@husky81 Jev is really speaking to me on this as well but I don't know. Jev's set up seems much better over all suited to axis and allies. Just a thought!

@husky81 that is amazing! I had fable 5.1 and opus. What did was had Fable play some games and then export the games fable played to a triplea save file that I could open and then verify. I was able to look at the buys and the attacks and if transports were moving. Now there might be other ways that you know of that I don't. The project is a near PhD level project and if you can get it to work your name will go down in history as the 1st person to do so! That is how hard this is to do. It was really beyond me. I believe in you though! AI is getting good! After you get all the good data you can then move it over to a local LLM and that is where the good stuff is for our community! Peoples play would increase leaps and bounds. If you need help or want colab let me know I can lend a hand to help!

@RogerCooper said:

mplex co

Thank you for this note. I have seen that empirically. In testing the two in game ai's perform similarly. I was not fully aware of what made hard "better", but the ability to handle customized combat rules makes a lot of sense. I was aware that it simulated alot of battles.

On maps that are similar to the published A&A games, the Hard AI is only modestly better than the Fast AI. The Hard AI superiority is in games with more complex combat systems, where the simulation of the actual battles is a substantial advantage.