-
I am wondering if it is possible to have the AI from previous version. I.E. If i design a single player map balanced for the current AI, I probably want a way for it to still be relevant in the future.
-
About "Show Hard AI Logs"
Where do those Efficiency numbers come from?
For example Infantry
Movement=1
Attack=1
Defense=1
PU-cost=4
HP-Efficiency=0.4
Att-Efficiency=1.5
Def-Effiecieny=1.75How?
-
@pithief said in AI Development Discussion and Feedback:
Of note, I believe the new 2.1.20365 engine does not build new factories anymore, at least under certain maps. Previously played through a couple games under the scenarios The Rising Sun (Map v. 1.9.3) and 270BC (map v. 1.7.0) using the 1.9 engine and the AI would build plenty of factories or cities. We all updated and now they don't.
Hope this is the right place to put this. Also, ya'll have done great things with and for this game!
I second that. Unfortunately, AI doesn't build factories any more like it did. I am a WAW player. It's no fun anymore...
-
@Mora said in AI Development Discussion and Feedback:
@pithief said in AI Development Discussion and Feedback:
Of note, I believe the new 2.1.20365 engine does not build new factories anymore, at least under certain maps. Previously played through a couple games under the scenarios The Rising Sun (Map v. 1.9.3) and 270BC (map v. 1.7.0) using the 1.9 engine and the AI would build plenty of factories or cities. We all updated and now they don't.
Hope this is the right place to put this. Also, ya'll have done great things with and for this game!
I second that. Unfortunately, AI doesn't build factories any more like it did. I am a WAW player. It's no fun anymore...
Is there any dev willing to look into this issue? Or at least just identify the issue?
I have no idea if this issue is posted at Github.
By the way, a bug like this really hinders map development, besides messing with the single player experience, especially for maps that utilize the AI in some way.
-
-
I am wondering what the priority is for getting the AI to handle resources besides PUs very well. Thanks!
-
AFAIK the biggest priority is for factory purchases to be brought back.
@redrum , do you remember the background on why AI stopped purchasing factories? -
@LaFayette I was more wondering like short term, mid term, long term.
Because I know a lot of maps don't use them, some like Warcraft the AI can handle them ok based on how they are implemented. Others like fuel on iron war they just smash their heads into the wall.
-
@ff03k64 I don't want to discourage discussion here, however TBH our labor capacity is critically overstretched these days. Therefore certainly not short-term, probably not even medium term
-
@LaFayette That's fine. I am just trying to decide how to design my map, and if this is a ways off, i will probably use triggers to get desired performance out of the AI.
I don't want to duplicate requests, do we know if it is on the feature request page? I am terrible at search, and don't want to go through the hundred posts that i get to see if they are remotely what this is.
-
I think AI handling alternative resource types exists as a feature request, but TBH I'm not completely sure it is.
-
@LaFayette said in AI Development Discussion and Feedback:
I think AI handling alternative resource types exists as a feature request, but TBH I'm not completely sure it is.
I don't see it listed. @ff03k64 you can make a request one thread above this one.
Ahh I see you already made one. Please disregard
-
If the community would be willing to fund for better AI, it could be achieved with way cheaper costs actually.
For example, I could contact with developers in my area for this task if the community could determine a budget.
-
@Schulz dev's cost usually around $60-$100/hr. Any new dev is going to take 10-20 hours just to ramp up on the code before they start doing anything. Bug fixes require anywhere from 1-5 hours each, sometimes more. Small/moderate features will be in the 5-60 hours range.
So, a new dev will be about $1000 just to get up to speed. Each bug is going to cost $500.
I am actively discouraging paying developers, it'll cost a lot. Furthermore, code is an ongoing cost, if they plop stuff down and walk away, what happens if there are bugs when it comes time to release and we roll all the code back because they are not around to fix it? What happens when later we want more tweaks and we are out of budget?
If we can sell dev's to contribute and donate their time, because this is good experience for them and working on AI is interesting, that will be much more valuable. Development labor is generally just too costly. (Perhaps it'll make sense why for the last 4 years I've been focused on trying to make the developers more efficient and not having to spend time on things like map uploads, or why I say that developer time is the most scarce and valuable thing we have for this project).
-
Addendum, general labor, labor is the most valuable thing for this project, of any type!
If there are developers out there half inclined, I do think one could make a pretty compelling argument to become engaged on this project. It certainly has helped me professionally, there are a number of things I learned working on TripleA that I brought in to work the next week or even the next day. It's also a nice change of pace and rewarding to be able to work on something of interest to you and that goes on to be used and enjoyed by one of the best gaming communities there are.
-
Contested territories (which can occur as a result of limiting land combat to a fixed number of rounds, ex=3) seems to be causing trouble to the AI fighter management:
The following issues have been observed:- sending planes without the supporting infantry (blocked in the contested territory).
- not rebasing fighter after combat because they cannot land in the planned destination (contested), even though other destinations were in range.
I've also posted an issue about a quite frequent Air Battle error popup message (with AI attacker)
-
I played a game of Iron War with a lot of AI players and observed some pretty bad behavior.
Britain kept building transports & units out of Western Canada, but these just sat in the bay without doing anything, just accumulating over 16 rounds:
Russia was getting beat up a lot, but they kept building air transport planes instead of something like infantry:
EDIT: Britain was also building a lot of Air Transport planes in the England and not using them for anything. It's probably not the right thing for them to be building, but at least once built, they could have used their 13 air transports to land units in Africa - or straight up to land units in France.
EDIT 2: Reading the game notes, it looks like the Air transports might be coming from "Allied Airfields" that produce them each turn. OK, in that case it's not an AI decision to build them, but that the AI is not using them effectively (e.g. as Britain) is a bug.
Germany was buying a good amount of AA guns and at some point brought 13 of them to the front and attacked with them:
In general, Russia was messing around all over the map, such as going to Africa, Middle East, etc. and badly losing its Western Front.
-
@redrum You did it
Pact of Steel 2 AI will now all but abandon a doomed and devastated IC without repairing. Great work, thanks! -
Been a hot minute here, but I was curious, do you guys think the HardAI or FastAI should get a different name now?
I mean when work first began on tripleA, "HardAI" was an obvious euphemism. Even in like 2017 when this thread was started I think we could still kinda smile and nod at the notion of a HAL 9000 or TripleA Skynet. But now that things are moving apace in that arena, ever since they came for the visual artists first, I've been a bit more T2 in my attitude. That just seemed like a low blow and hitting too close to home hehe. We'll remember that one Skynet!
But now, ya know, we got these chats and like writer's guild strikes on it, and people I think have a different sense of it now. Might make sense to just call it "Computer" or "Redrum" or something? I'm sure at some point, HardAI might actually go the whole nine, and at that point like none of us will be able to beat it. We'll be handicapping the machine instead of the other way round lol. Like I'm not sure how I'll feel about it when that happens, cause probably not only will the HardAI be able to beat us reliably, but it might even come with some chat trash-talk algorithm built-in to salt the wound after it wins heheh. I can picture it saying "Taste It! I win! Haha but no seriously, GG. Better luck next time " before logging off. But I mean more in the now, I feel like "Computer" would be a bit more accurate for what it is. Just a random thought. Obviously I love it. It's given me hours and hours of entertainment! -
@black_elk From a computational point of view, Axis & Allies is much more complicated than Go or Chess. There was an attempt to use a neural net to play Risk a few years ago, and it played poorly.
The Fast AI is actually better in some situations than the Hard AI. It is more aggressive than the Hard AI sometimes.
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