Rules interpretation for placement Human vs AI

[VictoryFirst]

@beelee

To sum up what WC is pointing out here - basically the AI is stupid here in that it tries to purchase units for territories it can't place in. And it is also unable to place unplaced factories because it tries to place them in territories with factories.

This needs to be fixed on the engine level. Two fixes are needed:

1. When making purchases, the AI simulates it turn first and then uses that information to make its purchase. However, it then correctly needs to identify that it cannot place in conquered territories because right now it thinks it can.

2. When the AI tries to place unplaced factories, it needs to use a different set of territories than those for regular units.

[TheDog]

Is this what should happen?
Components of this problem

rulesAttachment has placementCapturedTerritory" value="true"
This allows for the placement of units in the same turn as they were captured.

Order of delegates in xml speak
A&A style Purchase before Combat
Purchase> Combat move>Combat> Non-Combar move> Place> End Turn
or
New style Purchase after Combat
Combat move>Combat> Non-Combat move> Purchase> Place> End Turn

For Purchase before Combat
The AI tries to purchase what it thinks it needs based on its current TT and then Places them.
If PlacementCapturedTerritory=true then it should re-evaluate its Purchases/Place based on its new TT gains, yes? (As the gains might be better, closer to the enemy etc)

Purchase after Combat
If PlacementCapturedTerritory=true or false
The logic is simpler, the AI purchases what it can place, yes?

In the above mix, if the AI have been given units/factories from isAI/xml it should test for these first and not Purchase them,

Is the above what should happen?

[Panther]

@beelee said:

I will ping @panther for you, as he is a rules heavyweight.

I am happy to assist in case anything rules-related might be unclear.

[wc_sumpton]

@Panther

Why are unplaced construction units being placed only into production territories or adjacent sea zones owned since the start of turn?
Why when using rule "placementCapturedTerritory" are unplaced units still limited to production territories and their adjacent sea zones owned since the start of turn?
Why when using rule "placementAnyTerritory" are unplaced units now allowed to be placed in captured territories. This is also including those sea zones adjacent to captured production territories?
Why when using rule "placementAnySeaZone" along with "placementAnyTerritory" are sea unis still restricted to sea zones adjacent to production territories? And why is this still also including sea zones adjacent to captured production territories?
Why are the rules so different for the AI to place unplaced units?

Cheers...

[Panther]

@wc_sumpton

Lol, I should have specified that when I talk about the rules I exclusively mean the v1-v6 rulesets.

I can't know what the intentions or intended specific game-(house-) rules behind those "placementWhatever" rules might be, as these are usually used to override those core game-rules, as it seems.

[wc_sumpton]

@Panther

So in the PoS2 it states:
isConstruction values: allows the unit to be placed in territories that don't contain factories.

But because this is not a rule, requiring the AI to place isConstruction units in territories with factories is not a bug.

There you have it @thedog. You can only give Human players factories with triggers but you can't give them to AI players.

Cheers...

[TheDog]

@wc_sumpton said:

You can only give Human players factories with triggers but you can't give them to AI players.

Yes, its wrong, TripleA should allow the AI to place Factories, because the Player can.

@wc_sumpton
Is this a question because the Devs want confirmation that, the AI should be allowed to place Factories like a human player?

[wc_sumpton]

@TheDog

Let me see if I can explain things better. For reference I'll be looking at the "Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition" rule book. Page 10

*The U.S. player places the new Chinese units at the same time that the new U.S. units are placed. They may be placed on
any Chinese-controlled territories, however those units cannot be placed on any territory that already contains three or
more units. *

To be rule complaint "World War II v3 1941" has:

<attachment name="rulesAttachment" attachTo="Chinese" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RulesAttachment" type="player">
   <option name="movementRestrictionTerritories" value="Chinghai:Ningxia:Sikang:Yunnan:Hupeh:Fukien:Suiyuan:Manchuria:Kiangsu:Kwangtung"/>
   <option name="movementRestrictionType" value="allowed"/>
   <option name="productionPerXTerritories" value="2"/>
   <option name="placementAnyTerritory" value="true"/>
   <option name="placementCapturedTerritory" value="true"/>
   <option name="placementPerTerritory" value="3"/>
</attachment>

"placementAnyTerritory" allows a player to place any non-isSea unit into any land territory that was owned at the start of the players turn (Human player only not AI players). can you place in any LAND territory you owned at the beginning of the turn? (Does not include newly captured territories for Human players only.)
"placementCapturedTerritory" allows a Human player only, not used by the AI player to place these units because "placementAnyTerritory" assumes placement into newly captured territories as a default, to place units into newly captured territories, but still follows production rules. can you place in territory you captured this turn?
Even though these are handled/enforced differently they are both considered rule complaint and so it will not be changed.
And don't get started on "placementAnySeaZone" (For Human player only) can you place in any SEA territory beside a LAND territory you owned at the beginning of the turn? But because there is no rule for placement of sea units without production, the AI will not be changed this.
One would think that the same rules would apply to the placement of a purchased factory would apply to the placement of a given factory. They do not. And because there are no rules that govern the placement of a given factory do not expect this to change ant time soon.

Cheers...

[wc_sumpton]

@thedog

I am very sorry for my above post. I do think that you have a legitimate bug/issue. I have found the cause to your problem (review issues #14447 and #14457). While investigating this issue I uncovered other problems with how the AI handles the placement of units. To me these fixes seemed simple, so I submit a PR to make those changes. A test was created to check the output of the file I wanted to change.
The file passed all the tests. I took issue with the test file because it failed to test the broken functionality of file. Some changes were made to the test but none of the testing covered any of the issues which I raised. So again, I took issue with the test.
Now I'm being told to find the rules.
When a Human places an isConstruction unit, either given or purchased, there are certain rules the player follows. These are the same rules the AI player follows when placing a purchased isConstruction unit. But the rules change for the AI player when placing a given isConstruction unit. Why? So now I have to find a rule that governs the placement of a given unit because it's not the same as placing a purchased one.
A human player as to follow certain guidelines with respect to the use of "placementAnyTerritory", "placementAnySeaZone" or "placementCapturedTerritory" but the AI does not have to follow the same guidelines unless there is a rule?

Why are there different sets of rules for placement given that a player is Human vs AI?

Again, sorry for the rant. The fixes are easy. But without a rule they will not be made.

Cheers...

[TheDog]

@wc_sumpton
Your post above lists 3 functions that the AI cannot do that a Player can, I would like to add a 4th.

Give the AI a Factory it will not Place it (it will place units). It will only Place a Factory that it has decided it needs, even though it might have a lot them to place.

Give a Human the Factory, they would place it if they thought it safe to do so.

The AI does not appear to check how many Factories it has already and still buys what it thinks it needs and in turn Places it and no others.

@wc_sumpton
Summarising the Chinese rules, they do appear to work for a human, I have tried them once for human play, but your saying for the AI they dont?

Is one of the problems placementAnyTerritory only applies to land TTs?

@panther
In World War II v3 1941 A&A game PvP, Lets look at an unlikely scenario.
Japan build a Factory in Manchuria, 3PU
Next Turn, China captures Manchuria
..In that same turn, how many units can China, place in Manchuria?
..Is it 2 or 3 ?
..Also, in 62 Sea Zone can China Place any ships in this same captured turn?

Note: The above is for the boardgame.

@Anyone what does the TripleA game do?

[beelee]

@TheDog

Hi Dog

Long time since I played Anniversarry. I think China can only have 3 dudes in a TTy max. Not sure but I think the Fctry gets destroyed the way it would in G 40 as china can't use it.

[TheDog]

@beelee
Thanks, you could be right.

If this is the correct WW2v3-1941balmod.xml

Then it is badly written there is only one generic/shared productionFrontier so China can buy a Factory, even though the A&A rules might say otherwise.

To quote Panther
Don't always trust TripleA when it comes to rules questions. Know the rules before you start … and better check what TripleA has done.

Also it might explain wc_sumpton frustration as the China xml code is mimicking A&A rules only and is not intended for generic use.

This is all supposition , as I dont play A&A boardgames or know the rules.

[beelee]

@TheDog

yea Idk. The balance mod is different from the OOB map. The triplea version of AA50 aka WWII v3 1941 is pretty accurate. A few things are off rules wise but it's one of the more successful triplea maps. BlackElk drawn

There's multiple A&A versions with different rulesets.
I think triplea trys to incorporate all of them but the original game the engine was designed around is different from the latest ones.

Why there's been so many additions. Add in multiple developers over 20 years and you get what we have now

At least people trying to make it better

[TheDog]

@beelee
For reference WW2v3-1941.xml (if thats what we should be talking about) still only has one generic/shared productionFrontier so China can buy a Factory.

[beelee]

@TheDog

well actually they can't

Edit
At least I can't get them too

WWII v3 1941 China can't Buy Fctry.tsvg

[Panther]

@panther
In World War II v3 1941 A&A game PvP, Lets look at an unlikely scenario.
Japan build a Factory in Manchuria, 3PU
Next Turn, China captures Manchuria

..In that same turn, how many units can China, place in Manchuria?
..Is it 2 or 3 ?

During the Purchase Units Phase of USA China gets one new Chinese infantry unit for every two Chinese territories that are not under Axis control (rounded down) at that time. These units will be placed during the Unit Placement Phase of USA. New units may only be placed on Chinese-controlled territories (including those captured in the current turn) that already contain less than three Chinese units (including the Flying Tigers fighter, see below). Any number of new units may be placed in such a territory, regardless of the number already there.

So in your case China can place a maximum of three units there, provided it was able to generate as much before.

..Also, in 62 Sea Zone can China Place any ships in this same captured turn?

China cannot use any factory. It only can generate infantry as described above. So China can't produce a ship and place it.

Different from Global 1940 the factory (built by Japan) is not destroyed when China liberates that territory. It stays on the board but cannot be used by China.

TripleA handles all of this correctly (IIRC).

[TheDog]

@Panther @beelee
Thanks!