@Black_Elk So the error is "java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space" which means TripleA ran out of memory. You probably want to try increasing the memory to avoid that.
The rest of the "WARNING" messages just indicate the AI tried to do something that wasn't possible. This won't cause any errors but just negatively impacts the AI's performance. It appears most of them have to do with the AI trying to move units that it didn't have enough fuel to move.
@Frostion I added value canal territories to the list. Best case would be to just have some default valuing for all canal territories but also potentially provide the ability per map to add 'value' to strategic territories like certain canal territories.
@Frostion Interesting point about other resources. I hadn't thought much about them yet but my first instinct would be to increase them at the same rate as PUs. But you do have an interesting point that sometimes they are used for special purposes and it might not make sense. Age of Tribes is an interesting case since you could argue that giving the AI bonus for tech tokens actually might be a good idea since they research randomly vs the player doing so intelligently. An XML parameter on resources is probably a good idea.
Agree. I've created an issue to track adding it here so any further discussion not directly related to Global Dominance can be done there: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/1737
@Frostion We aren't removing/changing any functionality just clarifying how things currently work.
@CrazyG Yeah, I think adding it to the Pact of Steel 2 XML would be good.
@theredbaron Yep, I haven't decided if it would be in the game XML or a separate properties/XML file but it is already on the list as "Add per map XML AI configuration".
@Cernel said in AI Development Discussion and Feedback:
@Black_Elk said in AI Development Discussion and Feedback:
I think priority for targeting or defending VCs should definitely be at the top of the list. Basically where the AI does everything it can to capture VCs or prevent the enemy from doing so in a given round.
Since many games have Victory conditions that are based on controlling a certain number of VCs at the end of the game round, it seems like a pretty important feature for the AI. There would also be some overlap there with prioritizing capitals and objectives (since those are often VC territories) so would be a nice place to start.
Maybe it could be hacked that the AI doesn't actually think about it, but when, at start turn, it has a major chance to get the needed VC and keep till end round, then it goes for it. I tend to think VC should not make you play very differently, until the last moment. Actually, VC driven victories got very little favour both with custom maps and players, as I believe most mapmakers and players just prefer to fight till someone is obviously the winner, for raw stats (in custom maps, often VC are totally absent or set at a value to just formalise an achieved victory, like we did in the new WaW (I believe any games should have some kind of victory conditions, even if not supposed to be ever reached, before the other side surrenders)).
There is also the consideration that the game is usually about beating the AI, not being beated by it, so I'm not sure how many people would ever play on till seeing the AI actually winning by VC. Probably a bigger item would be the AI making the last stand for not losing by VC too early.
This is essentially what I plan to do. Have checks if the AI is either close to losing or winning in terms of VCs and only then take it into account.
@Black_Elk @Cernel I think VCs actually aren't that important as most games either don't really use them or the game is already decided by the time they come into play (but there are a few that do actually use them especially in unbalanced map where say the Axis needs to try and win quickly). I think the bigger impact would be objectives as those make a major difference on lots of maps but are fairly complex as they very a lot across maps.
@CrazyG Good point on being able to use massive carrierCapacity and small carrierCost for having units that require little carrier space. I'm fine with leaving the functionality as it works today but would like to document this somewhere so its more explicit not just something that happens to work.
@Frostion Given the current system, I think units being transported should essentially be defenseless and not provide any attack/defense/support/bonuses to the transporting unit. The main reason is simplicity and avoiding strange situations where say you have a ground unit that can support air units (say some kind of AA unit). Now you transport that AA unit (think of it all packed up in cargo) and end up in a naval battle that includes planes. It would end up providing support to the planes even though its just being transported. I think its currently more intuitive that "transported" units are defenseless and not providing abilities.
IMO, if we want transported units to provide support/abilities/bonuses to transporting or other units in battles then we need additional parameters such as "providesAbilitiesWhileTransported" which defaults to false. Or create a separate system from traditional transporting units that would indicate they aren't cargo but really some sort of enhancement.
