RE: AI enhancement ideas (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815



Message

eske -> RE: AI enhancement ideas (3/4/2008 12:58:09 PM)

Wouldn't it be possible to train a small neural net to pick combat chits?
- or two actually. one for attacker and one for defender.

Inputs could be no of inf and cav corps on each side, up to a max. Moral in steps of 0.25. Estimate of opponent moral same way. Leader strategic ratings. Die modifiers from comparing tactical ratings. Terrain table modifiers, for attacker/defender. An indication of possible cav. superiority, maybe presence of cav. leader. Chance of reinforcement, both sides. Possible guard commitment steps both sides.

I probabliy forgot something, but maybe this is allready too detailed.(?)

Test data could be generated randomly: A lot of battles with random chits and for a start just who won.

The wieghted output from the net should not be used for picking chit directly, but the chance for each chit, I guess.

- hmm, a little more complicating issues here than I imagined. But for starters simplify as much as possible.

Anyways, should be easy to obtain better results than totally random picks [:)]



Grognot -> RE: AI enhancement ideas (3/6/2008 9:07:32 AM)

Probably a good idea to code up templates of what a stack 'should' look like, to avoid lots of vastly suboptimal stacks running around.

Ex. -- saw a Russian corps march from Moscow, across Prussia (access), towards Mecklenberg (at a time when the French army is heavily concentrated in what used to be Prussian or Austrian territory -- well within range).  It turned out to be an artillery corps w/ 10 factors.  Mistakes made in that march incl...

Russian artillery corps should never, ever, be operating without infantry corps support.  A/C and A/G stacks are too expensive.  If an infantry escort all dies due to foraging losses, that means the artillery corps needs to hie over to some accessible infantry stack.

No attention was paid to supplying it on the way.

Russian corps shouldn't operate solo on offense.  Other than Cossacks, they have no business going solo anywhere near an enemy major power -- one corps might suffice to take a minor, but other majors are going to be able to smash it pretty easily.   Only go solo for extreme tactics like 'recon by death' (which would require the AI to have some memory) and sacrificial rear-guard screens, or blocking a long and critical supply route (still best done with Cossacks, but *shrug*).

Should have something in mind like ex. Gds corps, A corps, several inf corps and pref. a couple cav corps under a decent leader like Kutusov -- for a primary army, not one for a defense of St. Petersburg unless it's really going that badly.  With an objective of linking up with Au/Pr forces if it's going to hit a large French stack... and if that stack's decimated, with Kutusov at risk of being captured, he should probably go back in the reinforcement pool.



fvianello -> RE: AI enhancement ideas (3/6/2008 11:22:37 AM)

I completely agree. BTW, the problem of the "piecemeal" approach (never attack with everything but send little useless forces every turn) seems to infect many game AIs, not only EiA.

The root of this problem is always in the AI atomic decisional approach; it evaluates the "best move" for every single unit never considering them as part of something bigger.

Even in the acclaimed Total War, the battle AI is practically unable to execute the most basic attack maneuvers, for example a simple all-out frontal assault.



adrianthomson -> RE: AI enhancement ideas (3/7/2008 1:50:19 AM)

You should find a way for the AI to actually strategize with other AI to conquer....



Grognot -> RE: AI enhancement ideas (3/7/2008 1:57:54 AM)

...or defend.

I'm in four simultaneous 2-human/5-AI games, proceeding at a fairly decent clip (PBEM combat to avoid some glitches and reduce turn-around), and I think I've yet to see two allied AIs stack in the same region.  Much of that is probably because AI Austria and Prussia seem relatively indifferent to the other's being under threat.

AI Russia responds to calls from Prussia, and Turkey to calls from France, but the eastern majors don't maneuver very well.  e.g. seen a Turkish stack sitting in Greece, with a fleet, and staying there while Russians are besieging Constantinople.   Russia isn't quite as passive (the corps sometimes move) but they're uncoordinated.



Grapeshot Bob -> RE: AI enhancement ideas (3/7/2008 9:15:38 AM)

Please allow the Spanish and French (or anyone else, for that matter) to combine their fleets and fight together.

I miss Trafalgar.



GSB



Pans -> RE: AI enhancement ideas (3/13/2008 5:27:49 PM)

Hi together,

a good idea would be to modify the ally request info-box.

What happened was that I (Spain) asked the British for 30$. The roll was a eight and the Brits agreed for a loss of 3pp for me. I agreed and got 10$ ?!

If the money a MP lend another MP will not be over 10$ in total so please limit the input in the request field on that

cheers
Andreas



Marshall Ellis -> RE: AI enhancement ideas (3/13/2008 11:33:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

I completely agree. BTW, the problem of the "piecemeal" approach (never attack with everything but send little useless forces every turn) seems to infect many game AIs, not only EiA.

The root of this problem is always in the AI atomic decisional approach; it evaluates the "best move" for every single unit never considering them as part of something bigger.

Even in the acclaimed Total War, the battle AI is practically unable to execute the most basic attack maneuvers, for example a simple all-out frontal assault.


Hanbarca:

My problem was not necesarrily the atomic approach BUT the "last stand" approach i.e. France has a stack heading for Berlin and I will bring everything I can in a desparate attempt to defend Berlin. If that means one corps then one corps it is. No denying that this needs to be changed.




Norden_slith -> RE: AI enhancement ideas (3/18/2008 6:27:22 PM)

There are horribly many angles to a decent AI. One is better diplomacy, another is coordinating with allies, the next is defensive objectives, offensive objectives, supply, when to give up, when to take the peace-offer and so on.

One angle is fielding an effective force:

Generally most countries fielded one big fieldarmy. The possible exeptions are France and Russia.
This should be a guideline. It is of course very dependent on the total number of available corps and the average number of troops in those.

Each country should know its most effective General and try to fit him with the best units at least up to his corps-max. Best units as in some priority of quality (cav-guard-inf-mil) and quantity- depending on the country (Turkey might go for quantity). A certain % of cavalry should also be in the mix, this varies widely from country to country.

On top of that, certain corps should be assigned permanently to certain generals, like the Guard and the Artillery to Napoleon.

If there are more corps and generals, start to fill out the next general.

Most of this involves a lot of statistics, which is where computers excel.

Example:

Austria:
Prime leader: Charles, 6 corps or at least 2/3 of available. Cavalry is only between 10 and 15%. Allways attach him 2 a guardcorps or infantrycorps.

Secondary leader: Comes into play if at least 2 corps available. Preferable guard or inf-corps.

John: nononono!

1st priority: collect corps under charles
2nd priority: get the biggest corps
3rd priority: get as much Cav as possible
4th priority: attach Charles to a guardcorps.


Is this a usable approach? Somehow, I imagine, that if you focus your forces around a few Generals, principal tactics are a little easier to develop. If Prussia has Blücher and Hohenlohe you have to find out what 2 units are doing, not all those separate corps.















Marshall Ellis -> RE: AI enhancement ideas (3/19/2008 3:28:09 PM)

I've seen the "main army" idea a few times and it seems that this could be a good approach. This could be done with a stack buildup like you're talking about (force mix) and leader and goals (defensive or offensive). This could also help minimize the suicide attacks by preventing individual corps actions. I like it...

Tell me what would be the optimal force composition in EiANW?






Jimmer -> RE: AI enhancement ideas (3/19/2008 5:27:58 PM)

It depends on which nation you are playing, actually. France can pretty much take any six corps and Nappy and he's happy. But, Austria, with two small guard corps and limited cavalry in their infantry corps, has to think a lot harder. Against France, probably 4 inf corps, 1 cav, and 1 guard. But, if Nappy is coming with a full army, then skip the cav corp, as it isn't going to do much good anyhow. France can be beaten, but only VERY rarely will it happen with enough of its enemy's morale left over to have any kind of pursuit. Better to have a larger army for the 95% of battles where you don't break the French.

Turkey's main army should be some multiple of 3 corps: 6, 9, 12, 27 ( :) ). Turkey, unlike Austria, should almost ALWAYS have a couple of cav corps. Turkey rarely wins battles outright, but, when she DOES win, she always gets pursuit. It is VERY common in battles that Turkey wins that she actually kills more money's worth of factors in pursuit than in the main battle. I've actually seen her take out 100+ troops twice, mostly in pursuit. This with an army of less than 75. Not bad.

Prussia has very good corps, but lousy leadership. Until Blucher, that is. Before he shows up, Prussia should cower in an unreachable corner of the nation and hope to last. Once Blucher shows up, Prussia can take any corps, except the big ones should always be present.

Etc.

Now, a couple of notes:

For nations which have true guard, the guard should ALWAYS be with the main army. Artillery, not so much "always" as "mostly". The reason the guard is essential is to prevent huge losses. Yes, they provide better morale, and yes, they can turn the tide of battle from middling showing to victory. But, their real benefit is to prevent huge losses. (This is true in the game, not necessarily historically.) Every player with guard should check the tables as that nation gets closer to losing. A point may come when loss is inevitable, but a mutual breaking is not. However, a commitment of the guard can sometimes turn what looks like a rout into a minor loss, and sometimes turn a minor loss into a mutual break.

Army size: Always have a multiple of the good leader's rating, when possible. This is the point just below where the tactical rating will slip by one. For instance, at 1-6 corps, Nappy's rating is a 5, but the 7th corps makes him a 4. So does the 8th, 9th, etc., all the way to 12. Why take 7 corps when 12 will do? :)

Note the previous entry also applies to forces which are depending on reinforcement. Say, Davout attacks Charles with 2 corps. If Nappy intends to reinforce in, having 4 corps with him is ideal, as that makes him spot on his tactical maximum of 6.

Some leaders simply have too small a tactical maximum rating for this to work. Wellington is a 5/5, but only with 3 or fewer corps. Not incredibly useful against Le Grande Armee'. So, sometimes the above gets tweaked a bit. Khan, Ali, Kutusov, Bagration, etc., also suffer from this ailment to a degree.

The key in "number of corps" is to know the enemy: How many corps will you be up against? (Don't forget about HIS turn, either!) A 3 tactical rating is just as good as a 4 against Nappy. On the other hand, when his move comes around, your having a 3 means he can double-stack to a 4 rating. So, be careful with this.



Dave_T -> Stacking - France & retaking capitals (3/19/2008 11:24:31 PM)

For Napoleon:

Normal Stack (6 corps) 1,2,3,4, G & A plus Murat attached to Artillery
Overstacked, as above + Cav 1,2,3 & 4 + any other 2 (preferably minors)

For Davout:
Normal Stack (2 Corps) 5th & 6th
Over Stacked (5 Corps) as above +10th, 11th & 12th plus Soult attached to 10th
effectively 2 medium stacks or 1 large stack

Masenna:
Normal Stack: 7th, 8th & 9th
Overstack, as above + 3 others (preferably minors)

The corps composition of the stacks is important due to cavalry concerns. Nappy overstacked with the Cav Corps reduces him to 546 with 39 Cav.

Theatre of Operations is also important.

I use Nappy to attack Prussia and Austria, whith the occasional foray into Russia once Prussia is successfully cowed.

Davout/Soult gives a stack with enough cav to counter GB or Spain.

Masenna gets used initallly with the Swedes to take Denmark & Norway to set up Nappy's invasion of Russia and then gets posted off to NA/Turkey to join up with the Egyptians (if available) or with the Swedes once Norway is taken & StP captured.

Bernadotte either gets posted to the Egyptians (if available) or sits in reserve if I need to tell off 2 corps for other activities somewhere.

Ney & Eugene sit in reserve incase an odd corps is needed to hold/take a minor.

Generally I keep the Dutch corps in reserve as Russia sending Cav Corps/Cossacks behind my lines is annoying & the Dutch act as "Euro-Police" with Ney or Eugene.

Jerome is pointless until the "random leader" casualty is introduced rather than "battle leader" as is.

This split also helps when transporting by sea. None of Nappy's ICs can be transported, he has to use Shank's Pony to get anywhere, but with 36 months peace hopefully enforced on both Pr & As this is not a problem.

Davout's 2 Corps can be transported with the Trn fleet once 6 more transports are built. If GB is cowed then Dvout can shuttle between Spain and GB easily. Similarly the the 3 corps with Soult fit onto a 17HS fleet.

Masenna's 3 Corps can be transported with 3x19HS fleets.

The Swedes can be carried by either 3x14s fleets or a 21trn Fleet.

On the flip side, if things go bad for France and are fighting a strong coalition mid/late game then Nappy's stack is fighting the strongest, Davout/Soult the weakest & Masenna fending off Spanish/GB incursions if neccessary.

One thing the AI needs to do when fighting a war is to consolidate a position. If Paris is threatened attacking piecemeal does nothing but break the seige each turn & burns factors. Considerations on 1) what turn is it and 2) is the capital besieged or captured?

FREX:

Is it an economic turn? If yes then:
a) is the capital besieged and am I moving after the besieger and can the garrison starve out? If yes then burn a corps to lift the siege
b) is the capital occupied? If yes then can I get enough troops to relive the occupation (eg can I match at least 67% in estimated strength)? If no, ignore the siege and consolidate troops to relive next month. Losing a capital for an eco is not the end of the world, throwing your troops away in a pointless exercise is.

If it's not an economic the consolidate & attack in force next month. Johnny Englishman drinking San Michel and Beaujolais wine on the Champs Elysee in February is an annoyance (kudos to anyone who gets that reference), Napoleon kicking the snot out of said redcoat in March saves you your Eco.



Dave_T -> Turkey - Reinforcing (3/19/2008 11:34:27 PM)

Turkey's strength is the mass of cavalry you can get into a battle & destroy the enemy on pursuit, but with a morale of 2 this turns your stack into one big chocolate soldier.

However, attacking with regulars (morale 3) then reinforcing with feudals still keeps the morale @ 3 (or 4 if your opponent foolishly chooses CA/ECA). This also cuts down on feed/forage costs/losses. Advanceing the regulars 2 spaces from the starting depot & the feudals 1 space,  your feudals aren't moving too far from the starting depot point and moving infantry 1 space first & forage followed by Cav foraging on Move 4 + Area - 2 other corps generally means the don't lose much. This a slow advance, but intimidating to either defend against or attack.



Dave_T -> Minors - not as valuable as the AI thinks (3/19/2008 11:42:59 PM)

The AI places great value on minors and spreads out to take the opponents minors and, subsequently, leaves himself (or herself) open to being taken apart piecemeal.

When at war with another power the minors should be a secondary concern, the primary goal should be to take the oppenents capital and/or force a decisive battle. Once the enemy is broken then send mop up corps to take minors. If the enemy is going to hold out until you take all the provincial capitals, take his minors first. If he surrenders UC early to save his minors you then get pick of the prime minors/provinces with little materielle loss in the war, which is a good payoff, even better if you can force the enemy into Instability/Fiasco with the UC.



Dave_T -> Consolidating in General (3/19/2008 11:49:12 PM)

Once a war is over the AI just stops & leaves stuff where the ended up. This generally leaves fleets out at sea doing nothing & costing money.

The AI needs to consolidate & reduce the costs per turn. Basically fall back to your biggest city, drop factors into garrison & depot garrison leaving the minimum number of corps on the map (Guard & Cav) to reduce the cost, freeing money to build quality troops rather than masses of Militia, as is the AIs general want.



Dave_T -> Builds (3/20/2008 12:27:06 AM)

The AI (Prussia and Spain mainly) has a tendancy to fill corps with Militia. Wasting manpower is bad, but militia should be used to primarily garrison cities (in the order Capital>Minor Capital>Provincial Capital>Port>Any City). After the start of the game the AI rarely garrisons anything, taking remove garrisons as a peace option generally ensures that that country will not garrison its provincial capitals again. Fleets are often left in ports with no garrisons. Militia IMHO shouldn't make up more than 10% of any field army and should never be more than 30%. If the AI can't afford Infantry during a turn the build militia & place in garrison, they can be picked up later on if needed.

The AI never builds ships either, for Spain & GB any odd MP point should be used to build a ship (LS or HS) rather than wasted if funds allow. Russia should work on a similar pricipal, but with artillery building being a superior choice to ships, unless the A corps is full/will be full with existing builds. France should build ships on a similar choice principal to Russia, unless Fr has lost all/most of his fleet.

GB should consider a Wooden Walls strategy & be building heavy fleets to an optimal size of:

1st - 16HS, 2nd/3rd/4th - 14HS, 5th - 20HS, 6th 10HS. This configuaration allows the entire British army to be transported by the heavy fleets and, consequently, GB should be able to take any and all island minors and, if neccessary, conduct campaigns in North Africa.



Mardonius -> Chit Selection (3/20/2008 3:14:17 PM)

In my humble opinion, the AI should be very reluctant to make certain chit choices dependent on the successful Strategic die roll. A failed Outflank can be very bad, but a failed Withdraw is almost always a disaster. If the AI has only a 1 in 6 chance of making the Withdraw, it should be a very unlikely chit choice.



Grognot -> RE: Chit Selection (3/20/2008 9:22:16 PM)

'Main army' approach makes sense in most cases.

If it's the second time around, the AI has already lost provinces, and the AI hasn't gotten stronger, then sacrificing corps to recapture the ceded provinces (they just need to live long-enough to turn them into unceded) might make sense.

Other instance where a 'main army' might not make sense is if it's so much a mismatch that being in the field isn't going to help -- e.g. if France for some reason sends a large stack against Spain, and nobody's helping the latter.  Garrisons don't give up PP when they lose.  If you're Prussia, just got beat down by France, and are now being attacked by a strong Russia, it might be better to save manpower for after an enforced peace rather than blow the stockpile on militia.



eske -> RE: Chit Selection (5/5/2008 12:03:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Marshall Ellis
Jan Sorensen:
Yea, you're probably right! The AI is probably DOWing a little too easily and it needs to be drawn down a little.
I'm currently using the natural alliance table along with other vairables such as army strength, is an ally at war with this MP, is this MP leading the game, is this MP losing many battles thus maybe weak and easy?
The core chance probably needs to come down a bit.


Using this from the bug thread to bump this thread, and to post a suggestion concerning DoWs:

Two kinds of war are desirable to enter: Those you can win and those you can't lose.
A reasonable estimate for this is; can I reach his capital? Can he reach mine? 
If over land an army has to pass through a third MP's home territory, its out of reach. If over sea he can defend his coast with more ships than you can put in an invasion fleet, its out of reach.

When this is established you can look at others things
Allies allready at war: Can he reach the enemy capital or lose his own? Can you reach him and/or the reverse so you actually can help each other?.
Gains:
Military gain as in you can kill a significant part of his forces. (Remember who moves first)
Economic gain from conquering some of his minors.
Political gain from easy won battles/sieges. (You're investing PPs in the DoW. Win them back?)
Diplomatic gain by helping allies.
Strategical gain by not being the only ally without enforced peace to a MP, that CAN reach your capital.

Examples from 1805:
Prussia vs GB or Spain is a NO.
Russia vs France is only with allies, that can give access.
Turkey vs Russia sure, but if Russia calls GB or Spain you probably don't want to.

Bottom line is, don't enter a war you can lose, but can't win if you can avoid it.

It occurs to me the natural alliance table may be ok for finding good allies, but not good for finding enemies [;)].

The quick and dirty approach is to make a static 'reachable' table in hand and based on 1805. Or maybe separate for land and naval. The first will only need updated when a home nation province is ceded or forced access occurs is picked in surrenders, if at all. Naval only needs ship counting to be updated.

Of course this can all be refined ad libitum, but does represent a rudimentary common sense. I guess it will work out if the geography doesn't get too weird during a game.

If it's too restrictive you can always add a touch of the current randomness.
(By the way, why not simply make a limit to the frequency MP's can DoW each other. Specially identical DoWs in a row or DoW after an informal peace)

Wonder if this gives something to deciding when to make peace. If you can't lose a war or lose anything in it, why end it ??

/eske



timewalker03 -> RE: Chit Selection (5/5/2008 3:42:12 PM)

Getting Austria and Prussia to actually form an Alliance would be good. I tested this over 21 games starts playing 6 months each and not once did the two countries Ally. I was Austria 6 times and Prussia 6. I checked the Ally with the other box and never got an alliance to form. Also the other 9 games I played various countries and no alliance formed.

One other thing when I played years ago we had a house rule of PRE WAR BUILD. What this entailed is that with the start of the game we actually started with a money manpower collection then a build. This we justified with the fact as the tensions in europe rose countries would have begun building prior to any wars or escalation of tensions. Just a thought. This brought good game balance into play and caused more early wars. This would make a great optional rule!



Marshall Ellis -> RE: Chit Selection (5/6/2008 2:23:03 PM)

Has anybody seen Prussia and Austria ally? I did this a few times myself and noticed this as well???




timewalker03 -> RE: Chit Selection (5/6/2008 4:16:27 PM)

I played 3 games last night for 6 months each game and 2 out of 3 Prussia declared war on Austria. Third no alliance.



NeverMan -> RE: Chit Selection (5/6/2008 5:52:04 PM)

Yeah, that is just bad. I think that most experienced players realized that, at least in the beginning of the game, Pr and Au are well suited to stick together against France. They should be allying quite a bit, IMO.



Jimmer -> RE: Chit Selection (5/6/2008 6:54:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: timewalker03

Getting Austria and Prussia to actually form an Alliance would be good. I tested this over 21 games starts playing 6 months each and not once did the two countries Ally. I was Austria 6 times and Prussia 6. I checked the Ally with the other box and never got an alliance to form. Also the other 9 games I played various countries and no alliance formed.

One other thing when I played years ago we had a house rule of PRE WAR BUILD. What this entailed is that with the start of the game we actually started with a money manpower collection then a build. This we justified with the fact as the tensions in europe rose countries would have begun building prior to any wars or escalation of tensions. Just a thought. This brought good game balance into play and caused more early wars. This would make a great optional rule!

While that would be good to be able to survive against France in the GAME, it's certainly not historical. They didn't ally until 1812, if I recall correctly.



Jimmer -> RE: Chit Selection (5/6/2008 6:55:49 PM)

That said, just because it's historical doesn't make it a good idea, game-wise. Especially with the AI. It's not that good to start with, so maybe forcing an alliance between the central powers is a good idea (or, perhaps not forcing, but at least making it more common).



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Chit Selection (5/6/2008 8:19:15 PM)

Last two games that I played, Prussia dow'd Austria. They never allied.



Grognot -> RE: Chit Selection (5/6/2008 10:16:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

That said, just because it's historical doesn't make it a good idea, game-wise. Especially with the AI. It's not that good to start with, so maybe forcing an alliance between the central powers is a good idea (or, perhaps not forcing, but at least making it more common).


And particularly when France is under no obligation to invade either Russia or Spain. :p



ndrose -> RE: AI enhancement ideas (5/7/2008 2:37:12 AM)

I don't think anyone's mentioned this yet: I've never seen GB build ships. It also doesn't try to sink France's ships in port. Everything GB does should revolve around keeping naval supremacy. They should lay down keels every economic phase, and be willing to sacrifice a corps for a shot at scuttling French ships. (Especially instead of sacrificing a corps for no shot whatsoever at taking Paris.)



timewalker03 -> RE: AI enhancement ideas (5/7/2008 9:39:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ndrose

I don't think anyone's mentioned this yet: I've never seen GB build ships. It also doesn't try to sink France's ships in port. Everything GB does should revolve around keeping naval supremacy. They should lay down keels every economic phase, and be willing to sacrifice a corps for a shot at scuttling French ships. (Especially instead of sacrificing a corps for no shot whatsoever at taking Paris.)


I would agree with this 100%. Great Britain needs to be more aggressive and must look to take on French ships early and always be building replacements. Its army is important but should be viewed as secondary in some regards since once GB has Naval superiority in the game it then can write its own ticket. In My Opinion.

Jimmer you are historically correct and game play correct. If Austria and Prussia would have joined forces earlier in history, Napoleon may not have had the run he did. The fighting and bickering the two countries did may have cause more unneeded deaths than there may have needed to be.



ndrose -> RE: AI enhancement ideas (5/8/2008 1:06:59 AM)

OK, here's a few things:

1) The AI never creates free states, as far as I've noticed.

2) The AI never changes free states to conq, even if they have no corps.

3) If a free state has no corps, the AI doesn't do the one thing it can do with it--build up a garrison.

4) I'm not sure the AI does *any* free state builds. I could be wrong, but has anyone seen the AI build up the Swedish army, for instance, or replace the one it starts with when it's gone?

5) I *have* seen the AI in 1.02j build out a depot chain--that's a nice improvement--but it doesn't defend the depots.

6) The AI doesn't try to cut the enemy's supply. Earlier versions were actually a bit better at this. I think Marshall has made the AI defend the capital more aggressively, which is generally a good thing, but it shouldn't pass up an opportunity to starve the enemy. In fact, the AI now often gathers pre-emptively at its capital and crouches there until you get to it. That shouldn't be so easy. This applies especially to Russia, of course, and also to Turkey. For Austria and Prussia, crouching is more reasonable. [:)]

7) The AI waits too long to surrender. Usually it doesn't until you've taken its minors, annihilated its army, sunk its fleet, and occupied its capital during an econ. phase. Sometimes it makes sense to fight to the last gasp--but not usually. The only country I've seen surrender quickly is Russia, which is the one country that shouldn't.

8) Again I'm not sure, but I don't think Russia is replacing its cossacks after the initial three are killed. Then again, if you're not going to try to cut supply, cossacks aren't nearly so useful.


Nathan



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.875