-
@redrum Couldn't you hack this by designing a special unit that doesn't require a placement? (Just an idea)
-
@hepps Yeah that would work. There are probably other ways to do it as well like triggering extra factories, production per factory, etc before the place phase.
-
Can be tested in this pre-release: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/releases/tag/1.9.0.0.10558
-
Hurra! Nice update
-
@redrum Just messing around with xml, experimenting... it seems that Hard AI doesn't recognize a production facility unless it is an infrastructure. I changed a factory to have canProduceUnits, canProduceXUnits=-1, immobile land noninfrastructure construction. Humans and Easy AI can produce units, but Hard AI only sees an empty list of territories for placement (according to the log).
-
@alkexr Hmm. I know the AI won't purchase non-infra factories but thought it could at least see them as potential placement spots. I thought I tested that on 270bc which uses legions but could be wrong. If you have an example map to test glad to take a look.
-
@redrum Calling it a map would be a bit of an exaggeration... this is a copied version of a map of mine for all sorts of xml experiments. I think I restored all previous experiments before trying this. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1T8QwATSzqb1SQgaSbDeqrZWwF5n2afTQ
"For the world is changing: I feel it in the water, I feel it in the earth, and I smell it in the air."
-
@redrum So now the AI also places movement 0 units? Because legionaire in 270BC can place only forts.
EDIT: Actually, the legio of 270BC would be a peculiar example, in that such unit should really receive no bonus (or maybe like a 0.05) to its value for being able to place units (limited to fort). It is rather the fort that should be valued a little bit more for being placeable by the legio, thus not only in cities (main example is placing some forts in Messana without a city in it). It would be really wrong if the AI would build significantly more legios due to the fact that they have some placement ability, in this case (really, it boosts the fort, not really the legio).
-
@cernel Yeah, I had it mixed up. I had tested 270bc to make sure the AI didn't place legions as factories since they can only place forts. When purchasing/placing factories, the AI doesn't have a sense of 'what units a factory can build' yet since it was mostly created around A&A maps. Whether a factory is infra shouldn't really matter but that limitation was put in since a few maps have regular units that can build a very limited set of units like legions and I didn't want the AI to see them as factories.
That being said, if it has non-isInfra factory units then it should consider placing units on them so I'll have to look at that.
-
@redrum That sounds great and would really mean a lot for future maps and how compatible the AI is.
-
@alkexr Here is the PR: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/3645
I tested your LAB map before the changes where the AI doesn't place any units since cities are non-infra and then after the AI places normally just like if they were infra factories.
I also tested 270BC since that was the main map that had non-infra factories that caused issues. I needed to add some additional checks when purchasing/placing sea units so that each factory adjacent to a sea territory is treated separately instead of just adding their production together. Otherwise the AI thinks legions add 1 production to sea territories to produce boats.
This change also should help support maps that have different types of factories (think barracks and shipyard) adjacent to the same sea territory as the AI should now consider each of their production and what they can produce separately.
-
With 1.9.0.0.11638, starting "Red Sun Over China" with Hard AI, the AI always attacks Liaocheng (that I think is a good decision), but does it with insufficient forces (basically a suicide).
I guess the AI correctly sees that is a good attack, with an over +20 swing, but then fails to actually send everything it can, in the moment of actually moving.
On top of that, it also retreats to Tsinan, that is the worst decision.
Not including a savegame as I believe you can see it by just assigning Nationalist to Hard AI and starting.
Probably this is such an unconventional map that people will want to try it out with AI before playing for real, so this may be worth figuring out.
For info, you can (IMO should) go in Liaocheng with:
6 infantry
1 conscript
13 elite
3 light artillery
4 heavy artillery
6 armour
1 fighter
So I believe that's what the AI should do all games. -
@cernel I think the AI doesn't handle land canals properly yet. So it ends up not being able to construct appropriate routes to move all the units so some of them fail.
-
@redrum That is probably the case for not sending the fighter, but for the remaining part what happens when I test it, nor it should matter in any ways as, even if the AI would know nothing about canals, canals are negative, so when they are all open the AI doesn't need to know they exist (thus only case is the fighter blocked by the rail canals). Also was surprised that the AI (differently from the autoselect) correctly picks the heavy_artillery instead of the elite for land transport.
All the times I've tested it, the issue is that the AI is not sending all units from Tsinan and Lungkow, that I think has nothing at all to do with canals (the canals are not allowing you to jump the city; they are possibly impeding you to do that).
Also I really believe the retreat choice is a separate issue, that can be a problem also in case of correct movement but getting diced, as it seems the AI is unable to see the safest spot to retreat to. -
@cernel Yeah, retreat is a separate calculation and does have some logic to pick which territory though never optimized it a ton as the AI doesn't end up retreating that often (usually only when things go really badly). I'll take a look at this eventually. First I want to work on improving the route finder as that impacts PvP games on it then I'll work on improving the AI.
-
Hey I have an AI suggestion from a statisticians perspective.
Basically - if you are in a desperate position, attacking when its a 25% chance of victory sort of thing can be a very good idea. If time is not on your side, a desperate attack is good. That said, if you could code hard AI to be more willing to attack when their alliance has lower production than their enemy does or in other definable desperate situations. Example - if you are backed up to your capital (or other strategically important position) and your odds of victory on attack are higher than on defense, attack no matter the odds of victory on attack.
There's also often situations (when low luck is off) where defeat is probable or expected TUV swing is negative but expected TUV swing in round 1 is positive. In these circumstances an attack and then retreat maneuver is a good idea. This is especially the case with low luck off where if the first round goes very well, the second round might be worth attacking in and you can just keep going until you need to retreat.
Anything to make hard AI harder
-
@scallen1 So at a high level both suggestions are good. Thoughts:
-
Its very difficult to determine when you are in a desperate position across all rules/maps. And even when you are, its hard to determine if its better to attack or delay. That being said from more limited scope, if say the AI realizes it has no where left to run and has better odds/TUV to attack rather than defend then it probably should. Overall, I don't think this happens that often in games but gathering some specific save games would be helpful.
-
Yeah, this is usually referred to as 'strafing' by most players. The AI will do this already but only in the case where it is trying to setup one of its allies to then attack the weaken territory. It doesn't do it just for TUV trades yet and is something I'd like to add.
-
-
@redrum I don't know if I've ever clearly noticed a "nowhere left to run" scenario for the AI but every time I play as germany on any map I'm guaranteed to eventually run into this in the Baltic.
Desperate may not be the best way to describe things. In a vanilla WW2 game, Germany should see a 50 50 as a time to attack. Russia should see it as a time to defend cause time is not on their side. And I think you can generalise "time is not on my side" when ratio of production is like Idk greater than 5/4. You could put some small tolerance of attack when slightly disadvantaged (say if TUV swing is > -5% of combined TUV under the condition that your PUs per turn are much lower.because this usually means the situation is the best it is going to get.
However if the AI actively tried to bleed (straffe) the human player you might remove the need for this except in last stand scenarios. And Last stand scenarios aren't things that probably have much impact on the overall game more than very rarely.
-
@scallen1 So TUV comparisons are a tough because of the variety of maps. Some maps have lots of infrastructure units or give free units or have units sets that some nations have more efficient units, etc. The TUV of alliances on those maps means very little at a high level. Open up Civil War if you want to see what I mean.
But yeah straffing is much more applicable and more tactical to figure out.
-
@redrum Ok makes sense. (yes civil war is a great example. I haven't put in the effort to learn that entire game and I imagine the AI is pretty bad at it)
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