RE: The AI (Full Version)

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



Message

LeBaron -> RE: The AI (6/12/2008 5:37:36 PM)

Historically a channel crossing was a VERY difficult task. Personally i think there are 2 options for this end. Either remove the crossing arrow (to avoid the silly runovers) or at least to set the movement cost to 4 or 5 (at least as demanding as a forced march). The latter would also mean that it takes some preparation to cross and thus also possibility to counter.



NeverMan -> RE: The AI (6/12/2008 6:41:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LeBaron

Historically a channel crossing was a VERY difficult task. Personally i think there are 2 options for this end. Either remove the crossing arrow (to avoid the silly runovers) or at least to set the movement cost to 4 or 5 (at least as demanding as a forced march). The latter would also mean that it takes some preparation to cross and thus also possibility to counter.


Isn't the Lille Crossing channel already set at max non-forage movement, personally, I think that's enough.

EDIT: I stand corrected, it is not at max movement, although personally I think it should be.



Edfactor -> RE: The AI (6/26/2008 9:59:54 PM)

Well since this is the AI thread, i noticed Britain building militia - i wouldn't build militia except as garrison troops - the 4.5 moral of the british infantry is something to be feared and i would never put more then 1 militia into a british corp, and even that 1 i would consider hard before doing.

I noticed this in a game i am working through as France to familiarize myself with the rules and operation of the game.  



baboune -> RE: The AI (6/26/2008 11:00:34 PM)

Funny.. I always thought the AI in this game was a random number generator...



delatbabel -> RE: The AI (6/27/2008 3:10:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edfactor

Well since this is the AI thread, i noticed Britain building militia - i wouldn't build militia except as garrison troops - the 4.5 moral of the british infantry is something to be feared and i would never put more then 1 militia into a british corp, and even that 1 i would consider hard before doing.

I noticed this in a game i am working through as France to familiarize myself with the rules and operation of the game.


We have been chasing this one around and around in circles with the last few test releases. There is a bug listed in the bug tracker (# 129) for the current issue -- the current problem is that the AI is purchasing too much cavalry, leaving itself with not enough money to buy infantry and hence it's spending MP on militia.

In fact, as Britain I never buy militia even for garrisons. In a breach, on the 5-1 table, the maximum morale loss is 2.2. British infantry have a morale of 4.5, and so even with 2 6s rolled they will survive into the third combat round without breaking, whereas most assaulting troops will have broken by then. If you add even 1 factor of militia to a 20 factor garrison then that will dilute that morale down to below 4.4 so it's possible to break the garrison on the 2nd round.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: The AI (6/27/2008 12:22:08 PM)

Hey guys:

I've totally rewritten the AI purchases function so that it won't buy itself into bankruptcy. We should see an improvement in this area.




RayKinStL -> RE: The AI (7/11/2008 5:19:16 PM)

So I read through this thread and after making another thread about crossing from Lille, I think I noticed this as an optional rule (probably why I don't remember form the baord game days).  I have two questions about it...

1)Should fleet presence in that sea area keep troops from crossing?  I would swear France crossed over while I had ships in the channel area.  I could be mistaken.  If fleet presence stops movement across the channel, will any fleet do, or must it be a Heavy?

2)Say I screw up and let France cross over because I don't have fleets in the channel area (this is assuming fleet presence prevents France from crossing).  If I move a fleet into the sea area next turn, will that cut supply to any corps that have crossed over, as well as isolate them from returning, meaning they will eventually starve to death from foraging?

3)Lastly, with only 3 movement points per turn, what is the point behind the transport ship counter?  The only thing I found it was worth was being a depot placement ship for sea supply, but I had to plan my attacks so far ahead (to make sure it was almost there and waiting), that any human players would have questioned why it was where it was, and my plans would have been exposed.  So what's the point, because ti seems useless with so few movement points?



NeverMan -> RE: The AI (7/11/2008 5:37:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL

So I read through this thread and after making another thread about crossing from Lille, I think I noticed this as an optional rule (probably why I don't remember form the baord game days).  I have two questions about it...

1)Should fleet presence in that sea area keep troops from crossing?  I would swear France crossed over while I had ships in the channel area.  I could be mistaken.  If fleet presence stops movement across the channel, will any fleet do, or must it be a Heavy?

2)Say I screw up and let France cross over because I don't have fleets in the channel area (this is assuming fleet presence prevents France from crossing).  If I move a fleet into the sea area next turn, will that cut supply to any corps that have crossed over, as well as isolate them from returning, meaning they will eventually starve to death from foraging?

3)Lastly, with only 3 movement points per turn, what is the point behind the transport ship counter?  The only thing I found it was worth was being a depot placement ship for sea supply, but I had to plan my attacks so far ahead (to make sure it was almost there and waiting), that any human players would have questioned why it was where it was, and my plans would have been exposed.  So what's the point, because ti seems useless with so few movement points?


1. Yes it should stop them. I also thought I saw the AI go across though I had ships in the channel, but it's currently unconfirmed.

2. I believe so, they shouldn't be able to trace supply across the crossing then.

3. There is NO point to the Transport fleet, none at all. I find myself ignoring it entirely and just using Heavy Ships for most of what I have to do, especially against the AI I never used anything but heavy ships since light ships can't carry troops and transport ships only move 3. I have NO IDEA why Matrix strayed from the perfectly fine EiA fleet corps. Your guess is as good as anyone's.



RayKinStL -> RE: The AI (7/11/2008 6:32:34 PM)

Well I carry light ships because they are good cannon fodder. That way all my losses don't affect my heavies. Like I said, I use the transport for depot creation for sea supply (since you can't make depots on lt fleets. The problem is, you have to think ahead and start moving the transport for this to work and it could give away your plan.

I do agree, the naval rules were fine, they didn't need all this confusion added. And the stuff cut was crucial (naval pursuit, etc.).



NeverMan -> RE: The AI (7/11/2008 7:45:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL

Well I carry light ships because they are good cannon fodder. That way all my losses don't affect my heavies. Like I said, I use the transport for depot creation for sea supply (since you can't make depots on lt fleets. The problem is, you have to think ahead and start moving the transport for this to work and it could give away your plan.

I do agree, the naval rules were fine, they didn't need all this confusion added. And the stuff cut was crucial (naval pursuit, etc.).


Yes, I agree, time would have been much better spent keeping the naval rules the way they were and making sure that vital rules (like pursuit, evasion, etc) were implemented. I'm not sure why Matrix choose to go this route, it's really beyond me.



Grapeshot Bob -> RE: The AI (7/11/2008 11:31:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: baboune
Funny.. I always thought the AI in this game was a random number generator...



When I read this, the pop I was drinking shot out my nose.



GSB



RayKinStL -> RE: The AI (7/12/2008 12:17:24 AM)

Well Marshall, if you are reading this, as a new guy to the forums and someone who has played through your game once, an someone with a stong affinity for GB, I would overhaul the way you do the naval stuff. It was very good IMO the way Avalon Hill implemented it. If you could go back to the original rules, counters, etc... I would strongly reccomend it. Just my thoughts.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: The AI (7/14/2008 1:37:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RayKinStL

Well Marshall, if you are reading this, as a new guy to the forums and someone who has played through your game once, an someone with a stong affinity for GB, I would overhaul the way you do the naval stuff. It was very good IMO the way Avalon Hill implemented it. If you could go back to the original rules, counters, etc... I would strongly reccomend it. Just my thoughts.


You bet I'm reading!
We've tossed around the idea of a classic EIA scenario with the original map, counters, etc. Lookd like a lot of people want this. Appreciate the thoughts.





j-s -> RE: The AI (7/14/2008 3:06:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

We've tossed around the idea of a classic EIA scenario with the original map, counters, etc. Lookd like a lot of people want this. Appreciate the thoughts.



That's great!
At least original naval system, dominant powers, kingodms, and original map whitout a minor diplomacy would be great! Please, when you have time work with this and let us know if you need help [;)]



pzgndr -> RE: The AI (7/15/2008 12:01:37 AM)

quote:

We've tossed around the idea of a classic EIA scenario with the original map


If the scenario editor will handle map edits and the associated database changes for scenarios, that would be good. Would that be the case? Else if it's an either/or question for classic EiA or the current EiH map within the game engine, the majority would no doubt prefer classic EiA. But should the other minors be retained or no?? I would still like to have options if possible so I can try both and decide for myself what flavor of EiA/EiH I want to play.

Ideally if the scenario editor can handle all this, then the game would have considerable flexibility for other pre- and post-Napoleonic campaigns. [8D]



Marshall Ellis -> RE: The AI (7/15/2008 12:16:59 PM)

pzgndr:

The editor will not allow map edits which is why we would need a few baseline maps to allow you to choose i.e. "EiANW Map", "Classic EiA", "EiA1792", etc. These maps would also include baseline game databases. It's a little more of a fixed design than I like BUT by adding additional maps we can get around that.




pzgndr -> RE: The AI (7/15/2008 1:19:55 PM)

OK good, multiple baseline maps and databases would work fine too. [&o]



Jimmer -> RE: The AI (7/15/2008 7:00:09 PM)

Before you put time into any extra maps, I think it would be better to craft a "zoom in/out" process for the current map. Otherwise, you may find yourself retrofitting a nightmare. If you do the zoomer first, then you should have a good model to build off of for the other maps.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: The AI (7/16/2008 12:11:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Before you put time into any extra maps, I think it would be better to craft a "zoom in/out" process for the current map. Otherwise, you may find yourself retrofitting a nightmare. If you do the zoomer first, then you should have a good model to build off of for the other maps.


The zoom function itself would be independent of the map selection / type or am I missing what you saying?



Jimmer -> RE: The AI (7/16/2008 6:05:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Before you put time into any extra maps, I think it would be better to craft a "zoom in/out" process for the current map. Otherwise, you may find yourself retrofitting a nightmare. If you do the zoomer first, then you should have a good model to build off of for the other maps.


The zoom function itself would be independent of the map selection / type or am I missing what you saying?


It SHOULD be. But WILL it be? That's the question.

When you craft a zoom capability, there are many points at which you may inadvertently limit the tool to working only with one map, unless you do pure pixel-zooming. However, pixel-zooming (as you currently do in the corps/fleet box, to so individual spaces) would be nearly useless for the whole map. One wouldn't be able to tell what was what. So, pure pixel-zooming (blowing up the picture as is) will not work.

Instead, you have to actually re-draw the map at a larger or smaller scale. Or, use different sized maps. Either way, the zoom tool WILL be related to the maps.



NeverMan -> RE: The AI (7/16/2008 8:02:16 PM)

Jimmer,

When you re-draw, it will be related to the current image (abstracted out). You don't have to re-draw based on a specific image, if indeed this is how matrix implemented the map.



RayKinStL -> RE: The AI (7/17/2008 3:59:01 AM)

Any chance higher resolutions can be supported?  I have a 24 inch monitor and would love to take advantage of it.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: The AI (7/17/2008 2:17:39 PM)

Well, a pixel zoom may be the only type of zoom I can render since I am only playing with a 4200 x 4200 BMP (Actually cut into 4 pieces to make the BMP loadable in Win98). This is the only detail I have on the map. I do not have the information needed to draw a tree in downtown Munich ... so to speak.



Jimmer -> RE: The AI (7/17/2008 4:54:25 PM)

Try using a JPG file for the zooms only. You can make a JPG out of any bitmap.

The problem would be that users couldn't PLAY using a JPG if all the code is written around BMPs. But, you could at least show them the "big picture".

How you could do it is have the zoom tool create a JPG on the fly, incorporating all of the currently in-place board elements. It wouldn't be the same as scrolling a mouse wheel and actually being able to click pieces. But, at least it would allow different views. Also, if you took a "snapshot", it could even included the white-border movement possibilities. That way, for instance, a player could see how far his fleets could travel from Gibraltar in one turn.



Edfactor -> RE: The AI (7/17/2008 9:54:14 PM)

So with 1.03 the AI will keep its forces more concentrated?
build more infantry and less militia (though miltia is still useful if your not britain)



Marshall Ellis -> RE: The AI (7/17/2008 10:16:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Try using a JPG file for the zooms only. You can make a JPG out of any bitmap.

The problem would be that users couldn't PLAY using a JPG if all the code is written around BMPs. But, you could at least show them the "big picture".

How you could do it is have the zoom tool create a JPG on the fly, incorporating all of the currently in-place board elements. It wouldn't be the same as scrolling a mouse wheel and actually being able to click pieces. But, at least it would allow different views. Also, if you took a "snapshot", it could even included the white-border movement possibilities. That way, for instance, a player could see how far his fleets could travel from Gibraltar in one turn.


Are you talking mainly of zooming out?
If not then I'm not sure I follow how bulding a jpg would give me the detailed info I need to zoom into a city and still maintain a non chunky resolution?







Marshall Ellis -> RE: The AI (7/17/2008 10:18:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edfactor

So with 1.03 the AI will keep its forces more concentrated?
build more infantry and less militia (though miltia is still useful if your not britain)


Sure should be!
A couple of things you should hopefully see more of:

Larger stacks.
More intelligent attacks.
More intelligent building.
More effective use of Guards / Artillery.
More effective use of Cossack / Freikorps / Guerilla units.







Jimmer -> RE: The AI (7/18/2008 3:27:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
Are you talking mainly of zooming out?
If not then I'm not sure I follow how bulding a jpg would give me the detailed info I need to zoom into a city and still maintain a non chunky resolution?

Good question: Zooming OUT is what I'm referring to. I don't think zooming in is valuable except at the 2-3 area level, and one can get close to this with the zoom that already exists.



Marshall Ellis -> RE: The AI (7/18/2008 3:52:18 PM)

Jimmer:

I understand now! This should be much easier. I can see this being quite useful in a strategic meeting. Being able to see the big picture.




Jimmer -> RE: The AI (7/18/2008 7:53:21 PM)

Also, what would REALLY be handy is if we could print out the map in various sizes. You could use the same technology you create for this to allow printing of the map. It has to include board elements, though (corps counters, etc.), at least in placeholder format.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.25