basic strategy game 101 to hold stuff you take. When you aren't ready to defend settlements than don't take them in the first place. Not defending any settlement that is nearest to potential enemies is bad strategy in the first place. Well Ogres aren't human enemys by default and can also be good allies. That just takes away a good chunk of the strategic side of your defense. Two armies beelining and focussing on a settlement that should be way too far for the enemy to reach, as there are 3 or 4 other settlements on the way, still counts as illogical imo.you should not be forced to defend a single settlement if strategically that settlement should not be under threat, as there are other cities on the way. Ogres are at war with all human AI factions, otherwise I wouldn't be here posting about this ![]() When you are their only enemy and you get attacked by 2 armies, thats not an issue at all. 2K A Total War Saga: Thrones of Britanniaĭude thats only 2 armies and from the screen shots we don't even know if OK is at war with the other AIs.846 A Total War Saga: Fall of the Samurai.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |