So can you confirm that you have indeed tested with the same starting-save or very similar conditions when you found a reduction of damage to only 30% of "possible damage". Or how did you determine what amount of damage is possible?
Yeah, I can. This previous savefile I attached is the mission that I tried multiple times with various aggro settings. The 7.13.1 where I set recommended 1/2 "baseline" + modder-set squashed my units in 10 turns, just because every enemy attacked simultaneously, minotaurs rushed with macro-flamers and axes (actually, I love how BAI prefers macro-flamers instead of melee option). Also, BAI thrown more grenades. I was lacking ifrepower and had to decide whether I should fire or reserve TU's for incoming enemies. None would help, because it's map with 50 enemies.
The one in 8.0.1, where I had chosen only baseline, I had it easily won. Even so it was pushing first 2-3 of turns, the battle changed fast towards reaction fire and killing of small waves of some attacking guys, while others were hiding inside the buildings on the map edges (away from actual combat area). Thus, overall enemy push was noticeable, but quite dealable.
The panic spiral of enemies started soon after, so past turn 12 the game became one-side beating.
I am sure that in some scenarios 0-1 aggressiveness is definitely purposeful. But clearly not in case of battles vs x3 enemies (of same power), where rushing strategy for AI is better.
This caused units to think they should be spotters when becoming one wasn't a viable option, making them walk into reaction-fire without their allies being capable of providing significant assistance.
Well, that mission was pain in the ass (I dealt it 4 times, lost badly 3 times and easily won on 4th). It usually spawns in mountains/open field, but now spawned in close urban area. That is why sniper-rifle loadout was wrong. I clearly don't wan't to play it again to check.
The thing angered me was when BAI in two turns thrown 5 units through the same door, which had exit tile in reaction-sight of my snipers. That was enough to get that something goes wrong with decision making.
For example with a multiplier of 0.1 and valid values from 1-100 or so there also would be a lot of variety.
Well, the 4 for max aggressiveness is arbitrary number to which everyone got used to. And it was introduced by you.
I think simpler is better. So, if you chose this over min-max range, no trouble.
The question is: should every unit on the map be of same picked aggression, or statistically different by min-max.
Theoretically, if same, then missions overall will feel different, which is good.
If min-max in same battle, then bunch of attackers, bunch of lurkers and so on. Which will result in force split. Which, in its turn, will lead to lose of competitive power. In theory. I don't know what will happen during real gameplay, given all these advances in BAI decision making.
for experimentally determining suitable values but not nice for the player who didn't know what to set it to
Yep. I am going to make a submod, so players don't have to do anything.
I'll do it right ahead after getting the understanding of actual/final decision weights.
So that would be great to chat on them and/or look at formulas, if you share the lines where to look at and how to understand them.
But then, approach should be verified, at least not drastically changed every new version.
UPD don't take my whining about "AI is too easy" and "AI is too strong" as bipolar disorder.
I am looking for balance that kicks my ass, but yet is possible to beat:)
