Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: List of possible AI improvments

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> RE: List of possible AI improvments Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/12/2007 6:48:42 PM   
dude

 

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline 		Having played GB most of the time years ago the primary use of my fleets was to bottle up the fleets opposed to me.  I also would leave a fleet to transport a corps in case an opportunity arose to besiege the port where the enemey fleets where.  You don't know how many times enemies would leave a fleet in a lightly guarded port with their corps out of range.  I always felt it was worth the risk to drop a corp with 5i to 10i on a enemy port that had only a garrison.  At a minimum it would make an enemy leave a corps behind to guard the ports and one less corps at the front always was a benifit to my allies. 

Any remaining fleets were used to transport my forces to places like North Africa, block crossing arrows, or provide supply.  If there were enough ships left I would leave an intercept force near England somewhere.  This would all of couse vary based on who was a current enemy and how many opposing ships there were.

_____________________________

“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 31
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/12/2007 8:55:22 PM   
chuckj118

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 12/7/2007
From: SC, USA
Status: offline 		GB has a interesting political/military situation at the start of the game.  He should have to walk pretty softly for the first year or so.  Against Humans with will always be true...but how do we make it true against the AI.

Question:  Is the game using a single AI program for all the countries or does each country have its own AI program?  Since strategies vary so much between them I would think they require "special" handling for each country.  Just curious...   

1)  During the diplomacy phase GB needs to try really hard to keep France, Spain or secondarily Russia from combining on him right away.  If they do and are competent GB might go down.  I estimate about a 30% chance for a France/Spain combo; France/Russia is a bit weaker; All Three will make it over 50% probably (I haven't gamed this out yet)
2) Assuming that he avoids any of the dangerous combos above, GB should concentrate on acquiring (or at least denying them to his potential enemies) the navies of either Sweden, Denmark, or Portugal.  Computer GB should bribe them each turn and concentrate on either retaining one of these three that they have gained through diplomacy or attack one of them as soon as they can.  Against human players of Russia and Spain this could be worked out in negotiation.  Try to take whatever country you attack without destroying the fleet.  This can be difficult but worth it in the long run.
3)  Build infantry and militia during your 1st and maybe 2nd builds.  This is to get boots on the ground in GB and provide a small army and/or for one of the potential target countries.
4)  The GB navies need to stay close enough to GB to attack any sea area around the islands in the early stages.  The AI will be giving the human opponents opportunities if it goes romping off into the Med.
5)  Once Wellington arrives to command the small army that has been built in GB the invasion risk will become less urgent.  He can now stomp on and crush the small armies that France, Spain, or Russia can land.  (Fr - 48 factors with the other two around 30?)
6)  From the first econ phase in 1806 GB needs to commence building 3 to 5 LF every economic phase.  Place them in a well protected port.
7)  From 1806 on GB needs to take advantage of whatever opportunites occur.  His main goals should be to reduce the number of ships, overall, in the game, especially French; and to keep the battle on the mainland going by subsidizing Prussia and or Austria during their down times.

Wow...programming all this has got to be amazingly complex!  Hats off to all of you guys! 

Nal 

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 32
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/12/2007 11:14:46 PM   
mrpharmacist

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 11/29/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Donegal

Not an IA improvement but interface improvement. I would like some zoom out button, i really miss it. Other possible screen resolutions could be good too


Yeah i like to zoom too.....

(in reply to Donegal)
Post #: 33
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/12/2007 11:33:45 PM   
yammahoper

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 4/23/2004
Status: offline 		So far the game plays fairly well.  The AI has flaws, and I will list the ones I have seen, but it does fight decently when it gets it right.

    1) Cooperation between allies; as Russia I invaded France via Morroco and the nation north of holland.  I crushed the garrison protecting the french fleet, but the french ran the blockade and retreated south.  While the brits went last and returned home to replenish the fleets, then first next phase to return and prevent french movement, at no point did the brits, with a stack of corps at home and fleets in port, send me any help.  After several months, I was so reduced I had to flee.

    2) Appropriate aggression; when I seized the minor north of Holland, and then holland, the french came and after a few battles, chased me from holland.  I retreated north and because I had a ton of infantry to reinforce in, stayed around for several more months.  I got the attention of the french army and they came in force, again forceing me to flee, but once I fled, those french armies just sat there and did not take out the conq minor I was using to supply myself and invade from.  They also never tried to cut my supply off, and this fight lasted long enough that I rebuilt my guard corp twice and brought in 5 fresh cav plus numerous infantry.  Also, single corps or 100% infantry should not be thrown at large advancing armies.  This tactic may be worth it with a small corp of militia or infantry to see what is coming (and the AI should remember what is coming as well as a human who can see clearly if an enemy is in range of supply, thus knowing if the numbers might change) or even as a delaying tactic if such a manuever would allow a better army to arrive in defense.

    3) Appropriate defensive posture; Paris was left wide open with 1I for garrison, allowing me to sneak in a single corp and tackle the city in an eco phase, winning me (to my incredible surprise) a conditional from france.  I had a fleet with a 10I corp sitting in Morroco, the very corp I used to take the minor with (the cav corp left to join the rest of the army), so it would be reasonable for the french AI to know what was there and were it could reach, while almost the entire french army was north in the german states and prussia, fighting russia and prussia.  Since paris can be reached via naval invasion in two rounds, the AI should defend paris with enough force to repel any invasion force in range wjen its corps are out of range, even for a double move.

yamma



_____________________________

...nothing is more chaotic than a battle won...

(in reply to chuckj118)
Post #: 34
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/13/2007 3:25:21 AM   
jamo262


Posts: 82
Joined: 4/21/2003
From: Perth Australia
Status: offline 		Should (or does) the AI take into account the following when declaring war
  1. Natural alliance modifiers
  2. Who is the dominant/rampaging land power in Europe at present. Perhaps % level of VP towards winning total modified by relative land strength.
  3. That the web of alliances and declarations of war should primarily be influenced by
  • The British agenda to not allow a dominant power to emerge in Europe. British natural enemies are France then Russia. (Pre-revolution Russia was considered the dominant land power in Europe FredII legacy notwithstanding).
  • Britain can influence with it's money the alliances of other powers to unite against who it considers to be its major geopolitical threat (Normally Napoleonic France 1, Russia 2).
    4. A check for declarations of war might be triggered when another country declares war on a minor power considered to be part of the national aspiration goal of the first country. i.e. France attacks a German minor triggering checks from Austria or Prussia. This is perhaps already incorporated due to the influenced minors concept.

   5. Prussia should be coded to not declare on Britain or Russia. It should only do so against Russia if
a) russia has replaced France as the dominant land power of Europe
b) It is supported by Britain and at least one other major power that borders Russia.
c) Russia should not go bashing Austria and /or Russia while France is still dominant.

6. this is a repeat but Britain should view Russian resurgance with only slightly less alarm than French.
7. Countries should be more likely to declare war on powers that control previously ceded home provinces
8. when deciding to declare war the AI should conduct a comparison of relative strengths (including allies from both sides)
9) for a particular senario where Austria is inactive and france attacks Prussia (who in turn is supported by Russia) the Ai should follow the outline of the 1807 campaign. The AI should construct an optimum army of russian/ Prussian corps and fight in Eastern Prussia defending Konigsburg.
10)The English AI should support allies that have lost their capitals but still fight on  against Britains 'designated enemy' with money.

Are these ramblings of any use?

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 35
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/13/2007 3:49:56 AM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline 		The AI should really change the way it gives cash. As prusia i had Russia and GB as allies begged me to $, so had 150-250$ in echonmy phases.


In general guard corps with low strenght, shouldnt walk off solo, within range of the enemy corps.

I wasted a solo Austrian guard corps and the solo French-corps+Napoleon 5G3C same turn.

Cheers
Bresh

(in reply to jamo262)
Post #: 36
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/13/2007 4:08:09 AM   
yammahoper

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 4/23/2004
Status: offline 		Solo guard corp was how I captured Nappy, with only 5g and a a few cav in it, I chittted Esc Ass and eliminated the force.

Oh yeah, and this lone corp with nappy was sitting in Corsica.  I aborted all my plans to invade turkey from naples and went after nappy, knowing if I won, I would catch him.

So, AI should remove leaders to be reinforced later if they are in no position to be of use or in risk of being captured easily.

yamma

_____________________________

...nothing is more chaotic than a battle won...

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 37
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/13/2007 4:10:30 AM   
carnifex


Posts: 1295
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Latitude 40° 48' 43N Longtitude 74° 7' 29W
Status: offline 		The AI should act! I am right now looking at Spain that has been at war with Portugal since turn 1 and my France since turn 4 and it's turn 10 and they haven't moved a single corps anywhere. Their fleets are blockading but not a peep from the land forces. I've seen other AI nations go passive in previous games, like Russia that never takes Finland, that sort of thing.

This is probably a bug where the AI just gets stuck in some loop.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: carnifex

The Guard corps is not to be used by the AI as a lone raider. The Guard corps is not to be used by the AI as a lone raider. The Guard corps is not to be used by the AI as a lone raider.

Why not? That's how Napoleon lost at Waterloo: He put Ney in charge of the Guard with orders to wait until he needed them. Ney sent them into combat 1000-2000 at a time. When Napoleon wanted to "commit the guard", there were few left available to him.

I think this is why Ney's third stat is a 1. At Waterloo, he was in charge of two corps, and didn't do so well.


That would be in the context of a battle. I mean seeing the Prussian guard corps come charging down through the minors towards Paris with Brunswick strapped on while the rest of the Prussians are ****ing off chasing Nappy in Ansbach. I almost felt bad stepping on that corps but I had too.

The AI is either passive (my first point above, and probably a bug), or super-reckless. As a veteran EiA player I know job one is always to preserve the stack. Without an army what are you? They take so long to build and to just throw them away well that's a lot of weekends spent munching Doritos watching others pick chits.

If the AI should do one thing, is just to build up a nice stack and move it slowly toward the enemy capital paying attention to terrain. Nothing fancy, pick a spot to concentrate and then just creep. If it has a surplus then some small corps can grab minors. But not this headlong rush.

< Message edited by carnifex -- 12/13/2007 4:12:48 AM >

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 38
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/13/2007 5:57:02 AM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lavisj

Actually I think that Ney's rating reflects more his performance during the 1813 Campaign.

As for the Guard at Waterloo, Ney is not the one who commited it, but Napoleon itself, and it was committed at different points:
1. Plancenoit (Young and Old Guard). And set up as a local reserve.
2. Placed back in general reserve (minus a division of Young Guard)
3. During the main battle for the last ditched effort at the end.

But you need to place yourself in Napoleon's shoes. The Guard was the last reserve he had available at this point, committing it in its entirety to win the battle would have been great if it had worked, but if it had failed, there was nothing left to cover the retreat of the army.

The commitment of the guard actually seems appropriate at Waterloo. And it was not a lone raider as it was part of a 6 Corps battle (on the French side).


Perhaps I need to read my history books better. :)

Thanks for the info. I'll correct my misperceptions.

(in reply to lavisj)
Post #: 39
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/13/2007 5:59:43 AM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

Gibraltar has no value beside a safe port in this version of the game.

Oh, yes it does. It's a safe port from which a sizable British fleet can monitor entrances and exits to and from the Med. You never know when an enemy fleet might ...

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 40
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/13/2007 6:05:21 AM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat
How did a fleet land a corps when the ports with a fleet and a corp were blockaded?

It's not possible to absolutely blockade all of the French ships, at least not in the boardgame. GB can do a pretty good job, but it's not absolute.

Anyhow, though, I misread your original post. But, part of the problem remains because France can put corps on the map every turn in various ports. This forces GB into constantly switching ports. And, since they can't do it absolutely, they leave an opening.

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 41
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/13/2007 12:53:55 PM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer


quote:

ORIGINAL: bresh

Gibraltar has no value beside a safe port in this version of the game.

Oh, yes it does. It's a safe port from which a sizable British fleet can monitor entrances and exits to and from the Med. You never know when an enemy fleet might ...


Im not sure what you mean ? Its just as i wrote ?
"Gibraltar has no value beside a safe port in this version of the game."
In the board game, GB could use dominat status if lost this and couple more.


Regards
Bresh

(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 42
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/13/2007 7:37:34 PM   
Adraeth


Posts: 400
Joined: 9/24/2007
From: Italy - near Florence
Status: offline 		i notice that the inactive AI is mainly focused when the objective is at a great distance. In a solo play with Prussia (against easy AI) i see smart moves by the France AI against me that forced me to accept a conditional peace.

Even the AI vs AI (Austria Vs Spain) in Italy shows really interesting moves, anyway, in the far east the Turkey and Russia seem to be more inactive after a while,and GB sometimes just stands.

_____________________________

www.histwar.fr/
---
Periods i like: age of muskets, napoleonics, modern combat.

(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 43
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/13/2007 8:11:31 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 2347
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline 		18) The AI should create one (or if having a strong army two/three) ”killer stack” (stack optimized by good leader, mix of forces etc) more often and try taking out enemy stacks.
 
19) When advancing/on the offensive, the “killer stack” should be flanked by flanking forces to minimize risk of being cut of from supply, reinforcements etc.
 
20)  The AI should try to use a expendable, outflanking force more often, to hit isolated garrisons, supply depots, week crops and “annoy” the opponent, forcing him to react on it.
 
21) The AI should be wearier on facing the double move, (France/ Great Brittan moving last and then first. When calculating the risk of being attacked. Too big risk is taken now.
 
 22) The AI should not fall for the “pull trick” (A weaker enemy fleet/corps is in range of the AI. The AI moves a force there and attacks it, just to be pulverized the next move by the enemy’s waiting “killer stack” that waits out of range)
 
23) The locations of the major generals for each nation. Napoleon, Wellington, Blucher etc should war the AI of possible increased risk of war with that nation or increased risk major offensive taking place there.
 
24) When faced with a two front war (or more), the AI should decide on a strategy. The strategy should be re-evaluated each turn:
 

  •       Try to finish of one opponent and ignoring the other(s) at the risk of facing high cost at the other fronts.

  •       Decide to face them all and divided his forces among the fronts and for each front decide a strategy for the front.

    • a.       Hold the ground

    • b.      Retreat

    • c.       Be on the offensive

    • d.      Ignore the front due to lack of forces or threat from the opponent. 

25)  When at war try to buy of difficult/strong opponents with if possible “cheap”/quick conational or informal pace. Face the easier opponents in battle.
 
26) Avoid futile declaration of wars. When declaring war on minors the AI should calculate the risk of the likely controlling major power is at war with another major that in turn moves before the AI nation and has quick access to the minor. (Ex Great Brittan is at war with Russia. The Turkish AI declares war on Georgia. Russian forces moves in and assaults the capital before turkey has the chance. Due the fact that Russia is at war with Great Brittan that controls Georgia and moves before turkey.
 
27) The Turkish AI should take more use/risks with the feudal forces and “bleed” them in combat/force marsh/invasions etc if December is closing by and the capital of the feudal force is expected to be friendly controlled when renewal phase happens.
 
28) Avoid declaring war in winter turns. Due to high supply cost.
 
29) Avoid being in low forage areas in winter turns if no supply depots/chain is present and the AI has enough money for the cost.
 
30) Avoid being at sea when Fleet maintenance phase is coming up.                     

(in reply to Adraeth)
Post #: 44
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/14/2007 1:27:32 AM   
Grognot

 

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline 		Turkish AI seems relatively passive. Last game I played (as France, heh), Turks never took anything besides Egypt, through 1814. 'War' with Russia with neither side attacking the other.

UK AI, if it's moving fleets into the Channel to stop a French assault, against French ships that are already there, should not suicidally block a Fr/Sw/Du stack with just one 10-ship fleet at a time.

UK should perhaps heavily bribe the Swedes ASAP, to counter a French bribe -- the Swedish fleet is a nice addition to the French one, and Russia is likely to DoW Sweden by March.

AI should be more willing to break a blockade if there's a much more powerful army set to imminently seize the port. Better to lose some than all.

A severely outmatched AI that's at risk of losing a lot of minors and then being invaded should consider surrendering and offerinng to cede those minors, rather than losing those minors pre-surrender and then having additional territorial losses from the surrender itself.

(Edit)
Turkish AI, if allied with Fr or UK, should occasionally request money. They could use it much more than the access that they constantly ask about until granted.

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 45
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/14/2007 4:07:10 AM   
nappy

 

Posts: 68
Joined: 7/17/2003
Status: offline 		I agree the need for the AI to use stacks is required. I find that the AI like to build big stacks but when it comes to attacking it just sends piddly little waves of understrenght corps. MY best HUH? moment was when Napoleon with 1 corps with 1G, 5I attacked the British in Amsterdam with Wellington and 4 corps.

Yes Turkey almost never builds stacks or really moves more than 1 or 2 corps - ever- that needs fixing.

The AIs need to defend their capitals more pro-actively. It is just too easy to do a cheapie and grab a capital. Half the AI wars seems to consist of stacks sitting off doing nothing while smal; one corps armies keep taking runs at each other's capitals. For example almost anyone can bag constaniopole without effort.

the AI should also not ignore minor neutrals. I often find the AI's are usually so gung-ho to take capitals that they often will ignore undefended enemy minors nearby. In one war AS, PR, GB, SP, RS  all were at war with france, but no-one bothered to take teh 4 or so undefended French Italin minors - giving france a continued economic boost.

The IA has to place and defend its fleets more agressively. France almost always sets up its whole fleet in Brest with a  whopping 1I and no corps within a light year. Its a free lunch for GB.  The idea is that you have to force GB to spread out thin and not make these fleets attractive targets - which also prevents GB from grabbing minors like crazy early on.

Naps


(in reply to Grognot)
Post #: 46
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/14/2007 9:56:41 PM   
nappy

 

Posts: 68
Joined: 7/17/2003
Status: offline 		A couple of more Suggested specific AI tweaks

*Russia* It seems to have a penchant for making its entire army stack in St. Petersburg. Usually by late 1807 - even if its at war with 3 powers it still keeps its entire army there. I am yet to see a a large Russian presence anywhere else. ALso it seem sto DoW on sweden grab Finland and then leave Sweden to the owner via LoW.

*Turkey* It sets up corps especially feudals in Bessarabia and Moldavia and NEVER moves them. Besides taking Egypt - doesnt do much else.

Neither RS or TU seem to even bother with the Caucasus area minors.

*Spain* I've seen the AI spain try to take territory in Italy - good! But it has far too much of penchant for just taking portugal and then keeping its entire army in madrid- even when at war. 

Hence it seems to me that Spain and Russia are far to paranoid about their capitals (the two that should be the least worried) while France, Turkey and Austria often just let it fall to piddly raids.

I have to re-iterate the point I made before again!! The AI far too often takes single coprs (sometimes with leaders) and takes suicidal runs at enemy capitals usually way out of suplly and force maching .. constantly. Its offensives seem to be one-two corps armies. It does seem to form defensive stacks but usually way out of way somewhere or as an over-reaction to something small.

Naps    

(in reply to nappy)
Post #: 47
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/16/2007 9:12:27 AM   
easterner

 

Posts: 179
Joined: 10/9/2004
Status: offline 		AI Analysis

GB- Navy   generally good. Guards Dover crossing arrow as #1. Foe somereason lets up on Fr. blocade, on 1st game as Fr it let up blocade, moved all to Dover/  Fr invades Portsmouth. GB surrendered.

Other navies: generally good but when a war ends tends to abandon fleets off old enemy coast....for years. Pretty expensive.

AI: Prussia gets it done, other countries need Pr. AI Lessons.
AI tends to not grab minors. Pr. does. Examples. Naples entered Papacy, stopped in Rome, moved out of Rome and never took it, I did 6 mos later while it sat there. In last game Alex entered Circassia early 1805, game ended in 1813 he was swtill there, unmoved one area from capital, never took it.

AI Oddities: Russian Corps sit around Lenningrad like it's 1942. Declaring war on Turkey with entire army at St. Pete's leads to surrender. As others mentioned in never enters Sweden only Fin. and doesn't rebuild cossacks.

GB lands in Oporto, never moves on Lisbon. Throws single Cps away over crossing arrow, never having used this board game option I had failed to register its presence for awhile in my 1st game as Fr. So co-ordinated would have been nasty while I was napping.

SP invades Algeria, builds army by Madrid, never moves.

Au: moves but peacemeal, took Constantinople from me and forced my surrender in 1806. Piecemeal methods though would have failed against stronger power. Needs concentrate better and use Charles who sits near Italy while Au loses in Germ. needs more aggression to grab minors.

Tu. has 5 Cps in Palestine, fails to attack 1 Egyptn Cps. too passive.

In general: leaders with one Cps put in risky places. As GB I captured Nappy, when peace came it cut him off in N. Central Ger with 1 Cps. I entered that minor and overwhelmed his 1Cps of Gds.

When AI detects cps moving in great numbers they should retreat or bring in reinforcements, not leave 1 Cps to die alone.

In 1st game took N. Spain; no sign of Guerrillas, only assigned 1 Cps to this holding action later re-inforced to 2. Since Sp had declared on Fr. They should have been better prepared rather than let Pr go down tube, which they did. Pr put 2 hard hits on my Fr wiping out 2 armies before Nappy got there and set things aright.

< Message edited by easterner -- 12/16/2007 9:16:53 AM >

(in reply to nappy)
Post #: 48
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/16/2007 11:47:04 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline 		Well, I don't know if it was posted, but here are two improvements that the game could have, from my friend Jérôme, who does not write English, and who bought and is playing the game. He played the French.

- The British should not send small troops in France peacemeal, because he could defeat them is small groups and now Britain is in dire straits in terms of Army.

- The Russians when they go for Sweded should go by sea, and not struggle to go by land and reach it in a very long time.

(in reply to easterner)
Post #: 49
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/16/2007 5:44:51 PM   
nappy

 

Posts: 68
Joined: 7/17/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Well, I don't know if it was posted, but here are two improvements that the game could have, from my friend Jérôme, who does not write English, and who bought and is playing the game. He played the French.

- The British should not send small troops in France peacemeal, because he could defeat them is small groups and now Britain is in dire straits in terms of Army.

- The Russians when they go for Sweded should go by sea, and not struggle to go by land and reach it in a very long time.


Yes the piecemeal nature of many AI offensives needs to be looked at. It needs to learn how to offensively use a stack.

I also agree about Sweden; Russia has to be more agressive with Sweden. Its essentially always ends up a FS for France; which as human a player I would just throw into the sea war in the Channel. Russia also needs to stop covering in St Petersburg with 80% of his army.

Naps

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 50
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/18/2007 7:00:31 PM   
carnifex


Posts: 1295
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Latitude 40° 48' 43N Longtitude 74° 7' 29W
Status: offline 		Here are things the AI should NEVER do:

Have the lone Egypt corps attack the Turkish force in Palestine. This happens if Turkey attacks Egypt and Russia gets control. Since Russia goes first, it attacks the Turkish stack.




Blockade 12 Heavys and 22 Lights with 7 Lights. This happens every game. First turn Russia declares on Turkey and then sends their piece of **** light fleet to hand Turkey a PP on a silver platter.



< Message edited by carnifex -- 12/18/2007 7:02:20 PM >

(in reply to nappy)
Post #: 51
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/18/2007 8:25:52 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
I played Turkey and France last night against the AI and saw the fleet thing for sure.

(in reply to carnifex)
Post #: 52
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/18/2007 9:52:23 PM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline 		I have been toying with the concept of lifting the FoW for the AI. In other words, the AI would know which stacks had the highest troops, etc. To make an AI based on basic principles, such as Grant's strategy for defeating the Confederacy - attack the armies by applying the most troops against a smaller force to eliminate it and ignore cities except for the 2 forts anchoring the South, Atlanta and Richmond, may actually be achievable but would require the AI 'knowing' that the 6 full corps with Nappy are more important than the 12  1 factor corps with Bernadotte. Any thoughts?

< Message edited by Murat -- 12/18/2007 9:53:33 PM >

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 53
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/18/2007 10:05:38 PM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline 		With all due respect to the comments made so far, this is a game to be played between 7 PEOPLE and the AI is not really (and rarely is) an effective opponent.

If develloper time is going to be spent, I would prefer attention be spent on improving the play experience for 7 human players and removing game bugs then making SOLO play better.....there are other games for that experience.

I played EiA f-t-f for years and always enjoyed the experience...time flew past, availibility became near impossible, our group got older, got married, had kids (sigh!gasp!) and time became a premium - this computer game is a chance for our group to play again and I would like to see the experience improve further.

Players' make mistakes and I can live with that, as long as the computer game makes it easier for 7 PBEM players to play.....

AresMars


(in reply to bresh)
Post #: 54
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/18/2007 10:46:04 PM   
WYBaugh

 

Posts: 155
Joined: 7/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars

With all due respect to the comments made so far, this is a game to be played between 7 PEOPLE and the AI is not really (and rarely is) an effective opponent.

If develloper time is going to be spent, I would prefer attention be spent on improving the play experience for 7 human players and removing game bugs then making SOLO play better.....there are other games for that experience.

I played EiA f-t-f for years and always enjoyed the experience...time flew past, availibility became near impossible, our group got older, got married, had kids (sigh!gasp!) and time became a premium - this computer game is a chance for our group to play again and I would like to see the experience improve further.

Players' make mistakes and I can live with that, as long as the computer game makes it easier for 7 PBEM players to play.....

AresMars


With all due respects I think you'll find the majority of players are looking to play this computer game solo. I know there are the sides who want nothing more than a human opponent but I feel from my experiences and my continuous lurking here at Matrix that folks want to be able to play the game when they want too and not rely on 6 other humans.

Marshall has stated that the majority of development went into human vs human playing and not the AI. If they want to make it more accessible to us solo players then it's time for AI tweaking and not just PBEM focus.

Bill


< Message edited by WBaugh -- 12/18/2007 10:47:21 PM >

(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 55
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/18/2007 10:55:53 PM   
DodgyDave

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline 		better ai will come, i am not worried about that part, i just want the first patch, so to remove the serious bugs and then hope they will eventually make the game more like the boardgame, like the boardgame turn sheet for each nation, the status sheet is so nice and so on.

but fix bugs, then solve other issues like adding up more options, so each group can decide on what to play with :)

(in reply to WYBaugh)
Post #: 56
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/18/2007 11:27:41 PM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline 		WBAUGH, your point is very valid.  Don't get me wrong.....

This game is a re-creation of a boardgame that requires 7 people to maximize the experience -- the game was not developed for SOLO play and thus has a poor AI for that.  You (and anyone else who buys the game) are a better player then ANY AI we could ever hope for.....

I would hazard a guess that once the issues of bug fixes and more options are resolved, SOLO players would find a much better game value and play experience out of PBEM games....IMHO, NOTHING beats playing _with_ and crushing human opponents......

I expect the number of PBEM games to expand dramatically once the first couple patches come out.

You cannot please everyone - I was just mentioning MY particular hope of where the focus of Matrix should (in my opnion) really be....

Like you, I spent the money to get the game -  I worry that the expectations of SOLO players may not be easy to answer in the short term and also feel that Matrix needs to remind potential buyers that this not really a SOLO computer game.

Is that fair?

AresMars

NOTE: I notice several spelling errors and I appologize for my poor english...and I am too lazy to correct them...

< Message edited by AresMars -- 12/19/2007 12:16:29 AM >

(in reply to DodgyDave)
Post #: 57
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/19/2007 12:09:32 AM   
WYBaugh

 

Posts: 155
Joined: 7/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars

WBAUGH, your point is very valid.  Don't get me wrong.....

This game is a re-creation of a boardgame that requires 7 people to maximize the experience -- the game was not developed for SOLO play and thus has a poor AI for that.  You (and anyone else who buys the game) are a better player then ANY AI we could ever hope for.....

I would hazard a guess that once the issues of bug fixes and more options are resolved, SOLO players would find a much better game value and play experience out of PBEM games....IMHO, NOTHING beats playing _with_ and crushing human opponents......

I expect the number of PBEM games to expand dramatically once the first couple patches come out.

You cannot please everyone - I was just mentioning MY particular hope of where the focus of Matrix should (in my opnion) really be....

Like you, I spent the money to get the game -  I worry that the expectations of SOLO players may not be easy to answer in the short term and also feel that Matrix needs to remind potential buyers that this not really a SOLO computer game.

Is that fair?

AresMars



Absolutely fair!


(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 58
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/19/2007 12:32:45 AM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

This game is a re-creation of a boardgame that requires 7 people to maximize the experience -- the game was not developed for SOLO play and thus has a poor AI for that.


This is incorrect. The original board game may have provided the maximum experience for 7 people if available, but the UMP rules were specifically designed to allow less than 7 people to also have an enjoyable game experience. Yes?

The computer game replaces UMPs with AI, therefore anyone who played with UMPs before will be playing with AI now. Was the game developed "for" solo play? Not necessarily, but with functional AI and adjustable difficulty setting for each major power, solo against 6 AI opponents becomes a viable option now whereas it was not before. So it's unfair to dismiss this new option.

The quality of the AI is of course subject to debate. But read the forum comments; Marshall Ellis and Matrix Games acknowledge weaknesses with the initial AI and plan to make improvements. 'delatbable' provided a nice solo vs AI AAR which demonstrates that even with its weaknesses upon release, the AI did "reasonably well." Once the game is more or less finalized with bug fixes and other issues resolved, then the AI can be enhanced for better performance... for 1-6 AI players for any of the major powers.

quote:

If develloper time is going to be spent, I would prefer attention be spent on improving the play experience for 7 human players and removing game bugs then making SOLO play better.....


Well, fortunately that is not the plan Matrix has in mind.

(in reply to dude)
Post #: 59
RE: List of possible AI improvments - 12/19/2007 12:38:11 AM   
bresh

 

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline 		Is it just me or does the movement algorithm not always use the "cheapest-forage" clear-route ?

Example walking from Paris to Strasburg, program chooses to walk through the 3 forage forest s of strasburg, instead of the town hex 4-forage west of.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to WYBaugh)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> RE: List of possible AI improvments Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.126