-
Yeah I guess what I was driving at would be some kind of VC related climax, where the AI would try to make a last stand (the way a human player might) before totally giving up the ghost haha. Right now they will usually just withdraw to preserve TUV, even if it's a capital territory being contested. Similarly with ships, the AI will often move away from home waters to try and save their existing naval TUV, even if doing so is ultimately futile, since without coastal production they have no way to reinforce themselves on the water or make use of their transports. Like, as sometimes happens, Japan will bounce away from Tokyo with their fleet only to try and pointlessly switch places with the USN somewhere off the coast of North America hehe.
I tend to agree though, most who play vs the AI are in it for the ultimate stomp down, not to eek out a technical win. So there's a limit to how useful VCs can be as a motivator for the AI.
-
It would be nice to see the AI value territories that controls canals, but maybe this is included in theredbarons proposal.
-
@Frostion I added value canal territories to the list. Best case would be to just have some default valuing for all canal territories but also potentially provide the ability per map to add 'value' to strategic territories like certain canal territories.
-
Since land and air transports (like trains and paratroopers) are tech (but you can give them to any players, since start, while having no tech development), would that mean that they have to wait since the AI is able to handle tech?
I've always believed that was wrong, as I think you should be able to say that something is able to trasport something without this having necessarily to be a tech (tho, it is easy getting around it, since you can just assign those techs since start to all, thus working just like normal unit attachment options).
It's kinda lame to play a game in which there are paratroopers if the AI can't use them. -
@theredbaron said in AI Development Discussion and Feedback:
Perhaps something to be considered would be some sort of AI.properties where certain AI objectives could be laid out on a map by map basis without affecting human vs. human gameplay. I've heard it said in the past that AI shouldn't go into the XML (perhaps that isn't true anymore), but it might be nice for some maps to have something to manipulate that would increase the AI's valuation of a territory even if it cannot understand why that territory is valuable. Just some food for thought...
That would be pretty cool. In a lot of instances you could accomplish quite a bit with just few critical tiles flagged as the "key to winning" on a given map. This might be better than making say all VCs a critical priority at all times, since, as was pointed out earlier, they are not always the most important thing going on. But some sea zones or territories are always going to be critical on a map (the choke points, or core production regions) so it would be cool if we could use them to push the AI into certain play patterns. It would also be awesome if you could set a threshold for these, so that the AI would try to hold them even if they are clearly outgunned. Like for Moscow or Berlin, or any capital that is adjacent to another land territory (the AI is better about stacking island capitals, since the they don't have a way to walk off haha.) Then map makers could tune the AI to the needs of the map, or try to adjust opening behavior by tweaking with the priority target territories, to see if they can make the machine play in different ways.
-
It's my 8 week updated war/gaming Youtube pick!;
How Heavy This Axe by The Sword
-
It's my 8 week updated war/gaming Youtube pick!;
Emerald Sword by Rhapsody of Fire (the song rox!!!!)
-
@black_elk said in AI Development Discussion and Feedback:
@theredbaron said in AI Development Discussion and Feedback:
Perhaps something to be considered would be some sort of AI.properties where certain AI objectives could be laid out on a map by map basis without affecting human vs. human gameplay. I've heard it said in the past that AI shouldn't go into the XML (perhaps that isn't true anymore), but it might be nice for some maps to have something to manipulate that would increase the AI's valuation of a territory even if it cannot understand why that territory is valuable. Just some food for thought...
That would be pretty cool. In a lot of instances you could accomplish quite a bit with just few critical tiles flagged as the "key to winning" on a given map. This might be better than making say all VCs a critical priority at all times, since, as was pointed out earlier, they are not always the most important thing going on. But some sea zones or territories are always going to be critical on a map (the choke points, or core production regions) so it would be cool if we could use them to push the AI into certain play patterns. It would also be awesome if you could set a threshold for these, so that the AI would try to hold them even if they are clearly outgunned. Like for Moscow or Berlin, or any capital that is adjacent to another land territory (the AI is better about stacking island capitals, since the they don't have a way to walk off haha.) Then map makers could tune the AI to the needs of the map, or try to adjust opening behavior by tweaking with the priority target territories, to see if they can make the machine play in different ways.
This has been the main issue with the AI that I have had as well. Even in maps that are not won by VC you still have to control your capital in order to produce new units, and the AI is more interested in protecting its troops than its capital. All you have to do is move a large army close to the capital leaving a route for them to escape and they leave their capital undefended. Also the AI is not that keen on taking enemy capitals or re-conquering their own once they are taken. It is a easy win to out produce them when they are not producing.
No, no one wants a technical loss to VC but more value needs to be added to Capitals across the board, for the AI to play more like a human.
In addition once the stacks get big on a large map the AI becomes stagnant, not attacking even smaller stacks next to them. I wonder if placing more value on taking other factions out would correct this.
-
@justbleh I've played the AI tons on the WWIIClassic map and the AI primarily plays with the overall strategy of "losing small battles but winning the war" mentality (mentality ... what irony!) and by that, I mean the AI can summarize its complete overall analytical strength and forfeit its capitals because the AI knows it has the literal numbers to defeat other objectives and eventually take back any lost capitals it temporarily lost. Redrum the developer could better explain this to you but the only true weakness of the AI right now are the "can opener" moves that only exist because Axis and Allies is a turn-order based game and so multiple player/country moves can put the AI in a disadvantaged circumstance but overall I consider the current AI as very competitive and I do not yet see what suggestion you are giving to improve the current AI! Redrum should give more details to your concern that I'm interested to read but I don't know what tweak you want to specifically change to the AI and that reminds me I did suggest that we have a thread dedicated to "AI tweaks" that players submit with an AI that they have tweaked that is better than Redrums that we can test out and see who can submit the hardest AI to battle! All still interesting and always a good topic
-
Alright its my 8 week updated "war/gaming" Youtube video pick!
This one goes out to the "Low Luck Dice" option users!
Lucky Man by Emerson, Lake, and Palmer;
-
The AI is competitive, I agree, although once ousted from their capital it is easy to out produce them, inevitably winning. More importance on the capitals is what I was saying in my previous post.
The main tweak I would suggest would be to allow production as long as a capital was in their control, not necessarily their starting capital; and limited production as long as a factory is still in their control.
-
@justbleh There is a balance as staying in your capital where you are clearing going to be wiped out isn't useful. There is a balance in the AI understanding the value of their capital. If you have some save games showing where the AI didn't defend their capital as much as they should have please upload them so I can take a look.
-
It's my 8 week updated war/gaming Youtube pick!;
This one goes out to the AI developer(s)!
It's Tricky by RUN DMC;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-O5IHVhWj0
(when the AI is officially done maybe I'll start an "AI tweek challenge" thread and post my 8 week war/gaming Youtube picks there maybe)
-
Been a while, but I had some time to play Iron War vs the AI last night so thought I'd check in and say what's up. Predictably the start of the kid's new school year, rescuing a dog, and then the lady in crushing new nursing schedule has all conspired to reduce my tripleA game time. But a face to face game of global over the weekend had my interest in tripleA piqued once again hehe. Hope all has been going well!
Anyhow, here is a quick save as the German block (+Balkans and Finland) vs everyone else Hard AI. Overall was pretty pleased with the AI performance of my teammates and enemies. The IJN held there own in the far east, and Africa was a hotbed as usual. The game was cruising along until the 1945 (12th round) when the Germans were finally able to trap and destroy the combined Allied fleet in the Med. You can see here how we back them through Gibraltar then closed the strait and smoked 'em.
It had me thinking, something that might help the AI to stay more competitive on the water is a bit more destroyer/blocker screening. I guess this would be similar to what the AI already does on land, where it often leaves an infantry unit behind to block the blitz path, except in this case using destroyers to disrupt movement across the sea lanes.
Generally the AI fleets will mass together, and if they come under threat will back away the full distance giving up a strategic position to try preserve TUV. But there are a lot of instances where a relatively cheap blocker left behind would allow the AI to remain in place rather than withdraw, or to withdraw more effectively, by restricting their enemy's combat options. Taken to the extreme this sort of block and screen strategy from the AI would likely involve a fair amount of naval TUV sacrificed over time, but I think in the long run might make it more challenging.
I used the last stable build (the one currently available from front page of the main site.) I like how this one just updated my install, that's a nice feature.
-
Here is a similar sort of situation, again in Iron War, this time as USA vs the HardAI.
In this instance we conquered Truk, parking a large US invasion fleet within striking distance of Tokyo in the process. Rather than abandoning the capital and pulling the IJN away from the fight, it would have been possible for the Japanese AI to leave a blocker or two in the sea zone around Wake, and prevent the attack altogether. At the least it would stall the outcome by a round, or force the Allies to try and can open with a weaker power. Even if the Japanese threw a couple ships away each round to set up pickets and screen against a USN advance, it would be a cheaper sacrifice in the long run to lose some destroyers but gain another round to build and maneuver.
-
@black_elk Yeah, the AI currently doesn't try to use cheap naval ships as blockers. Its on the list of things to enhance but isn't an easy thing to implement. But thanks for the feedback and save game examples.
-
For sure. Its tricky because at sea it doesnt make as much sense to constantly leave blockers behind or try to occupy every sz the same way nations try to occupy land. At least not in a human vs human situation. Still, as a generalized strategy of the AI, I wonder how it would play out if they always tried to keep a cheap surface ship in every sea zone? Or in coastal sea zones at least. In Iron war sometimes the AI dupes itself into leaving patrol boats behind (because of their movement) or a transport, which can present entertaining challenges, but its more by accident than any grand designs of the enemy's AI admiral hehe.
Anyhow, just something to muse on. For the most part the AI is pretty efficient at shuffling around the globe, but that's one place where it gets tripped up with the big fleets.
-
@black_elk Yeah, every SZ or even coastal SZ is probably way too much. My initial thought was to check if leaving a cheap ship in any SZ adjacent to large allied or enemy fleets allows to either save the fleet or position it more aggressively.
-
@redrum Does AI currently recognize that a canal with it ability to block an entire enemy fleet. Is a viable option worth looking at? When considering defense of it's fleets or coastal territories threatened by enemy fleet.
-
@general_zod It doesn't consider conquering a land territory to close a canal in order to block enemy fleets. It does recognize whether canals are open/closed when calculating potential enemy attacks though. Considering canal 'value' is something that is on the list and I'll clarify that a bit.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login