I think it would be an improvement to the AI if they couldn't buff themselves in combat.

don't think a global ban on tactical buffs would help the AI much. it's a bit ridiculous when you're already steamrolling and the AI champs insist on buffing when half their army is already slain in turn 1, but at that point it doesn't really matter anyway. not wasting a few points of mana and instead do some insigificant damage to your killer stack probably wouldn't turn the battle around.

I don't really understand this reasoning. Some of the buffs (Giant form, Diamondskin) are quite powerful. The AI in my current game likes casting Cloak of Fear, which effectively means my melee units can't damage it for five turns. Focus has its place as a damage multiplier, as well.

I normally agree in games like this that movement and speed are enormously powerful, but as long as you move before casting a buff, you don't actually lose a turn, especially in the first turn when you probably can't attack in melee anyway.

I would agree that the current version of the AI maybe casts buffs a bit too much. This is essentially a tuning question though, it used to barely cast spells at all.

I would also agree that the AI should aim to keep a decent size store of strategic mana, especially if it is aiming to cast the Spell of Making. So in other words don't cast spells if it has less than 250 mana (or whatever).

Buffing is highly situational.  First off you need to determine whether you can wipe out the enemy before they get tot strike.  If not, you need to determine whether the buff will shorten the time it takes to obliterate the opposition (including the turn to cast the buff).  Also you need to determine if there is an enemy unit (usually a hero) that REALLY needs to be killed fast, if so, do you have the capability to do it (like shadow shift it into the middle of your army, or using the Kill spell).

If death can't be ascertained in 1 turn, you start looking at two turn tactics.  Maybe do huge AOE damage first, then buff your soldiers with your second turn (this is actually very effective), and let your soldiers mop up the dregs.

Overall tactical buffs are weaker than tactical debuffs/damage, however there are some beautiful ones that can really turn the tide in the right situation.  Cloak of Fear is AWESOME.  never underestimate it.  Spell check or no attack is nuts. Giant form (double attack no penalties), can make that armour they are wearing suddenly seem a lot thinner than it was (especially if you're not playing as evil and can cast mass curse).  Diamond skin on that assassin you just shadow shifted to the back of the other army, letting your army kill the poor (usually hero) unit that is now in the middle of your army.

Buffs and debuffs all have a place.  But they are very situational.  My post was really about just optimising heroes' traits, which should be easier from an AI perspective (i think? ).  Tactical battle AI wasn't touched on because that is a completely different kettle of fish (imagine trying to code when a unit should step forward one square past an enemy unit....... very difficult for AI, very easy for human).

Good job proving that I am not an idiot.  You did that very well.  Thanks.  

I never was trying to argue that I am an idiot or that I play like an idiot, but it is at least helpful for you to verify that I am not and I don't.  

We all very much appreciate your efforts.  Run along, it's time for adults to talk to adults now.

The key thing in all of this is to try to maximize outcomes.  That means you want to win while using the fewest possible resources in the process.

If you have the choice between attacking (uses 0 mana) and buffing (uses > 0 mana) and the outcomes of both actions are the same (you win) then it is strictly better to save the mana and just attack.

This is the primary "fighting" stage I am talking about here, when victory is in question.  Once there is no question and victory is essentially guaranteed then for some people ending the game as quickly as possible becomes the primary concern.

In the fighting stage, being able to save X mana in fight Y and use it in fight Z can make a difference so if you could win with no buffs then it doesn't make sense to buff.  It is only when the buff causes you to use fewer resources in total over the course of the battle that it becomes worth using.

Something like Giant Form rarely leads to fewer resources being used.  It costs mana and it doesn't deal damage immediately. It is only 2 unit-turns later that you do better than breaking even.  More if you count the mana used.

When you abstract it all out to attack and defense ratios, the flaws become more obvious.  If you say, for example, that you have an army with 500 offense and 300 defense, is it really worth it to spend a turn in battle and to spend mana to temporarily make that a 550 offense and 300 defense army?  You have to have a pretty small army for the extra offense to dramatically impact your total damage output by doubling one unit's output.  The time when Giant Form is most effective is when you have an army size of 1 unit.

The game, though, doesn't really reward using small armies.  Armies are made for her pleasure, the bigger the better.  The whole nature of the game works to minimize the effectiveness of Giant Form.

@Raiddinn:

I used to think exactly how you do, however I do feel that the spell 'Haste' is an exception to your rule and deserves mention here.  I seem to often encounter situations lategame where I have 5+ air power from shards/wonders.  At this point, imo, haste (generally on your most powerful hero or unit) becomes a very worthwhile buff if you expect the fight to last more than a few more turns.  It costs very little mana but can increase your initiative by more than 50% and thus give you many more of that most valuable resource -- turns.  The non-mana cost is only one turn, often less than one turn if you aren't able to get to the enemy instantly (or if you can only reach targets that aren't of particularly high value to attack). I often find at this point that when my hero casts haste it gives him another turn immediately due to his increased initiative, making haste becomes essentially free turn-wise.  I feel that 3-5 mana is often a worthwhile trade in exchange for the tons of HP I am saving by killing the enemy so much more quickly. 

It bears mentioning that if the enemy only has one (or one significant) unit and my water power is equal to or greater than my air power I will instead slow that unit.

- WK

Really interesting discussion. Other than Haste I don't cast buffs very often, but that's mainly because I tend to play with Death/Air/Water mages. Life has Growth, Fire has Focus (incredibly cheap and +25% damage is probably worth using a turn). It's Earth who has the best buffs though. I agree the trade-off is between mana cost and other costs, particularly healing units or worse, having a high level unit die. In an average late game battle I might cast only Haste at a cost of 2 mana, and otherwise use free skills, because I can win the battle with minimal damage without casting anything else. In a more challenging battle I will decide whether I want to use a more expensive spell on the principle that it will mean I use less of other resources, i.e. I can kill the enemy faster, taking less damage myself. My play style means that a more expensive spell is generally Raise Skeleton Horde or Blizzard, but if you had an Earth mage it might be Giantform or Diamondskin. I'm not a huge of Diamondskin, the effect is over very quickly, and the spell is expensive, but Giantform is good.

I agree Mantle of the Oceans is important for getting the cost of spells down in general. In my case it makes a massive difference to the cost of spells like Blizzard and Kill. I'd always take a Water hero if I don't have Water already, just to get Freeze and Mantle of Oceans.

Yes, but it can still be worth casting if you have limited mana or nothing better to do.

E.g. melee hero moves towards enemy, not in contact with enemy, can choose to either use throwing knife or casting Focus, (not a Mage so casting ranged damage spells is ineffective and expensive), I'd argue casting Focus for +25% Attack for the rest of the battle is almost certainly the correct action.

or: I have 50 mana available; my best spell is Fireball which I cast for 30 mana in one turn. I would normally use Fireball as my first action to take out as many of the enemy ranged troops as possible. However I can only cast it once; provided I can act quickly enough (i.e. before the ranged troops act, which is perfectly possible with Haste or Command) it makes sense to cast Focus first to maximize the damage.

That's quite a specific case, but it's only an example. The principle applies to any battle which you expect to run out of mana, which I do quite regularly in close battles at the start of the game. Those battles tend to last a long time as well, so buffs which last indefinitely (potentially for ten or more actions if I have high initiative and it's a close battle) become much more worthwhile.