-
For the AI cheats, that really need some refinements, my suggestion is to firstly improve the "AI Bonus Income Percentage"; the three main items are, all of them necessary:
-
Having it given upon collecting PUs and any resources, based on what received, also from capture, NOs and whatever sources adding resources, not based on the PUs you have, because it currently keeps multiplying the saved income.
-
Having it detracted when capturing income from the AI (meaning that if it is 25%, I will only capture 80% of the income AI players have, upon taking capitals) (AI capturing AI would get all income; as above, AI capturing not-AI would be get the bonus, instead).
-
Having it increasing the AI placement abilities of the same percentage (very important, imo).
-
-
@Captain-Crunch I have lots of ideas though I think the next thing on my list is improving AI bonus settings.
@Cernel I'm going to start a separate thread on AI bonus settings to discuss this and lay out what I'm thinking. I strongly agree with your first point. I see what you are getting at for the second point though I don't think its really that important. For the third point, I haven't really thought about increasing placement limits by the same amount but that does make sense (otherwise the AI often struggles to spend the additional income). I'll have to think about that some and take a look at the code to see how easy that would be to do.
-
I think priority for targeting or defending VCs should definitely be at the top of the list. Basically where the AI does everything it can to capture VCs or prevent the enemy from doing so in a given round.
Since many games have Victory conditions that are based on controlling a certain number of VCs at the end of the game round, it seems like a pretty important feature for the AI. There would also be some overlap there with prioritizing capitals and objectives (since those are often VC territories) so would be a nice place to start.
-
@Black_Elk said in AI Development Discussion and Feedback:
I think priority for targeting or defending VCs should definitely be at the top of the list. Basically where the AI does everything it can to capture VCs or prevent the enemy from doing so in a given round.
Since many games have Victory conditions that are based on controlling a certain number of VCs at the end of the game round, it seems like a pretty important feature for the AI. There would also be some overlap there with prioritizing capitals and objectives (since those are often VC territories) so would be a nice place to start.
Maybe it could be hacked that the AI doesn't actually think about it, but when, at start turn, it has a major chance to get the needed VC and keep till end round, then it goes for it. I tend to think VC should not make you play very differently, until the last moment. Actually, VC driven victories got very little favour both with custom maps and players, as I believe most mapmakers and players just prefer to fight till someone is obviously the winner, for raw stats (in custom maps, often VC are totally absent or set at a value to just formalise an achieved victory, like we did in the new WaW (I believe any games should have some kind of victory conditions, even if not supposed to be ever reached, before the other side surrenders)).
There is also the consideration that the game is usually about beating the AI, not being beated by it, so I'm not sure how many people would ever play on till seeing the AI actually winning by VC. Probably a bigger item would be the AI making the last stand for not losing by VC too early. -
@redrum I think support for land and air transports (which is a subset of tech, but you can have it without tech development) should be in the list; I think that land transports are really cool (look at the trains of Domination WeltPolitik), except that they are not used much, maybe also because not AI supported (Feudal Japan is meant to be played with AI and has horse transports, as an assigned tech, while not having tech development).
-
@Cernel said in AI Development Discussion and Feedback:
@Black_Elk said in AI Development Discussion and Feedback:
I think priority for targeting or defending VCs should definitely be at the top of the list. Basically where the AI does everything it can to capture VCs or prevent the enemy from doing so in a given round.
Since many games have Victory conditions that are based on controlling a certain number of VCs at the end of the game round, it seems like a pretty important feature for the AI. There would also be some overlap there with prioritizing capitals and objectives (since those are often VC territories) so would be a nice place to start.
Maybe it could be hacked that the AI doesn't actually think about it, but when, at start turn, it has a major chance to get the needed VC and keep till end round, then it goes for it. I tend to think VC should not make you play very differently, until the last moment. Actually, VC driven victories got very little favour both with custom maps and players, as I believe most mapmakers and players just prefer to fight till someone is obviously the winner, for raw stats (in custom maps, often VC are totally absent or set at a value to just formalise an achieved victory, like we did in the new WaW (I believe any games should have some kind of victory conditions, even if not supposed to be ever reached, before the other side surrenders)).
There is also the consideration that the game is usually about beating the AI, not being beated by it, so I'm not sure how many people would ever play on till seeing the AI actually winning by VC. Probably a bigger item would be the AI making the last stand for not losing by VC too early.This is essentially what I plan to do. Have checks if the AI is either close to losing or winning in terms of VCs and only then take it into account.
@Black_Elk @Cernel I think VCs actually aren't that important as most games either don't really use them or the game is already decided by the time they come into play (but there are a few that do actually use them especially in unbalanced map where say the Axis needs to try and win quickly). I think the bigger impact would be objectives as those make a major difference on lots of maps but are fairly complex as they very a lot across maps.
-
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...
-
@theredbaron Yep, I haven't decided if it would be in the game XML or a separate properties/XML file but it is already on the list as "Add per map XML AI configuration".
-
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.
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