AI Suitability
-
@RogerCooper i had rarely seen ai buy gas before as well not sure if I ever saw it buy trenches before but it definitely buys them now
-
I will like to see the AI ignore neutral players, right now they see neutral players as targets and stack up crazy. e.g. WW1 maps where neutrals enter the war in staggered rounds. I see
50 units waiting to conquer a neutral with 10 units. -
@RogerCooper Nice topic
Do you have a hidden agenda? like to gather info on “the current state of the AI and how it handles”? Maybe you will work on a "what to improve list" to post at GitHub? That would be sweet
Or is the purpose of this thread purely to get tips and tricks on how to optimize map XMLs to most effectively accommodate the current AI?
Map maker of: Star Wars: Galactic War + Star Wars: Tatooine War + Caribbean Trade War + Dragon War + Age of Tribes + Star Trek: Dilithium War + Iron War + Iron War: Europe + Warcraft: War Heroes
-
@Lord-Bevan said in AI Suitability:
I will like to see the AI ignore neutral players, right now they see neutral players as targets and stack up crazy. e.g. WW1 maps where neutrals enter the war in staggered rounds. I see
50 units waiting to conquer a neutral with 10 units.An interesting problem. I wonder whether the political relationships can be managed so a neutral is ignored.
-
@Frostion said in AI Suitability:
@RogerCooper Nice topic
Do you have a hidden agenda? like to gather info on “the current state of the AI and how it handles”? Maybe you will work on a "what to improve list" to post at GitHub? That would be sweet
Or is the purpose of this thread purely to get tips and tricks on how to optimize map XMLs to most effectively accommodate the current AI?
The later. The current AI is optimized for the A&A boardgames and we can't expect it to handle every weird thing a scenario designer can come up with. I can see some things being improved in AI but we are not going to have an AI successfully analyze when you should declare war.
The basic objective is to create a fun-to-play scenario that the AI can handle any nation with, that it is as close to the designer's original intentions as possible.
-
If somebody has a scenario they like, but they AI does not play well, post about it here and I will try to come up with an AI-suitable version.
-
The standard purchase/combat move turn structures slows the AI. Putting combat move first is better, without actual impacting game play.
Where to put purchase then? After non-combat i guess?
-
@rogercooper Could you take a look for Aggression 1941?
-
@torpedoa yes, "purchasing before combat" or "PBC" is an option every map should have imo. i think a version of "1941" has that option, to me it makes sense, cause i can see where i moved everything and know exactly what to buy, it is especially useful when buying for navies.
-
@schulz The AI seems oddly unaggressive on land. I will investigate. My guess is that the AA ability of most units is confusing the AI.
That is type of AI bug which should be fixed in the game engine. A workaround would be put an immobile, capturable AA gun in every territory.
-
@rogercooper said in AI Suitability:
The AI is good at determining what attacks will succeed and avoiding dangerous counterattacks. It has no strategic judgement other than defend your capitals and factories and move toward enemy capitals.
So does that mean that if i put more capitals on some AI owned territories, the AI will be "stimulated" to care exceptionally more about that territory?
And by putting more allied/player capitals i can "stimulate" the AI do go for specific areas on the map?
My map atm for my 149BC Mod
-
Yes, capitals will cause the AI to try to capture the area, defend the area and move towards the area.
I did a mod of the Axis & Allies: D-Day game and until I made the victory objectives capitals, the AI was unaggressive.
-
@rogercooper I would like to learn if it is easy to fix it in the game engine. I am considering to add a version with full AI compatible.
Giving every territory AA is a bit problematic because I wouldn't want to use them due to scarce placement spots especially in Europe.
Bringing back v3 aaGun's is another issue. With that Air and naval costs will have been increased which I don't want. Because whole point is keeping them as cheap as possible to have higher variety and reversibilty.
-
@torpedoa Are you sure you want to use the NWO map for an Ancient scenario? Beside having to rename all territories (but here I don't believe there is any well named map for the scenario anyways), New World Order is a very well known map with quite clearly "Cold War" era borders. I would not even consider using it for a World War 2 game, really. I suppose you will cut the North America continent and most of the Atlantic Ocean?
How about the Ancient Times map, instead, even though the names are very bad?
-
@cernel
Youre right. Its not fitting. But at this stage of this personal mod, i only want a first look at my unit structure, unit images, gameplay of AI etc.If i would consider this a map for download, which i am miles away from being certain about, then i would go for another map for sure.
About the America in ancient times.
Well, i read a very intresting book.....
The Carthagians together with people of the iberian peninsula (spain) are suspect of being adventurers/colonizers going to the amazon up to the andes mountains after going over the atlantic by natural streams. You do not have to do alot to go from west afrika to the northern brasilian coast. We know that the carthagians were masters of the sea. And there are archeological sites and artefacts found which are obviously mediterran culture.
There was even a documentation on TV years ago.America on ancient time maps doesnt irritate me.
-
@schulz We need to investigate the cause of the passivity of the AI. If removing the AA capability of general units solves the issue, then we know what the problem is. However, AA is used other scenarios for special attacks, so that may not be the issue.
-
@torpedoa I've never heard of any theory about the Punics getting to South America. I guess these are very recent theories.
-
@torpedoa
We are getting off topic here, but this is interesting.The ships of the ancient Mediterranean were poorly suited for ocean voyages. Their low freeboard made them vulnerable to storms. Recall how many fleets were sunk by storm in the First Punic War (including the transports)
We know from Herodotus that the Phoenicians circumnavigated Africa, but that would be a coastal voyage. Of course, one ship could get lucky but we have no ancient account of a voyage to the Americas or archaeological evidence. For that matter there is no sign of the Carthaginians doing anything significant south of the Sahara.
Crossing oceans reliably requires sturdy ships with like those of the Vikings or the Polynesians with their catamarans.
Interestingly, Plato's account of Atlantis has many points in common with Carthage (large circular seaport, elephants). Plato probably got some ideas for Atlantis from merchants who had sailed to Carthage.
Of course, it is your scenario and every wargame is alternate history after the first turn (or maybe before).
-
Well. We dont know for sure. Yes of course you may have to have some luck. But i think it was possible even then to try and make it. The therory has some weak points, but also some good ones i think. But still the journey is not that of a wild idea. Even the mediterran ocean is not a shallow, harmless water.
I am from Germany and i didnt find a english versions.
But if you like some impressions.This one is older and not as detailed afaik.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk4LOmSIXlYThis one i think is the most recent one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy5tX_hVOCsAnd some wiki on this strange culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chachapoya_culture -
@torpedoa The Chachapoya are interesting but I see no connection to Carthage. Lucky voyages can occur but colonizing implies a sustained effort, which was beyond their technological capability. It would also be odd for the Carthaginians to pass through the coastal regions and end up in the Andes mountains.
An interesting comparison would be the Vikings in North America. They had ships that could cross the Atlantic, but Iceland lacked the population base or the technological superiority to develop a lasting colony. (The Viking tendency murder everyone they met was an additional problem. Read the Vinland sagas.).
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