Iron War - Official Thread

redrum

@Frostion @Black_Elk So the first thing I noticed is the AI doesn't properly consider AA when purchasing as they are a valid land unit for attacking/defending. So I went ahead and fixed it: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/3384

You'll most likely see the AI buy more AA guns now primarily for fodder. It seems to go for a blend of AA guns and infantry now given the costs which is fairly reasonable.

redrum

@Frostion Next thing I notice is the AI attacks neutrals like crazy! This is because it sees them as another enemy player rather than neutrals. Do you think there is an easy way to determine which are 'neutral' players by looking at certain parameters we already have? Or does it make sense to add an attribute to player?

Captain Crunch

@redrum hey did you just adjust the AI purchases (AA and Infantry) for the overall AI or just for the Iron War map??

I havent tested the latest AI in awhile since you have not been doing tactical improvements but your last post maybe you altered the AI than when I last played it ... was that a tactical AI update??

Hepps

@redrum Isn't the neutral parameters already hard coded? I would have thought there are already things in the code that would allow the AI to omit them as a threat.

redrum

@hepps I mean when you have an actual player that acts as neutral. Open up Iron War and you'll see what I mean

wc_sumpton

@redrum
I think in Iron War there really is no 'Neutral'. 'True Neutral' is assigned the relationship 'Closed-Borders' which has the 'archType' of 'War'.
I believe this is done so that the AI can attack 'Neutral' territories.

Cheers...

Hepps

@redrum You are nothing if not always correct. I should know better than to stick my thick neck out... lest it be hacked off with the sword of enlightenment.

redrum

@wc_sumpton Correct. But what I'm getting at is that the AI should treat them essentially as 'neutral' when determining attack/defense. As those neutrals can't attack and its generally better to only attack neutrals if the territory value is high or its a strategic position. The AI shouldn't attack 'neutrals' for positive TUV trades. This is what it is currently doing in Iron War.

redrum

So my thought is one or both of these player parameters determine if a nation should be treated like 'neutral' and not have the AI TUV trade:

defaultType: "AI", "DoesNothing"
isHidden: "true"

Thoughts?

Cernel

@redrum As I reported in the past, this has always been a problem with Feudal Japan FFA. I remember to have reported the AI destroying itself to kill huge minor clan stacks.
For some reasons, I believe none of those parameters are really very good, and there is the item that is not helping existing maps (for example, that is doing nothing for Feudal Japan, unless someone updates it).
As you have said, the matter is that they cannot attack; so I would just have your AI consider "Neutral" whatever player that lacks a "Combat Movement" phase.
A better, albeit likely less feasible to implement, way would be the AI being able to see who is lacking a win condition, and this would be better on a FFA perspective, as the AI should also take into account who is closer to its win condition (so, those having no win condition are always at 0%, and the others the AI would have to evaluate (so, practically, in a FFA a player in a very bad shape, that has almost no way to win, would be seen just like a "Neutral" one)). Obviously, this would cover the above point too, as not having a "Combat Movement" phase would almost assure you cannot win, aside from very strange victory conditions.
But I'm guessing seeing who can and is closest to win the game is very hard to implement, so just testing for the absence of a "Combat Movement" phase should cover the matter at hand.
Side note "Neutral" is really not a good definition, and I suggest to rather reference it as "Null", since "Neutral" (the player) is not "Neutral" (the relationship), but always at "War" with everyone.

theredbaron

@redrum I just wanted to poke my head in to say that this sounds like a smart idea. In the end, DoesNothing AI is functionally the same (from a player's perspective) to static neutral units. I would actually suggest dropping the isHidden and sticking with only checking for DoesNothing AI, as whether it is shown should probably not affect whether the AI should perceive it as a threat. This will be a great improvement to AI behavior on this map. Frostion may be able to expound on this, but I imagine this problem also exists in Age of Tribes, so we'll have improvements on a few fronts.

Cernel

@theredbaron Ah, surely. "Does Nothing" AI should be considered alike to the Null player, and the AI should do so also in case it is currently assigned, not only if default. Tho that is probably not covering a bunch of cases, in which you don't want to go as far as that, so I think that's a marginal item.
The same can be said if a player is not "used". Practically, whatever makes you skip your "Combat Move" phase I considered it a subset of my previous advice, just like not having the "Combat Move" phase to start with.

redrum

@cernel Given that many maps don't have actual win conditions that probably wouldn't work well.

So there are a 2 different types of 'neutrals':

Passive (Iron War & Feudal Japan) - neutrals have no combat move phase so treat like 'neutral' and don't worry about defending against them as they can't attack anyone
Active (Caribbean Trade War) - neutrals (Pirates/Indians) have all normal phases but have defaultType="AI" isHidden="true". Need to defend against them since they can attack but shouldn't really be attacking them for TUV trades. Think maps that use 'active' neutrals for barbs, wildlife, pirates, etc.

My thought is if defaultType="AI" or "DoesNothing" AND isHidden="true" then treat them as active neutrals. If they have no combat move phase then treat them as passive neutrals (this obviously overrides active neutrals). Might even just really need to check if isHidden="true" since I can't really think of any cases you'd use isHidden for a player that was a real player.

theredbaron

@redrum There is one use case, and that is for maps like TWW where there are minor powers that give their units to a major power. I've actually considered using "isHidden" to take the minor powers off of the player selection screen and defaulting them to Human (as the map doesn't support AI anyways for now). Down the road, though, I think it would be beneficial–especially because we have the other maps in development just like TWW in this regard, to somehow allow the selection of AI or Human for, say, the Germans to be applied throughout their minor powers, who are not shown on the selection screen for simplicity's sake. But all I want to say here is that there is a potential use case for an isHidden player to be a real player.

redrum

@theredbaron Ah, good point as I hadn't thought of that. So I think for active neutrals they must have all the following:

defaultType="AI" or "DoesNothing"
isHidden="true"
All players that are part of said alliance must be 'neutrals' as well

That way if you have any non-neutral player on an alliance then its considered an actual enemy. That way you could do something crazy like have AI control minor nations as part of an alliance that are hidden but that you'd want to consider real enemies.

theredbaron

@redrum That sounds phenomenal, fun, and flexible. I heartily endorse this proposal

Captain Crunch

@redrum hey did you do a tactical update to the AI then, or just for the Iron War map? I just want to be sure thanks

redrum

@captain-crunch I did make a few small tactical changes overall but most of them were for Iron War and other complex maps so that the AI handles them better.

Captain Crunch

@redrum good enough for me! Sounds like some tweaking so that's cool and I will enjoy my battles on the WWIIClassic map battling the AI and hopefully it doesn't take too long. We'll see ... it's been getting harder and harder!

Cernel

@redrum I think only the passive (no combat move) should be equated to the null player. Active can be skipped, as it really would need the ability for the AI to determine how much that player is a problem for you, thus discounting TUV destruction, basically the same that would be needed in a FFA. So, I think that when you have active "neutral" (attacking you, thus not even "neutral" by any meaning of it) that would fall into just looking at the game as a FFA, about the same way as FFA without AI (or think about Feudal Japan, in which you take some players, and the rest are practically acting like active neutrals, tho they can be different each game, depending what you pick).
But active neutral really is a wrong definition; we should not call them neutral at all, if they can even offensively attack.

Your last proposal would probably cover most but, for example, you can have a straight play-with-the-AI 1v1 game in which the mapmaker decides to have the AI player hidden just to get it straight. That way, the game would basically be damaged on its basis. So, I still think better not relying on those things, except of course "Does Nothing" played players, as well as unused ones, should be like the null player.

I know that many maps have no win conditions but, in my opinion, that is a map's fault (there should always be a win condition). Of course, in case of absence of a win condition, the win condition to be assumed would be to conquer the entire map except "null" ownerships.