Observations on the AI (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory



Message

silber -> Observations on the AI (1/26/2006 6:11:20 PM)

I played two games (or parts thereof). The first was from the 1792 scenario, as France. After some tough initial fighting, I defeated Austria and Prussia, added by the fact that Sweden attacked Prussia, and Russia attacked both of them. After that, the game degenerated into a wierd situation where everytime a clear leader emerged, everyone ganged up on them. (It reminded me rather of board games of Diplomacy). By 1805, Europe was a patchwork with Turkish provinces in Central Europe, Spanish provinces in Eastern Europe etc.

I haven't tried 1796, but compared to 1805, there is no stability to political alignments. I think that the tendency of the AI to jump on the leader perhaps needs to be tempered by a tendency to remain at peace if the leader isn't too powerful. Or something. In 1805 (at least through 1808) everyone basically jumps on France, and, with the exception of a quick war between Turkey and Russia, I didn't see any European powers fight anyone other than the French/Spanish alliance, or an occasional neutral. However, the peacemaking AI seems to discount "Enforced Peace", so no one was knocked out of the "anti-French" dogpile for long.

I then played 1805 for a few years as England. I gave France a powerup by one level. I was perpetually cash poor, and couldn't generate textile to save my life. BTW, the trading AI seems to want to trade money for food even if you have "export money" unchecked.

Problems I had with the diplomatic AI in 1805:
1. Unwillingness to use "enforced peace" in a surrender, preferring far-flung provinces instead. You can't get the phenomana of the historical 1805 where France kocked Austria or Prussia out in a war (1805 and 1806 campaigns respectively) and dictate that they would remain neutral afterward.
2. Unwillingness (of France, and probably any "winning power") in a war to sign a ceasefire with one opponent in order to beat up on others. (In particular, unwillingness to sign a ceasefire with Britain. Without a ceasefire, a treaty of mutual enforced peace doesn't actually stop the war.) You can't really manage something like the Treaty of Amiens. In both games, I have yet to see a war that didn't end with surrenders on the part of someone.

On the good side, probably because, through 1808, France was in the lead, was that we didn't get the same sort of free-for-all I saw in the 1792 scenario.

Operational/Strategic AI:
This was a nonsensical as in Crusader Kings (by Paradox, and quite a good game overall), in that a country would allow enemy forces to wander about its home territories, beseiging cities and plundering castles, while blithely trying to do the same in the enemies home territories. I don't know if this is a result of the "objectives" file or not. The French (at least) were strong enough at home to fend off the marauders, but I don't think that the Austrians were. The latter seemed perfectly happy to lose home provinces in order to attack others. There probably needs to be a stronger attraction (for the AI) to relieve a siege.

Movement:
I had great trouble getting fleets carrying units to sail. If I specificed a path from port to port, it never left the first port. Basically, it seemed that (unlike ground units), if it couldn't make the entire trip, it didn't make any of it.



Grand_Armee -> RE: Observations on the AI (1/27/2006 8:39:44 AM)

No AI will make everyone happy. Sooner or later you're going to learn to flog it...then you'll start weakening yourself to give it a chance...then you'll put the game away to gather dust. But this game has that assed bonus of TCP/IP play. The best way to get the realism you crave is to play another human...it's fun!



silber -> RE: Observations on the AI (1/27/2006 2:35:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grand_Armee

No AI will make everyone happy. Sooner or later you're going to learn to flog it...then you'll start weakening yourself to give it a chance...then you'll put the game away to gather dust. But this game has that assed bonus of TCP/IP play. The best way to get the realism you crave is to play another human...it's fun!



I guess what I'm asking for though is an option for a more "historically minded" AI... It may be as simple as changing some goals around, or decoupling the goals which give Glory points (for expansion) with other goals which preserve core provinces.



garoco -> RE: Observations on the AI (1/27/2006 2:56:55 PM)

Hi
The historically minded doesn´t focus of this game, here all the countries always have probabilities of win. To these effect you must look the Empire in Arms forum



silber -> RE: Observations on the AI (1/27/2006 5:58:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: garoco

Hi
The historically minded doesn´t focus of this game, here all the countries always have probabilities of win. To these effect you must look the Empire in Arms forum


First, if Empires in Arms is anything like the original board game, there is even more "thrashing" of constantly changing alliances. And not all countries have equal probabilities of winning in CoG, nor should they. In the historical scenario, at least initially, almost everyone is ganging up on France. (In my current game, in 1809, France has finally surrendered. We will now see who the dogpile is on.) What happens, particularly in the 1792 scenario, where France isn't that strong, is that the AIs "dogpile" on any country which is ahead in glory. It leads to this very odd situation where countries enter a feeding frenzy-like cycle.

I've seen situations where countries which surrendered to one leader go to war six months later when another country "becomes a concern to Europe".



Treefrog -> RE: Observations on the AI (1/27/2006 7:59:54 PM)

Feeding frenzy enjoys some precedent in history. CoG is remarkable only because the sides realign so quickly, although our knowledge of history suggests this more typically occurs over a period of years (with some notable exceptions). Given the slow communications of the era the speed of realignment feels unhistorical.

Like many aspects of this game it is easier to reconcile the phenomonen of rapid political realignment to your prejudice if you abstract it a little bit. Which is to say although the process may not appeal to you, the overall result is probably consistent with how countries really act.

From a gamer's point of view: if you are the underdog, you'd like some relief and a chance to grow fat feeding on another country.

If you are the leader, well good for you. Suck it up and get'er done. This is only a game and they won't really kill you and eat you!! Besides, it would be b-o-r-i-n-g if once you gained ascendancy you could repeatedly defeat your adversaries in detail.

********** anecdotal war story illustrating above**********

France 1792, max difficulty received Austrian surrender December 1792 with Prussian army all captured (except 40,000 cowering in the Reichstadt bunker in Berlin). France is sixth in glory points (behind Bessarabia) but well positioned for future growth. Russian had attacked Poland in November 1792; who cares, none of our business.

January 1793 Poland asks for protectorate; well sure, we republicans welcome the Polish proletariat (and their absolutely drop dead gorgeous women[sm=00001746.gif], but that's another story). Besides, it will add the Polish army to the attack on Berlin (which by the way takes nothing away from the beauty of Polish women [sm=kiss.gif]). Russia ignores the ultimatum (do those guys know who they're dealing with?).

Frances leaps to #1 in glory [sm=00000002.gif] Not good. March 1793 Britain, Sweden and Turkey announce they'll attack France in July 1793.

Oh well. New days bring new challenges.

"The fewer men, the greater share of honour." Henry V, Act 4, Scene III.



TexHorns -> RE: Observations on the AI (1/28/2006 6:37:53 AM)

If you play enough games I think you will see some balance in how the ai reacts to the glory leader. PLaying a 1792scenario as France ; in 1809 after leading in glory for the last decade I have fought many wars of course. Sometimes fighting two or three countries at one time. I lead in glory by 3000 points, am allied with Turkey. Spain is at war with Austria. Spain violates my territory, I issue ultimatum, he DOW's me. Turkey DOW's Spain as my ally and it is Austria, Turkey and the glory Leader France vs Spain. Several turns later Sweden DOW's France as well.

The point is that even though I led in Glory I was able to obtain an alliance (ceded territory in eastern europe to Turkey for territory in western europe and an alliance), and fight a war with two coutnries on my side. So it's not always a gang up on the leader mentality, at least not all the time.



malthaussen -> RE: Observations on the AI (1/28/2006 4:00:31 PM)

Nevertheless, it does seem to degenerate that way in the long run, and there doesn't seem to be much one can do about it. What I find particularly annoying is the AI's blithe disregard of the "enforced peace" conditions of a treaty. If they make combinations and declare war on you despite being under "enforced peace," then why bother to try? It will eventually be you (and whatever allies you can scrape up) against the world.

I would like a modification of the Bad Boy condition to do something to alleviate the tendency to these long-range, pointless wars. I was thinking that the AI should have to check and find a connected path of provinces from its capital to your territory before it would declare war, allowing for perhaps a single sea zone to intervene. Sweden and Britain declaring war on Turkey just because the latter has accumulated an abstract number of "points" seems unreasonable. Quick historical check... was Britain *ever* at war with Turkey before 1914?

My assessment of the game so far is that it is a lot of fun in the short run, but less so in the long run. I disagree with Treefrog: I *like* beating up on my enemies in detail.

-- Mal



Hard Sarge -> RE: Observations on the AI (1/28/2006 4:55:30 PM)

to be honest, I do not think most people really use the Treadies to full effect

I can write some dozies, and can have most of the world tied and twisted

you can really make some interesting ones, get 3 nations to agreed to protect each other, then get the rest to agreed to protect the rest

then offer somebody a little money to DOW on somebody, and watch a 7 nation war break out, while you sit back and watch (of course, you Ally with the nation you pay someone else to DOW on, so you are not forced to join in)

I get England to be my friend, get England and Sweden to go to war with Prussia, get Sweden and Spain to go to war with England, get Russia to go to war with Prussia and Aus, and get Turkey to go to war with Russia and Aus

and then sit back and say

Wow, did I do that




malthaussen -> RE: Observations on the AI (1/30/2006 2:32:47 PM)

Hmmm... I suppose that's one way to keep 'em off your back.:)

-- Mal



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.828125