Limits of AI independence

[Cymru]

I asked this in an unrelated thread. Since it got no answers I wasn't sure if it was ignored as irrelevant, or because no one knew or cared about it.

Since each side has specific objectives how much of this is built into the unit behavior. For example, if one side has to attack and capture a village, will the units try to do this, even in the absence of human input? Or will they just sit there unless attacked by the other side?

[ChrisND]

The AI will be completely passive in the absence of orders given by the scenario designer, with the exception of moving for self-preservation.

[Cymru]

Thanks for the info. The reason I asked is that there is another thread talking about large scenario. If I understand it, it would stitch together many individual battles, each being played by an individual, into a large battle. One drawback that was mentioned was how to ensure that every player kept participating. If one quits you suddenly have a 'hole' in the operation. It occurred to me that, if the AI could take over then this might minimize the problem. It would mean an AI vs Ai battle, which might not be the ideal, but would allow the entire operation to proceed.

[ChrisND]

Thanks for the info. The reason I asked is that there is another thread talking about large scenario. If I understand it, it would stitch together many individual battles, each being played by an individual, into a large battle. One drawback that was mentioned was how to ensure that every player kept participating. If one quits you suddenly have a 'hole' in the operation. It occurred to me that, if the AI could take over then this might minimize the problem. It would mean an AI vs Ai battle, which might not be the ideal, but would allow the entire operation to proceed.

AI versus AI isn't possible at all, and if someone wanted to have the AI take a players place against another player, the AI's plans would have to be made by hand.