AI Suitability

SilverBullet

@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.

RogerCooper

@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.

TorpedoA

@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

RogerCooper

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.

Schulz

@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.

Cernel

@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?

TorpedoA

@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.

RogerCooper

@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.

Cernel

@torpedoa I've never heard of any theory about the Punics getting to South America. I guess these are very recent theories.

RogerCooper

@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).

TorpedoA

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=Xk4LOmSIXlY

This one i think is the most recent one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy5tX_hVOCs

And some wiki on this strange culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chachapoya_culture

RogerCooper

@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.).

beelee

@rogercooper said in AI Suitability:

@torpedoa (The Viking tendency murder everyone they met was an additional problem...).

LOL

TorpedoA

@rogercooper said in AI Suitability:

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.

Well, you wont find a city-state-like megapolis like Charthage with 500.000-750.000 peoples and a huge harbor in the Andes mountains if thats what you meant by "beyond their tech capabilties".

If you ship the Amazon upstream, are you not going to end up anywhere near the eastern flank of the mountains there? Eventually i misspointed the region, because its not the Andes itself i guess then.
But, would be no problem if they could ship the mediterran and atlantic ocean already.

TorpedoA

Back to topic. Because some questions.

I guess the AI will go for the closest enemy capital?

What would happen if i would make all owned territories capitals?

RogerCooper

@torpedoa said in AI Suitability:

Back to topic. Because some questions.

I guess the AI will go for the closest enemy capital?

What would happen if i would make all owned territories capitals?

I am not sure, but I suspect that the AI would lack strategic direction as every area is as good as any other.

RogerCooper

@torpedoa said in AI Suitability:

Well, you wont find a city-state-like megapolis like Charthage with 500.000-750.000 peoples and a huge harbor in the Andes mountains if thats what you meant by "beyond their tech capabilties".

Sailing open ocean, with nights out of sight of shore is technical ability the Carthaginians did not have. Their boats were not sturdy enough, and they lacked navigation techniques. The Carthaginians went as far as Great Britain, but that could be done entirely by sailing in sight of shore. I suspect that the trade with Britain involved intermediaries like the Veneti, who developed sturdier sailing craft (see Caesar's the Gallic War).

There is reason why it was the Spanish (sailing from a port once part of Carthaginian territory) were able to settle the New World while the Carthaginians didn't. Technology had developed extensively in 1,700 years in between.

RogerCooper

@schulz said in AI Suitability:

@rogercooper Could you take a look for Aggression 1941?

When I removed the isAAforCombat property, the AI became much more aggressive. I don't why that property was even there, it is superfluous for non-infrastructure. There was no place that actually defined the AA ability.

Look at this unit. Offense & defense are explicitly defined.

    <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="EscortCarrierASWX" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
      <option name="movement" value="2"/>
      <option name="isSea" value="true"/>
      <option name="attack" value="1"/>
      <option name="defense" value="1"/>
      <option name="isAAforCombatOnly" value="true"/>
      <option name="mayOverStackAA" value="true"/>
      <option name="offensiveAttackAA" value="1"/>
      <option name="attackAA" value="1"/>
      <option name="maxAAattacks" value="1"/>
      <option name="targetsAA" value="submarine"/>
      <option name="isDestroyer" value="false"/>
      <option name="carrierCapacity" value="1"/>                       <option name="blockade" value="0"/>
      <option name="canBeGivenByTerritoryTo" value="British"/>
    </attachment>

Schulz

@rogercooper Thank you so much, AI now so much better after removing isAAforCombat property.

I'am actually favor of creating a new property called "AI compatibilty" instead of adding additional XML. When this property will be selected, some features like blockade zones, bombing/intercept will be deactivated. Not sure if it is possible.

RogerCooper

@schulz What were you trying to accomplish with the isCombatAA property. Did you want all attacking air to be subject to an AA attack? Defending air as well?