AI Development Discussion and Feedback
pact_of_plastic last edited by pact_of_plastic
My reoccurring concerns and applause for AI have consistently been the following:
1: Rather foolish or completely suicidal Allied placement and/or movement of transports while under heavy pressure. The poor/suicidal choices seem to escalate the more AI struggles. (The worst I've seen was in Pact of Steel China added WWII V3 where AI placed 4 undefended transports in range of an enemy sub having no chance of being neutralized before the sub could attack (and no apparent better option for the sub or forseen means of defense to arrive before the sub could attack).
2: in some maps, poor analytical choices in regards to how much or if at all to repair an industrial complex. I've mostly not kept track of which maps/versions apply to repair decision quality (however the map Pact of Steel China added WWII V3 seemed to make decent decisions regarding repair or lack of repair of an industrial complex [unlike most other maps] since they often just repair max damage despite the repair being either futile or a poor decision).
The poor placement/use of transports is by far #1 crippling the AI. I've noticed this issue often arises when France/Western Europe are well defended, Algeria isn't a good option and the allies will send undefended transports to attack Norway or other northern territories. I haven't read this whole thread and offer apology if this post is redundant as well as my lack of details regarding other maps. I play alot of various maps vs AI and have noticed these general patterns in various maps though have finally noticed a control group where more extreme aspects of both issues (good and bad) can be found in this single game attached (the map being Pact of Steel V3 China added) and hope the observation helps to either embrace and/or correct any scripts and apply changes to maps in general.
- list itemuse bad placement rd 4.tsvg
@pact_of_plastic Thanks for the feedback and save game. Here are some thoughts:
So the issue here is that the AI bought 4 transports and incorrectly anticipated killing the japanese sub off Alaska (this is essentially the AI not fully understanding v3 sub rules and that they can submerge before battle). Then after the japanese sub doesn't die, it has no safe place to put them since the US east coast is also exposed. So no real good option.
Yeah, the AI repair logic is very basic and essentially usually just repairs the full amount. This is something that just needs improved.
There are probably other cases of poor transport decisions but this one in particular is actually just a misunderstanding of v3 sub rules. If you have other save games showing examples please add them here.
Once that is merged, you can test with the latest pre-release but beware its not save game compatible with the current stable release.
pact_of_plastic last edited by pact_of_plastic
Thanks for the timely reply and work on the issue fix. I look forward to it's full implementation and being able to save games with the fix in effect.
Here is another game where the US could have made a better decision. It seems the US took a VC or possibly national objectives as priority, despite projection of power and ojbectives being disabled. It's pretty clear the US xport should have taken undefended Australia instead of attacking a defended Borneo, and probably should have had plans to follow up by attacking undefended New Guinea, or attempting to take Borneo or East Indies. If not that strategy, the US could have sent in a fighter to aid the 2 infantry, consider a bombard in addition to the attack, as well and in turn protect it's xport with the rest of it's navy from the Japanese sub and it probably would have won the Borneo battle with New Guinea and Australia to follow up on easily. I understand the US was probably considering heading toward UK and didn't want to waste the movement, however in rd 6, they actually attempted an attack on Japan instead and they very well may have won that if they sent more power to Borneo and defended the xport in rd 4. It just seems they should have dealt with the whole situation a bit better. The US often bounces around and lacks focus. UK does it too and I'm sure it's hard as hell to script but in the end if they stayed focused a bit more they'd generally be more effective at least vs my play style. I really appreciate all the work you guys put into this game. Thanks a ton! us bad decision.tsvg
@pact_of_plastic Definitely an interesting choice by the US in this case. There are a few separate areas here around attacking Borneo vs Australia:
- The AI sees being in the Borneo sea zone as more strategic than down by Australia so that it has more options the following turn
- Borneo is worth more than Australia (4 > 3)
- AI believes its odds on Borneo are fairly good when it uses its cruiser to bombard
Now there is a bug where the AI aborts bombarding for v3 transport rules (transports having no casualty/defense) if enemy ships are within range. So the AI expects to attack borneo with 2 inf and bombard with the cruiser but the bug cancels the bombard leaving the odd behavior. I've put a PR to fix this: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/5531
Ideally the AI would also use its fighter but this is more complex as the AI is overly conservative with landing on carriers and doesn't commit to moving its carrier til NCM so won't use the fighter since its can't guarantee its safe landing.
I think most human players go for Australia but Borneo with 2 inf, 1 fighter, and cruiser bombard is probably equal choice. The bombard bug will be fixed in the next release. The air is a much more complex problem is solve.
I've a game (derived from 270BC) with these main charateristics:
- There is a factory in every territory, capturable, able to place up to territory value (just your regular WW2 factory, except ubiquitous and granted). This factory is valued 0.
- Most units (all except 2, and half of the players don't have any of them) require a unit to be placed; the only thing this unit does is being required for placement, by most units; this unit is a costruction, you can purchase and place (at all effects, for the units requiring this unit to be placed, such unit acts exactly like a regular factory would), and all players start with one in a valuable territory.
- The unit not requiring any units to be placed (meaning only requiring those factories present in all territories) are absolutely or relatively weaker than the other units; so much that you would virtually never buy them, if they didn't have this placement advantage.
- There are no capitals.
The concept is, practically, the same as saying that you have many units you can place with factories, but you have also a few underpowered units that you can place with no factory in the territory.
For example, at the same price, you can place a att-def-mov=1-2-1 unit that requires a costly construction unit in the territory, for placement, or you can place a att-def-mov=1-1-1 unit that can be placed in any territories you owned since start turn (by factories that are simply present in each territory on the map).
The AI has 3 main problems with this game:
- It never purchases the unit required for most units to be placed (even in the case of those players that can only purchase units requiring such unit for placement).
- It way too much prefer purchasing the units that have no special placement requirement, if the player has any of them, even to the point of purchasing less other better units than what it could already place (as every player starts with such a required unit in a valuable territory), and often actually purchasing none of them.
- Eventually, it often starts stacking increasing quantities of units in some territories away from the enemy, never using them, unless enemy units get close enough.
Those problems are really very bad, and the AI gameplay is, at its current state, almost entirely broken.
@Cernel Correct. The AI doesn't currently support that because there are very few or no maps with those features.
Captain Crunch last edited by
wow now Cernel is sounding like Shulz amiright