The solution to late-game tedium lies in AI

The problem of a boring lategame where you've become essentially unstoppable, but still need to go through the motions in order to win, is a problem in nearly all 4X games, FE included.  While the problem may seem to lie in the win conditions being too high, in my view, the problem lies more with the AI failing to respond as your empire goes from "powerful" to "unstoppable juggernaut".  Continuing their regular strategy is what allowed you to get strong in the first place (and would therefore make the rest of the game nothing but mop up), so they obviously need to change things up.

This could go in several directions, and should be based on both the AI priorities and their relationship to the player.  If they've been friendly or neutral, they could seek out an alliance or vassalage, otherwise, they should choose between a straight-up attack (if they're near-equal power) or a focused, all-in attempt to hit hard where you're weak (fast units to attack lightly-defended outlying cities, AoE vs clustered trained units, buffs+debuffs+lots of high damage units vs a champion heavy army, etc).  Diplomatically inclined enemies could try to bring in others, the less diplomatic would go it alone.  And, importantly, if their last ditch attack fails, they surrender right there - ending things with a bang rather than a whimper.

Thoughts?  Anything to add?

3,040 views 7 replies
Reply #1 Top

Except for the graphics you would think the AI was ported straight from GalCivII.   They both do or make the exact same moves and decisions.  ;)

Reply #2 Top

Make the AI so strong, that you dont reach the endgame ;)

Reply #3 Top

In many ways this does feel like the GalCiv II AI, which isn't a bad thing, but the AI does need some more variety in approach.

Reply #4 Top

The difference between this and GalCiv is that you never had anything on the power level of high godlike sovs plus it is much more complex both strateically and tactically - the AI fails to take advantage of all the options open to it and is consequently at a big disadvantage. One example is how the AI won't use spells like pillar of fire. The AI also fails to develop it's sovs in the way that a human can (although I've noticed improvements here with the latest beta) and it has difficulty picking spells to win sov vs sov battles (which are crucial) - although sovs no longer lose you the game if they die, the penalties are still pretty steep (immobolised for loads of turns plus mana costs) and once they're immobilised they are very open to being defeated again and again. The AI should recognise that in a battle with an enemy sov, they need to pull out all the stops to win. I've also seen sovs moving about without escorts when I have armies nearby. 

Reply #5 Top

The AI should "learn" human tricks similar to the way they get to poach our troop designs.  They should be able to review the spells that we cast and re-prioritize their own casting based on that.

Reply #6 Top

You tohron got some really good ideas, thought I read this as an "Some player (AI or Human) is about to win the game".

Sovs should be wary of warmongering players,
players good at leveling heroes,
and also be cautious around players are aquiring huge armies.

When I squat an opponent, I expect the other players to look suspiciously in my direction, mostly because now I got twice the amount of cities to defend (in the average strategy game) but lower troops than what I had when I started the war, since I probably lost some fighting, so now I am weak.

Just adding to your idea.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Reply #7 Top

If you beat another player you are normally much stronger, not just because you have grabbed a bunch of cities and resources but you have also given your units and champs a tonne of xp too so often your army is actually much stronger than when you started the war. This is particularly true if you beat up an enemy sov and then proceed to beat him up again and again while he's immobilised in cities, your troops and heroes can gain lots of levels this way