View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0011774 | Skyward Collapse | Bug - Gameplay | Jun 2, 2013 10:26 am | Jun 11, 2013 4:24 pm | |
| Reporter | nas1m | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Status | closed | Resolution | no change required | ||
| Product Version | 1.007 Stats Fit For A God | ||||
| Summary | 0011774: Target priority trouble | ||||
| Description | While playing on Hard I often have the following issue: I am able to produce enough human military to (in theory) keep in check the first couple of waves of bandit keeps. The problem is that, once the bandit keeps actually spawn, they have already moved on to fight the nearest enemy town and/or its garrison. Once they have overwhelmed the local troops they (consequently) start to attack enemy buildings. The problem is, once the bandit keeps spawn, they do not turn around to keep the bandits in check, but continue to attack the enemy town, allowing new bandits to spawn turn after turn after turn, which then easily overwhelm whatever new troops that are spawning at the barracks. All of this essentially leads to the available troops happily slapping buildings while their own town is sacked by bandits. As far as I understand it bandits should be a priority target at the moment already - if they are within the units sight range. In theory having capable troops being able to handle the bandits but seeing them more or less uselessly attacking buildings in frustrating, though. Maybe some way to explicitly target bandit keeps and/or call all units back to a given town to defend it would be a way to cope with this (e.g. something like a town bell)? If need be the effect could be limited to some radius greater than average sight range. Save attached. (I know the single Marauder hacking avay at the Greek town will not be able to stop the bandits on its own, but he ignores them nonetheless...) | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | New | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
All of what you describe actually sounds correct, honestly. The unit logic is: 1. Attack anything in sight range, based on how much damage I can do versus how much damage it does to me and other "personal considerations." Bandit versus the other faction is never weighed. 2. If there is nothing in my sight range, then look for the nearest bandit keep and move toward it until something is in my sight range. 3. If there is no bandit keep and nothing in my sight range, then look for the nearest enemy town and move toward it until something is in my sight range. Nowhere in there do dudes care about their towns, or really defending anything whatsoever. And being able to target a bandit keep with a military commandment was tried, briefly, a long while back and was extremely exploity. In short: I think what you are dealing with is just a natural consequence of these guys having free will and being rather selfish and shortsighted in how they react to the world. Aka, it's part of the challenge in my opinion. Certainly more AI rules could be added, but I think that gets kind of special-case-y and makes the guys perhaps more intelligent than is desired. If guys are constantly running home to defend their towns, then it's going to suuuuper alter the flow of battle and guys won't make it across the battlefield much because they will be too good at their jobs. If guys target nearby bandits more than the enemy faction when in sight range, then the bandits lose a lot of their efficacy and that's not really thematically fitting anyhow... |
|
|
Fair enough. Seems i will just have to make sure the next wave is ready once the bandits hit ; ). I was having less of a trouble in the end anyway (in retrospect they were mostly caused by playing in a very dense map combined with the wrong kind of woe triggering early in the game - yes i'm talking to you "inside Job"!). Not much time to Play atm anyway. My baby girl was born last friday :D... I love your plans for 2.0 and the first expansion, though. I'll be back ; ). |
|
|
All sounds good on the comments. And huge congratulations!! That's a big moment, I'm really happy for you. :) Your first? |
|
|
Yes = ). Thanks a lot! The congrats are much appreciated = ). Aside from a distinct lack of sleep i could not be happier ; ). BTW ( and totally offtopic): Are you aware that your links to the 2.0 Design document are still pointing to the wrong document? |
|
|
Yeah, savor all the sleep you can, it gets harder and harder unless you're lucky. My wife and I had it really rough, with no more than 4 hours of sleep at a time for about 6 months. In retrospect there were things we could have done better to preserve sleep, and we didn't realize soon enough the signs of infant reflux, but still: whew. Anyway, for most people it gets much better much faster, and even we survived it. ;) Once again, congrats. :) And thanks for the note on the design document link being wrong, I had not been in that thread yet to see that. I've fixed that, and here it also is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/155UQcJpOm04Hk3RGNKtLt7XFQt3bANxEDHDBmfkbQME/edit |
|
|
You're welcome = ). |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 2, 2013 10:26 am | nas1m | New Issue | |
| Jun 2, 2013 10:26 am | nas1m | File Added: 1007-HHH-Aargh.save | |
| Jun 11, 2013 1:28 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0032839 | |
| Jun 11, 2013 2:07 pm | nas1m | Note Added: 0032843 | |
| Jun 11, 2013 3:50 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Internal Weight | => New |
| Jun 11, 2013 3:50 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0032845 | |
| Jun 11, 2013 3:50 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => closed |
| Jun 11, 2013 3:50 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Jun 11, 2013 3:50 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => no change required |
| Jun 11, 2013 4:08 pm | nas1m | Note Added: 0032847 | |
| Jun 11, 2013 4:13 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0032848 | |
| Jun 11, 2013 4:24 pm | nas1m | Note Added: 0032849 |
