Adding a little Chaos

[mceochaidh]

This quote from Klayeckles made me think:

"I have noticed that the better i get at the game...the less historical the battle seems to appear from above...point being that a very experienced player can tune the moves and interplay of her army so much crisper than the historical general (that had limited information, poor visibility and terrible communication) that it becomes more effective than the historical version."

Suppose it was possible to make the AI more competitive by limiting the precision of the human player. This could be done by imposing a command and control device. At the beginning of each turn, any unit not in command range would be moved by the AI instead of the human player. This would be a new "phase" before the human player makes his moves. It would take some the absolute control out of the human player's hands and require the human player to think a little more about where his generals are located. I would couple this with a provision that would automatically replace any killed general with a new general rated as a "troop commander", the lowest rated general type.

I realize, based on Richard's response to the question about AI playing AI, that what I am suggesting may be difficult to implement. However, if it is reasonably easy, then it may make the games more fun for solo gamers and even for human versus human games.

Chaos anyone?

Mac

[SteveD64]

Interesting idea!

[rbodleyscott]

It would certainly be a major exercise to implement it.

[Morbio]

My preference would be to reduce visibility and detail of the opposition. I play the game because I want to control my army, however I think there is merit in not being able to 'see' the opposition quality. I know I'm looking at hoplites, but should I know that they are superior, normal or raw? Drilled and undrilled can be inferred from their behaviour, so I'm less concerned with this. Similarly, units in the 2nd or 3rd rank should have less detail if they could be seen at all. I think this would deliver more challenging and realistic matches against both the AI and other players. I must say I'm playing one of Stockwellpete's themed event battles at present and this uses a fog of war view of the battlefield and this is really interesting to play!

[SpeedyCM]

I've always been a fan of the 'get drunk to help the AI' play method myself.

[sIg3b]

IF POSSIBLE, an optional rule that reduces player control would be interesting. How about putting this somewhere in the middle ground of the wish list?

[vonZipper]

My preference would be to reduce visibility and detail of the opposition. I play the game because I want to control my army, however I think there is merit in not being able to 'see' the opposition quality. I know I'm looking at hoplites, but should I know that they are superior, normal or raw? Drilled and undrilled can be inferred from their behaviour, so I'm less concerned with this. Similarly, units in the 2nd or 3rd rank should have less detail if they could be seen at all. I think this would deliver more challenging and realistic matches against both the AI and other players. I must say I'm playing one of Stockwellpete's themed event battles at present and this uses a fog of war view of the battlefield and this is really interesting to play!

I like the sound of this!

[lk2500]

This quote from Klayeckles made me think:

"I have noticed that the better i get at the game...the less historical the battle seems to appear from above...point being that a very experienced player can tune the moves and interplay of her army so much crisper than the historical general (that had limited information, poor visibility and terrible communication) that it becomes more effective than the historical version."

Suppose it was possible to make the AI more competitive by limiting the precision of the human player. This could be done by imposing a command and control device. At the beginning of each turn, any unit not in command range would be moved by the AI instead of the human player. This would be a new "phase" before the human player makes his moves. It would take some the absolute control out of the human player's hands and require the human player to think a little more about where his generals are located. I would couple this with a provision that would automatically replace any killed general with a new general rated as a "troop commander", the lowest rated general type.

I realize, based on Richard's response to the question about AI playing AI, that what I am suggesting may be difficult to implement. However, if it is reasonably easy, then it may make the games more fun for solo gamers and even for human versus human games.

Chaos anyone?

Mac

Tigers on the Hunt (WW2 game) has a system like this that most of the players love. The only thing I don't like about it is the the OOC unit does nothing at all, doesn't even fire at the last unit it fired at. It just sits there. I suppose it was easier to implement that way.

[General Shapur]

Maybe progressive detail. Initially you just know they are infantry cavalry or skirmishers, as you get closer you can see the type of unit and once engaged you learn the experience. You could use scouts to learn this quicker and thus redeploy on the hop.

[TheGrayMouser]

On this theme, it would be cool if one could assign one or more of your sides commander(s) ( and all troops under him) to the ai to play. To have some macro control perhaps the player could click on a grid to “attack” or defend, and the ai then carries the actual moves in that general vicinity.

[Morbio]

Maybe progressive detail. Initially you just know they are infantry cavalry or skirmishers, as you get closer you can see the type of unit and once engaged you learn the experience. You could use scouts to learn this quicker and thus redeploy on the hop.

This seems like a good reason for scouts and feels realistic too.

[sIg3b]

I am not sure about the need of much FoW on the tactical level. But one could perhaps force a player to set up first if he has significantly less Light Cavalry.

[Lysimachos]

I've always been a fan of the 'get drunk to help the AI' play method myself.

If you find excessively easy to beat the AI playing with armies of the same size you can make your experience much challenging letting the computer choose automatically the composition of your army and its deployment. Generally a great part of the winning edge you own over the AI depends just from these adjustments.
Moreover, during the battle, you can also limit your ability choosing to move no more than 2 or 3 groups (I mean troops commanded by a general) per turn.
It obliges you to think twice on every move and makes the battle much more equalized.
On the other hand it makes also the flow of the battle more linear and much similar to the ancient reality of war.