AI Behavior – Strategic Level

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

AI Behavior – Strategic Level

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition >> AI Behavior – Strategic Level

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

AI Behavior – Strategic Level - 3/9/2009 6:31:24 PM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

AI Behavior – Strategic Level

After playing a couple of games now, I wanted to post some comments on the AI’s behavior that perplexed me…

1) DOW’s: The AI has a bad habit of declaring war on someone it can’t possibly beat. I know in some cases these are forced by treaty but in others it just does a DOW for no reason, especially when you consider the forces against it. I also think it gets worse if you are in the lead with Glory points which really should not impact a DOW if you can’t beat the person.

ex: as GB I was ignoring Spain and marching through North Africa. Spain DOW’d me... ok no problem. I diverted the army back to Iberia and promptly marched on Madrid wiping out his army in the process. 18 months later the AI immediately DOW’d again with even less forces while my forces sitting in Gibraltar where twice his size. So I repeated my last campaign even quicker. This pattern continued for nearly 12 years until I had finally taken all of Spain just to drive him out of the game. My lead in Glory points kept growing because Spain kept DOWing me and I kept squashing him.

2) Peace/Surrender: This kind of goes with #1… when the AI is losing… and/or is so outgunned it doesn’t stand a chance… the AI fights to the last man and then some until it’s moral forces it too. Then the problem is it’s ripe for anyone else and it can’t possibly build its forces back up. I would think it might offer a limited surrender much sooner and maintain some of its forces.

And in regards to #1 if it’s “forced” to DOW someone it just can’t beat why not just surrender the next turn? I love it when France drags one of its hapless “Forced” allies into its war… more glory points for me while I’m squashing his ally (Spain, Sweden, and Turkey especially suffer from this.)

Ex: again as the example above in each war with Spain (the AI btw started every one of them…) after I wiped out its army how did it expect to win? Why not offer a limited surrender at least (I would have been willing since I didn’t want the war in the first place and really wanted to keep them viable against others.) I just feel like that in any war I get into I’m force to annihilate the enemy before they will surrender. I haven’t played any human players in this game … is this the way they behave? I know in other games if it looks like it’s going to be pointless then I’ll surrender quicker and hopefully with better terms so I have a better chance later.

If Spain was waiting for it’s ally (in a couple of cases) France to come it’s aid it was mistaken since the French army was usually on the other side of the map and I could reach Madrid before anyone could come to it’s rescue (and even then I never saw a French unit make an attempt as saving him).

Does the AI take into account things like force size (it’s own, the enemy, and nearby ally force), distance between forces, or distance between the enemy and its capital?

3) Army Reactions: At one point in my many wars with Spain I decided to march into France for a little plundering… with each move I was expecting to be pounced on by a French army or at least a corps… to my surprise I took everything in SW, West, and NW France with only one army (two corps) with nary a sign of the French army. When I reached Normandy I finally saw the entire French army start to move from somewhere in Prussia. But by the time he got back to Paris I had taken the city and on the turn he moved into the city he was forced to surrender. Meanwhile I had plundered a great deal from all those provinces. So my point is A) why didn’t he react sooner, and B) was it necessary to pull his entire army from his other front?

Now with all that said... I am really enjoying the game and I think the AI at the tactical level is very good. I'm just a bit surprised at some of the things it does at the stategic level (especailly regarding DOW/Surrender).

_____________________________

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

Post #: 1

RE: AI Behavior – Strategic Level - 3/9/2009 8:21:17 PM

Franck

Posts: 394
Joined: 10/1/2004
Status: offline

I have noticed all this point but number one... In my case it as been mostly the opposite! With Prussia-Austria refusing passage too french troops, the AI wasn't able to go beat on the Russian and it waited for someone to alow him to pass. He should have just DOWed me! I had a tiny army! On top of that I kept trying to build every other nations against France. When I was ready to declare war I did with the russian sitting in Berlin and we completely analihated the French army before it surrendered! (oops this also cause a BIG problem with protectorate since you can just capture ALL of an AI's protectorate and it won't move to oppose you... And protectorate are like 1500 FREE surrender points.)

Anyway, I can live with number 3... There not really any point in the game about going at other things then the ennemy capital's (unless you want surrender points but even then, you can send small army to do that job while the main army march on the capital.) This being said, if your just moving around in france it might be better off taking the ennemy capital and then moving home to defeat you... you'll hurt is economi but you won't make him surrender. My main concern with that is that the AI doesn't seem to take threat into account (it react once your on the capital...) not when your moving for it.

Number 2 :I would like to see improvement. AI doesn't even accept your limited surrender if your kicking is arse around the map!!!! I think number one priority should be SAVE YOUR CAPITAL. Number 2 should be SAVE YOUR ARMY! it's not a big thing to loose a war against France as Prussia, IF you have an army left after the defeat (espescially with the +300 experience rule).

Just my toughs :)

< Message edited by Franck -- 3/9/2009 8:23:16 PM >

(in reply to dude)

Post #: 2

RE: AI Behavior – Strategic Level - 3/9/2009 10:26:14 PM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

Regarding the DOWs, other than Gibralter were you occupying any provinces that Spain needs for Glory purposes. I think the AI makes decisions based on who holds provinces that it loses glory points for not having.

(in reply to Franck)

Post #: 3

RE: AI Behavior – Strategic Level - 3/9/2009 11:41:06 PM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus

Regarding the DOWs, other than Gibralter were you occupying any provinces that Spain needs for Glory purposes. I think the AI makes decisions based on who holds provinces that it loses glory points for not having.

Yes, I eventually ended up with all of Spain...

I didn't take anything the first time though, except I DOW'd Portugal while I was there so I ended up with that. But no matter, to DOW when you have practically no army is foolish.

< Message edited by dude -- 3/9/2009 11:49:46 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 4

RE: AI Behavior – Strategic Level - 3/9/2009 11:49:36 PM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Franck

... you'll hurt is economi but you won't make him surrender. My main concern with that is that the AI doesn't seem to take threat into account (it react once your on the capital...) not when your moving for it.

That's pretty much my point... if it was me and my economy was being crippled I would react even if the enemy was not at my capital. But I noticed that enough luxury were being consumed to override any morale loss for provinces I took. Plus exept for the capital province you don't lose national morale each turn. You would think after losing seven provinces that the people would notice no matter how much wine they were drinking...

I think I noticed that France lost about 250 morale while Paris was occupied each turn and something much lower for any other province but that loss was only on the turn it was lost. I don't have a saved game to refer to, can someone else check? Shouldn't every province lost be felt every turn not just on one turn? And the country should respond with forces assuming they are available.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Franck)

Post #: 5

RE: AI Behavior – Strategic Level - 3/10/2009 3:19:47 AM

Franck

Posts: 394
Joined: 10/1/2004
Status: offline

What I meant to say, is that you can easily try NOT to conquer every single province before you get to the capital. Go straigh at it (sending only 40-30K army to take small province on the way and protect you supply chain at the same time). It will have a much more historical feel and the AI will react.

But our different experiences might also come from the fact that I usually play Austria or Prussia or some other central power. I'm usualy close to France and I don't want a war with them going on forever!!!! They got 2 grand armee after all... And there army are full of CAV and Artillery! I almost never kill anything in pursuit :(

(in reply to dude)

Post #: 6

RE: AI Behavior – Strategic Level - 3/10/2009 1:06:33 PM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Franck

What I meant to say, is that you can easily try NOT to conquer every single province before you get to the capital. Go straigh at it (sending only 40-30K army to take small province on the way and protect you supply chain at the same time). It will have a much more historical feel and the AI will react.

But our different experiences might also come from the fact that I usually play Austria or Prussia or some other central power. I'm usualy close to France and I don't want a war with them going on forever!!!! They got 2 grand armee after all... And there army are full of CAV and Artillery! I almost never kill anything in pursuit :(

Yea... my problem with GB is I like to keep the army in supply with depots... so I generally move one province at a time to keep in supply. This also allowed me to automatically siege each Spanish province at the beginning of a turn and continue moving to the next province (I've noted that this should be changed in the Wish List.) GB has very limited forces to work with so keeping them supplied is critical. GB doesn't have a lot of forces that can be detached for either garrison duty or supply protection either so the shortest distance to the capital is best. I try to limit the losses as much as possible. So with the ease currently in sieges I can't help but take the Spanish provinces on the way to Madrid.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Franck)

Post #: 7

RE: AI Behavior – Strategic Level - 3/11/2009 2:26:48 AM

Franck

Posts: 394
Joined: 10/1/2004
Status: offline

That might be part of the problem... Britain plays very differently then all other power I believe... Most of them DO NOT have the money to pay the supply cost for a long war (I believe the french do, but that's about it!). You'll have to ether try something risky or start loosing units because you can't pay upkeep or supply (that's what happens when I face France with Austria or Prussia) So I have to push for something to happen!

(in reply to dude)

Post #: 8

RE: AI Behavior – Strategic Level - 3/11/2009 2:47:51 AM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

Couldnt you place troops into garrison?

I know its easier to keep on a "war footing" with units deployed into Corps and Armies and scattered over the countryside, but in reality thats why the garrison rules are there to reduce your costs to supply your units arent they?

You only need however many troops you need to accomplish your goal.

Also, if you do need all your troops on an offensive, doesnt putting troops on forage and plunder (on enemy soil) greatly reduce the costs? I noticed the categories in the supply report for plundering units but most of my playing has been as GB or France so Im usually using depots.

< Message edited by Mus -- 3/11/2009 2:55:53 AM >

(in reply to Franck)

Post #: 9

RE: AI Behavior – Strategic Level - 3/11/2009 8:29:56 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

The AI DOW/alliance/surrender routines are fairly long, and they do take many factors (including most of the things mentioned in this thread) into consideration. There is a small chance (like 2%) that the AI will ignore a set of factors on any given turn -- just to keep the AI from being entirely predictable.

If people would like to suggest more "absolute rules" for AI diplomatic behavior, we'd be happy to consider adding them. For instance, presently the AI isn't likely to surrender to a nation unless that nation occupies one of its cities, no matter how powerful its enemies are.

For the first update, I have modified the game AI to make computer-controlled nations more anti-Bonapartist. In the new build of the game, until the Bourbon restoration, nations should be much less likely to DOW on each other and much less likely to break their alliances until they have rid themselves of the young Corsican upstart. I hope the changes will make the period seem even more Napoleonic.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 10

RE: AI Behavior – Strategic Level - 3/11/2009 10:51:01 PM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

Have just barely started to play this gem, so can't say much yet, but will definitely keep this in mind. Don't actually know much about how you program an AI behavior, but I've been thinking quite a bit lately about hypothetical ways to do it.

_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 11

RE: AI Behavior – Strategic Level - 3/12/2009 1:43:09 PM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

Ok in my latest game I'm playing Turkey but also keeping an eye on how the AI plays GB (my usual choice.) Here’s what I’ve seen…

After a slow conquest of North Africa and peace with all my neighbors… I was moved into the Glory lead but only by a few points… something like 280 vs France’s 270… and all of Europe was alarmed…. Needless to say within about two turns everyone who could DOW’d me… even if I was on good terms with them. Sweden even got in on the action… Not sure how they figured they would get their army to Turkey though.

I immediately sued for peace with Russia who, since he was allied with Sweden (but no defense pact) got rid of both of these guys with little loss (no army losses and just Cyprus going to Sweden and Bessarabia going to Russia.) This left Spain and Austria. Since Spain had a larger fleet I sent mine home for safety and luckily I still had an army in Morocco when the Spanish landed. I wiped them out quickly and I didn’t hear from Spain again.
Meanwhile Austria had sent an army into Turkey so I met them with my other army on my own turf and defeated them. (I discovered it was a lot better with the Turkish army to fight a defensive war until you can wear down you opponents.) Austria was eventually forced to Surrender, but mostly because he was crushed by Prussia.

So now here’s the interesting part… as soon as I was at peace again with everyone (except for Spain) Great Britain and Prussia DOW’d me… Again because I was in the lead, not for any other perceived threat… and I was only in the lead by accident really. So just for the fun of it I reloaded the game back a turn and proposed an alliance with GB for a few trade offs (mostly just respecting a few neutrals they like.) Sure enough GB took the alliance… and this time only Prussia DOW’d me.
So I waited for the Prussian army to show up and it never did … war lapsed, along with the war with Spain finally.

So once the enforced peace ended with Russia…what do you suppose they did? DOW me immediately… which brought Sweden back in again and Spain again… but the fun part was watching the British sink all their ships. The discouraging part though was watching the British sit in England with a large army that was never used. Their enemies had few ships left so there was little threat of invasion but they never mounted an operation… not even against Spain. I had to send my force from Morocco into Spain and slowly marched on Madrid. I kept figuring GB would use its army for something.

1) I hate all these DOW’s just because of Glory point lead. It feels too contrived. In most cases all it does is cripple someone else who declares war for no reason and when they are not prepared for it. How about an option to ignore Glory point lead and base it more on territorial interests… that way places like Sweden should have very little interest in DOW’ing Turkey. And I don’t see the reason why Prussia would DOW Turkey either. France even DOW’d Turkey but didn’t have (nor bothered to get) permission to move through a neutral Austria… so that war eventually lapsed too. If you’re not going to prosecute a war… why bother starting one??? The funny thing is since I was in the lead they all kept DOW me and ignoring France who would turn around and and defeat them next. France would either DOW them or they would DOW France for some dumb reason. So by wasting time attacking Turkey instead of worrying about France who was grabbing up the land in Europe (and who was only behind me all the time in Glory points by just a couple of points) they left themselves open to defeat by France each time... rinse and repeat... It's like a cycle. Now Prussia, Russia, and Austria sit there with now armies and I'm sure if given the chance they would DOW me again. (I am trying to break the cycle this time by force all three into very long term alliances and preventing them from DOW me for a long while.)

2) GB needs to do something besides sitting in England. It could have used its army to take Portugal, some of the islands in the Med, or places in North Africa. Once I was allied and could see the size of his force I was dismayed… he had the equivalence of at least four full corps, plus a force in Ireland. I mean if my one Army in Morocco with just two corps could take on the Spanish… what could his have done?3) I think the AI's navel play of GB was good but the other powers where just foolish... if your at war with GB why would you bother leaving your merchants where the British (or my Turkish fleet) could sink them. I must thank the Swedish and Russians for providing me with a couple of merhants they left sitting off my coast while we were at war. Meanwhile the British sank almost every other country's merchants it came accross in it's waters.

4) Speaking of merchants... I almost find them useless... as soon as I got one out to start collecting money somebody would sink it. The cost in building it is almost not worth it.

5) Frigates... I'm tired of my fleet of twenty plus ships being chased away by a couple of privateers or merchants... When going into battle against merchants or privateers only your frigates enter the battle... I have on a few occiasions lost those battles (because I had a damaged frigate or too few) only to watch my mighty fleet chased away. Fine... I might lose... but the whole fleet should not be forced out of the sea zone by a loss to privateers and especially to merchants. This happened to me playing either GB or Turkey. I got really ticked when my supply line to Spain was cut because Swedish and Russian merchants just happend to pass through and my two frigates (with a fleet of twenty other ships) I had were defeated. My fleet retreated and my sea depot was destoryed.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 12

RE: AI Behavior – Strategic Level - 3/12/2009 4:22:25 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

1. The "all of Europe is alarmed" only kicks in when someone is winning by a large amount, or when the game is coming close to an end. It is a bit contrived, but before we added it, I played too many boring games where I could make a couple alliances, sit back and win by building a lot of culture.

2. The British AI has a variable propensity for amphibious invasions. It gets a randomized parameter, and so in some games it really likes them, in other games, it does not. This parameter can drift throughout the game. Without such a parameter, Britain was following a very predictable strategy with its amphibious invasions. Having watched a lot of games, I'm not entirely convinced that the British AI does all that well when its amphibious invasion strategy is running at maximum, though admittedly Britain doesn't often go after Africa.

Britain almost never DOWs on Portugal simply because their attitude for each other is so high, and it's probably better for Britain to get Portugal as a protectorate because Britain has very tight mobilization limits.

It's true that merchants don't take the positions of enemy fleets into consideration very much. I'll think about how to change that.

4) In most games, merchants probably aren't very useful unless you're an ally of Great Britain, or you can manage to pull out a naval upset as France. We might consider allowing merchants a higher chance of avoiding battle.

5) Does it really retreat your whole fleet when a frigate loses? I should probably change that.

_____________________________

(in reply to dude)

Post #: 13

RE: AI Behavior – Strategic Level - 3/12/2009 5:04:52 PM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

I'm curious what your game settings are Dude?

ADDIT: Eric, not sure if this is worthwhile or not, but maybe worth thinking about (and moreover, I just don't know the game that well yet):

There are at least two distinct ways to set up an AI rival: (1) they seek to win; or (2) they seek to prevent others from winning.

Perhaps the problem Dude is encountering has to do with the AI decision being coded more in terms of (1) them seeking to win?

For example, Dude commented that: "Why declare war on someone if you are not going to attack them?" It is my understanding that this sort of thing happened plenty of times in actual history. If let us say France is engaged in a direct rivalry with a neighbor, Austrian protectorates in Lux and Flanders for example, it is in Austrian interests to get as many other nations to declare war on France as possible, even if there is a very limited possiblity that those nations will actually engage in offensive actions against France. A state of War between Spain, or GB and France would pose a risk that either of these two nations would engage in an offensive in France's "rear" area.

It must be VERY hard to code this stuff, I don't even have a clue of what is really involved, but I'd be happy to help anyway that I possibly could.

< Message edited by Anthropoid -- 3/12/2009 5:12:44 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 14

RE: AI Behavior – Strategic Level - 3/12/2009 6:25:16 PM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I'm curious what your game settings are Dude?

I'm using the 1803 scenario with the default AI settings, no advantages, 23 years, highest glory, simple econ. I'm on my third game with these settings (once as GB, twice as Turkey... having not played Turkey before I got my butt handed to me very quickly the first time out, so I tried again... better results so far.)

quote:

...If let us say France is engaged in a direct rivalry with a neighbor, Austrian protectorates in Lux and Flanders for example, it is in Austrian interests to get as many other nations to declare war on France as possible,...

I don't disagree... if the countries are allied... but when I see unallied countries just piling on so to speak (Sweden and GB did this in a couple of cases) I don't think that's good behavior... especially if they don't intend to prosecute the war. GB you can at least argue that it uses it navy but then it's army sits at home. Sweden I never did see any sign of except for a couple of merchants. France DOW'd me but never got access through Austria and never sent any forces at at me... same with Prussia on one occasion.

And for some countries it makes sense to be at war with them all the time... France comes to mind. But for others who don't have the forces it does not make sense to DOW someone you can't possible beat.

Some possible matches I think don't make sense unless they are allied with someone else first...
Sweden vs Turkey
Prussia vs Turkey
Spain vs Russia
Spain vs Sweden

Match ups that can be problematic if there's no Access...
France vs Russia or Turkey
Spain vs Prussia
Prussia vs Turkey

I've watched France go into Russia a number of times now but it made sense because he was either allied with Prussia and/or Austria at the time or Russia was allied with one of them and they were all at war with France... perfect sense. But I've seen France DOW Russia with NO access because Prussia and Austria were either neutral or recently defeated and under peace limits. Their two armies just sat their. In one game as GB I took advantage of that fact and marched through Spain into France taking the entire western half of France... it wasn't until I moved adjacent to Paris that he finally moved his troops off the eastern boarder to save Paris... luckily for me it was too late and I defeated Paris and he surrendered on the same turn his army arrived. And I only had one GB army with two corps!

GB is tricky because even I like to DOW someone with a fleet just to defeat their navies... then let the war lapse. But I still use the army when opportunities appear... usually an island here or there or in North Africa, Portugal, or Spain and if I'm really feeling bold against Turkey via North Africa.

In a lot of respects I think the AI would be fine in a game that's a free for all, where you're only out to get the guy in the lead... but I'm expecting a little bit more out of the historical scenarios I guess.

but again don't take this the wrong way... I am really enjoying the came. It's outstanding all the way around.

< Message edited by dude -- 3/12/2009 6:26:34 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 15

RE: AI Behavior – Strategic Level - 3/12/2009 6:35:24 PM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

There are at least two distinct ways to set up an AI rival: (1) they seek to win; or (2) they seek to prevent others from winning.

Perhaps the problem Dude is encountering has to do with the AI decision being coded more in terms of (1) them seeking to win?

I agree with this too... but what I see more of is the AI going after the guy in the lead… that sounds more like your #2 seeking to prevent others from winning.

The problem with #2 is that if you are trying to prevent others from winning you may be more prone to do things not in your best interest.

The AI should do what’s in its best interest… even if that means having to ignore the guy in the lead. DOW’ing someone when you don’t have the forces to defeat them is suicide.

So I would be leaning to #1 as an AI set up. It should be trying to win and doing what’s best for it’s country.

Now in Empire in Arms one of the interesting win options is that GB can win if nobody else has enough points to win at the end of the game… I always found that interesting. Because you couldn’t just go after GB or you’d give him points towards a normal victory. But GB could play the spoiler in a lot of ways which is #2 above... seeking to prevent others from winning.

< Message edited by dude -- 3/12/2009 6:39:58 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 16

RE: AI Behavior – Strategic Level - 3/12/2009 6:53:06 PM

dude

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

1. The "all of Europe is alarmed" only kicks in when someone is winning by a large amount, or when the game is coming close to an end. It is a bit contrived, but before we added it, I played too many boring games where I could make a couple alliances, sit back and win by building a lot of culture.

I had the alarm raised when I was at 280 points and France was at 270 a year into the game. I can perhaps see a 500+ gap causing the alarm... but 10 point gap and such few points?

quote:

2. The British AI has a variable propensity for amphibious invasions. It gets a randomized parameter, and so in some games it really likes them, in other games, it does not. This parameter can drift throughout the game. Without such a parameter, Britain was following a very predictable strategy with its amphibious invasions. Having watched a lot of games, I'm not entirely convinced that the British AI does all that well when its amphibious invasion strategy is running at maximum, though admittedly Britain doesn't often go after Africa.

Britain almost never DOWs on Portugal simply because their attitude for each other is so high, and it's probably better for Britain to get Portugal as a protectorate because Britain has very tight mobilization limits.

ah... good to know... so perhaps the game I'm playing now they are at the low end of amphibious ops. I had hoped they would land in Spain but never did.

quote:

It's true that merchants don't take the positions of enemy fleets into consideration very much. I'll think about how to change that.

4) In most games, merchants probably aren't very useful unless you're an ally of Great Britain, or you can manage to pull out a naval upset as France. We might consider allowing merchants a higher chance of avoiding battle.

Yea... while I'm at war I usually mothball the merchants to prevent them being lost... but once GB defeated most of the opposing navies and I allied with them I was in merchant heaven.

quote:

5) Does it really retreat your whole fleet when a frigate loses? I should probably change that.

Yup... I lost a vital supply line from Morocco to Spain that way... I had a Turkish fleet sitting there guarding the depot at sea but some Russian and Swedish merchants and privateers came through forcing a battle... my frigates for some reason lost after just a couple of shots. I only had a couple of frigates... some others were home being repaired. But my 20 ship fleet fled the scene and the depot was destroyed.

What I can't remember at the moment is if (when I played GB) whether I intercepted merchants when I didn't have any frigates. Can you only intercept them with frigates?

I think the retreats should be based on the size and composition of the fleets. Merchants and Privateers (to a lesser extent) shouldn't be able to force Ships of the Line out of a sea zone. A fleet of Frigates... sure... but not the SOL unless it's a lone one.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 17