Creating a (hopefully) competitive bot using Claude Code.
-
e current TripleA AI is poor at Naval strategy.
In particular one very big improvement would be the reuse of transports in Global maps.
In detail, this is the USA returnin
Transport logic is an active area that I'm working on, though it is far from solved. The challenge is to keep transports moving to useful squares, while remaining protected.
-
@husky81
Well
Another biggy is picket fodder/Destroyers.
Meaning that they screen Transports or a Carrier/battleship strike stack.
Placed 1 Sea Zone away from from the above so Surface fleets cannot easily attack the above. -
I only play my own global map 1941GCD, as Britain/USA I line my Transport route with Destroyers, meaning they dont have to move .
This tactic should work for most global maps?
Maybe this is a valid option for HuskyAI ?
-
@husky81
Another Triple-AI failing is Naval blockades, in PvP they can be used to cripple an enemy economy.HuskyAI could be used to add up valid ships that Blockade and be sent to camp on certain Sea Zones and used as a valid tactic.
In 1941GCD submarines cause 2 Blockade vs certain ships that cause 1 Blockade, so if HuskyAI knew this it could use submarines more efectively.
-
@husky81
HuskyAI could do the following;Shucking, sending Transports back and forth for reinforcements.
How to define a Shucking unit?In most A&A maps a Transport 0-0-2 with 7 Transport Capacity is a Shucking unit.
But not every unit with a Transport Capacity is a Shucking unit, they need splitting out by function, as below.
In 1941GCD it has 3 Transport Capacity units with transportCapacity
Battleship 3 TC, transport Inf-Trained, xml has isCombatTransport
Cruiser 2 TC, transport Inf-Elite, xml has isCombatTransport
Convoy 14TC, a mix of units, this is a Shucking unitAir-Transport, an isAir unit, 0-0-4 with 8 transportCapacity is an air transport unit.
It has 2 roles,- Dropping paratroopers into enemy territory in Combat move
- Reinforcing into an owned territory in non-Combat move
Food for HuskyAI
-
optimized on V5, maybe it will be better to call it "WW2v5 AI" or something like that. Anyway, I'm overreaching.
yes, you're right. I would be looking for games using the TR setup. However, at the level that I am working at now, examples of "good" play on either setup would be useful as data points.
What's your knowledge of the balance of "World War II v5 1942 SE TR" from anywhere? Is this game considered very well balanced or not? If it favours one or the other side, what are the common ways of rebalancing it if any?
-
m anywhere? Is this game considered ve
I would say that it is exceptionally well balanced, when played without turn limits (played until one side concedes or looses on victory cities.
It is the only map that is played on "Axis and Allies 1942 Online". it has been played there for years, including discord leagues and tournaments. Many formats such as league have players play a double round robin with no bids, each player playing a game as each side. At the highest level (Generals), both sides play pretty even. last season (20) each faction earned 30 out of 60 points, and the current season is trending in the same direction.
This is the league Google Sheet with records from this and the previous season.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vojmhuMfHiYwAVa6xj_9EQuH8Eyc-nF-7YzeeKCbZHo/edit?gid=259980370#gid=259980370 -
I would say that it is exceptionally well balanced, when played without turn limits (played until one side concedes or looses on victory cities.
It is the only map that is played on "Axis and Allies 1942 Online". it has been played there for years, including discord leagues and tournaments. Many formats such as league have players play a double round robin with no bids, each player playing a game as each side. At the highest level (Generals), both sides play pretty even. last season (20) each faction earned 30 out of 60 points, and the current season is trending in the same direction.
This is the league Google Sheet with records from this and the previous season.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vojmhuMfHiYwAVa6xj_9EQuH8Eyc-nF-7YzeeKCbZHo/edit?gid=259980370#gid=259980370Cool. Not sure why it was so ignored by the TripleA community then. When v3 came out, there was a lot of interest around it, whereas v5 was practically completely ignored when it came out.
Personally, I've never played it because I always felt uncomfortable with the Indian factory and with the extremely swingy 63% win chance battle in 37 Sea Zone. What the hell is that for?
Quick questions.
Does Russia always attempt to conquer Ukraine SSR (at 89% Win) and to kill the German bomber on round 1, and does Germany usually take it first as casualty? Was the bomber put there just to get it killed by Russia on round 1?
Does the British fighter in Egypt always survive, and then British attack 37 Sea Zone with everything they can bring (taking the 63% win at -1 TUV swing)?
Is this game perfectly balanced with regular dice? If so, I guess it is slightly unbalanced in favour of Allies with Low Luck because Low Luck favours the opening of Russia to be much safer (especially in Ukraine SSR).
-
Cool. Not sure why it was so ignored by the TripleA community then. When v3 came out, there was a lot of interest around it, whereas v5 was practically completely ignored when it came out.
This would be a bit of speculation, but I guess it comes down to having many more options. If you want an "Official" game, there's classic, anniversary and global. Then there are other custom games as well. The original out of box setup is quite imbalanced. I believe almost all of the changes in TR are allied favoured.
Personally, I've never played it because I always felt uncomfortable with the Indian factory and with the extremely swingy 63% win chance battle in 37 Sea Zone. What the hell is that for?
Quick questions.
Does Russia always attempt to conquer Ukraine SSR (at 89% Win) and to kill the German bomber on round 1, and does Germany usually take it first as casualty? Was the bomber put there just to get it killed by Russia on round 1?
Basically yes, there are some alternatives, the "West Russia Jam" where Russia just overstacks WR and sends a fighter to Egypt to save Uk's fighter. But 99% of games begin with 9-12, all available Russian units to Ukraine, and the remainder used in West Russia. The bomber is basically there to die. Germany starting with one in Germany proper as in out of box is simply too strong, Allies would need some compensation elsewhere if Germany started with that.
In "Online" you must set up your loss order for each power "profile", prior to finishing your turn, and it's fixed until your next turn as that power. Germany 1 is often bomber first, but I use bomber after artillery, because that's good enough that I don't really need to change my profile. I would forget and it would cost games if I had bomber first later on. Some people actually play bomber last, because although it gets fewer hitbacks and wins Ukraine less often, it makes it impossible for Russia to strafe Ukraine and also kill the bomber. If Russia can bring 3 tanks back to Caucuses while leaving only the fighter in Ukraine, that's very Allied favoured provided West Russia was also average or better.Does the British fighter in Egypt always survive, and then British attack 37 Sea Zone with everything they can bring (taking the 63% win at -1 TUV swing)?
The Egypt fighter generally always survives until UK1. Germany has no good way to kill it unless their bomber is still on board. In the current meta, SZ 37 is rarely played though probably under 10% of games. It is viewed as more risk than allies want at that point in the game. It's an asymmetric risk, because it if fails, allies are in really rough shape. Japan starts with 2 transports vs the normal 1 (sz61 is usually cleared) and all of the UK fleet and air is gone from the pacific. India is very tough to hold. If the battle is won, the axis can still win if Germany can get Moscow fast enough. So it's not a "free 68% win" card for Allies. It is a resource to try and stage a comeback if you're off to a bad start though.
Is this game perfectly balanced with regular dice? If so, I guess it is slightly unbalanced in favour of Allies with Low Luck because Low Luck favours the opening of Russia to be much safer (especially in Ukraine SSR).
I can't really comment on Low Luck. I personally don't like it. I thin thinking about how much risk you want or don't want at various points in the game is part of what makes it fun and challenging. I'm not aware of much competitive play on low luck mode on "Online". It's in the game, but not played much since you can't play that way in ladder games. It may well be quite imbalanced and allied favoured since it makes Ukraine safer as you mentioned, as well as what it does to SZ37. you could even take East indies with relatively little risk as Allies.
-
What you have just said definitely made me look at this game more favourably. I mean, I still do not have a very high opinion of it, but surely higher. I think I will play it (with regular dice) if I find someone who wants to be Allies without bid.
Personally, I've never played it because I always felt uncomfortable with the Indian factory and with the extremely swingy 63% win chance battle in 37 Sea Zone. What the hell is that for?
Quick questions.
Does Russia always attempt to conquer Ukraine SSR (at 89% Win) and to kill the German bomber on round 1, and does Germany usually take it first as casualty? Was the bomber put there just to get it killed by Russia on round 1?
Basically yes, there are some alternatives, the "West Russia Jam" where Russia just overstacks WR and sends a fighter to Egypt to save Uk's fighter. But 99% of games begin with 9-12, all available Russian units to Ukraine, and the remainder used in West Russia. The bomber is basically there to die.
Lame. I think this is dumb especially considering this is a balance change. If they did not want actually to rebalance the bomber, they should have just removed it and added one infantry or artillery in Ukraine if needed. Having the entire German bomber forces in Ukraine to be killed at once is just stupid. The infantry more would have been almost the same as the case of taking the bomber first as casualty and overall about as good (because of having a little more defence in exchange of not having the option of keeping the bomber around).
I'm actually thinking that it would be good to make a mod of this game which is exactly the same as SE TR except that there is an infantry more in Ukraine SSR instead of the bomber. LOL Probably a better mod would be one which keeps the bomber somewhere safe and rebalances the game by some other means.
By the way, I'm totally in agreement with having the bomber on the Eastern Front instead of in Germany: that is cool on the account that Germany was focused there. Just not having it there just to be destroyed before the first German turn...
Germany starting with one in Germany proper as in out of box is simply too strong, Allies would need some compensation elsewhere if Germany started with that.
Yah, sounds like the easy way was taken to rebalance the game. Not a fan, but it looks like balance ended up to be very good, so who am I to judge?
In "Online" you must set up your loss order for each power "profile", prior to finishing your turn, and it's fixed until your next turn as that power.
WOW! I mean WOW! That's a substantial difference in this game for the bomber in Ukraine. This means that here in TripleA you can see the attacking dice and decide whether or not to take the bomber as casualty (especially on combat round 1). This is a substantial advantage for the German player. If the game played the way you describe has this game perfectly balanced, then playing the same game on TripleA must be slightly unbalanced in favour of Axis.
Germany 1 is often bomber first, but I use bomber after artillery, because that's good enough that I don't really need to change my profile. I would forget and it would cost games if I had bomber first later on.
This sounds not optimal per se, but I see that it is such a minor difference that it is not worth risking messing up. I would call this a failure of the system.
I think the problem here is that they should allow for having temporary and permanent profiles. The temporary profile would automatically erase itself after one turn and default to the permanent one or to default. Elsewise, they should have some sort of warning and confirmation system which do not allow for a competent player ever to forget changing the profile as you describe.
Some people actually play bomber last, because although it gets fewer hitbacks and wins Ukraine less often, it makes it impossible for Russia to strafe Ukraine and also kill the bomber. If Russia can bring 3 tanks back to Caucuses while leaving only the fighter in Ukraine, that's very Allied favoured provided West Russia was also average or better.
Interesting but completely irrelevant for TripleA. In TripleA, you can see the hits and decide if to take the bomber or not, so every good player will decide one way or the other after seeing the rolls. A player always taking the bomber first would be not a good player just as much as a player always taking the bomber last. What would change would be the opinion on how many hits should Russians obtain on round 1 for you to take the bomber as first casualty, and this can go both ways: a very bad Russian rolling would allow you to keep the bomber hoping in the 10% Russian defeat, but a very good Russian rolling would encourage you to keep the bomber to discourage strafing. Overall, I would say that taking out the bomber first is the best choice on average, but taking the bomber last is the best choice if you are either very lucky or very unlucky.
Does the British fighter in Egypt always survive, and then British attack 37 Sea Zone with everything they can bring (taking the 63% win at -1 TUV swing)?
The Egypt fighter generally always survives until UK1. Germany has no good way to kill it unless their bomber is still on board.
Definitely not without the bomber, but I doubt I would go for Egypt even if the bomber survives. Am I wrong?
In the current meta, SZ 37 is rarely played though probably under 10% of games. It is viewed as more risk than allies want at that point in the game. It's an asymmetric risk, because it if fails, allies are in really rough shape. Japan starts with 2 transports vs the normal 1 (sz61 is usually cleared) and all of the UK fleet and air is gone from the pacific. India is very tough to hold. If the battle is won, the axis can still win if Germany can get Moscow fast enough. So it's not a "free 68% win" card for Allies. It is a resource to try and stage a comeback if you're off to a bad start though.
Very nice to know. This is very good information and removes a main doubt I had about this game. I would prefer that battle never happening, but less than 10% is good enough especially if it is taken either not by the best players or as a consequence of trying something very risky and very swingy because you are losing (which is fine).
It reminds me about what Lilybaeum in 270BC used to be before Veqryn changed the warelephants.
Is this game perfectly balanced with regular dice? If so, I guess it is slightly unbalanced in favour of Allies with Low Luck because Low Luck favours the opening of Russia to be much safer (especially in Ukraine SSR).
I can't really comment on Low Luck. I personally don't like it. I thin thinking about how much risk you want or don't want at various points in the game is part of what makes it fun and challenging.
Agree.
I'm not aware of much competitive play on low luck mode on "Online". It's in the game, but not played much since you can't play that way in ladder games.
Good decision not to allow low luck in ladder games. If having low luck in ladder games, one MUST always assure to have two separate ladders, one for regular dice and one for low luck. The same game played with low luck is just a different game, and it makes no sense to have the same ladder for different games. Practically, having both regular dice and low luck in the same ladder would inevitably kill (marginalize) regular dice in the sense that all the highest ranking players will eventually be only low-luck-only players. A house divided cannot stand.
It may well be quite imbalanced and allied favoured since it makes Ukraine safer as you mentioned, as well as what it does to SZ37. you could even take East indies with relatively little risk as Allies.
Hard to say. I'm sure there are other things for which Axis is favoured with low luck. It may well be that both dice and low luck are very well balanced for this game. If low luck throws balance out, I'm fairly certain it would be only very slightly so if at all.
-
@Cernel I have been playing low luck for this scenario and it is quite interesting.
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