RE: The AI CSA in the West

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: The AI CSA in the West

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.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: The AI CSA in the West

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/9/2009 3:05:45 AM

jscott991

Posts: 530
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline

Richmond. There are 120k men in Richmond already and 20k more under Jackson on the way. Note also the reduced state of the two Potomac armies: 85k and 59k (barely more than are in Richmond right now; what the heck is he defending against!?)

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jscott991)

Post #: 31

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/9/2009 3:08:26 AM

jscott991

Posts: 530
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline

And, finally the west, showing Terje's point about small useless containers. Look also at the score; a competitive game totally flushed down the toilet by Richmond-packing.

These four shots are the most definitive evidence I can offer. If the rules are right on what power does (20% bonus in resources per level I think is in the manual), then the problem here isn't AI resource use.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jscott991)

Post #: 32

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/9/2009 11:31:26 AM

terje439

Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pistachio

What version are you running? There are several options on your setup screen that aren't on mine. "No European War", "Total Victory", "Greater Population" to name a few.

Is there a patch more recent than 1.2.3?

I'm running 1.12.2 I believe it is called.

_____________________________

"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")

(in reply to Pistachio)

Post #: 33

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/9/2009 8:48:12 PM

Pistachio

Posts: 203
Joined: 12/15/2008
Status: offline

Thanks - maybe I missed something. I thought 1.2.3 was the latest and that it was a cumulative patch; guess I'll take another look and patch 'em all in sequence

(in reply to terje439)

Post #: 34

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/9/2009 8:52:22 PM

terje439

Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

I am not sure which of the patches you NEED to install before 1.12.2, but that is the up to date patch atleast.
(1.2.3 I think is quite old tbh)

Terje

_____________________________

"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")

(in reply to Pistachio)

Post #: 35

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/9/2009 8:55:48 PM

terje439

Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

JSCOTT - how many brigades have YOU captured here? It seems to me there are only small number of CSA troops left on the map. And the fact that the AI captured 5 of your brigades in the east does not really count for alot as long as you have two entire armies + two corps out there, it seems to me you outnumber the AI immensly.

Terje

_____________________________

"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")

(in reply to terje439)

Post #: 36

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/9/2009 9:09:57 PM

Pistachio

Posts: 203
Joined: 12/15/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439

I am not sure which of the patches you NEED to install before 1.12.2, but that is the up to date patch atleast.
(1.2.3 I think is quite old tbh)

Terje

Ok I found 1.10 (comprehensive) and also 1.12 - downloaded both; thanks for the info and sorry for the hijack....

R

(in reply to terje439)

Post #: 37

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/9/2009 9:12:35 PM

terje439

Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pistachio

quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439

I am not sure which of the patches you NEED to install before 1.12.2, but that is the up to date patch atleast.
(1.2.3 I think is quite old tbh)

Terje

Ok I found 1.10 (comprehensive) and also 1.12 - downloaded both; thanks for the info and sorry for the hijack....

R

Good we got that sorted atleast, patch up and see what that does for your game

Remember that reinforcements to a battle now increases the WTF! (will to fight that is in this case

)

Terje

_____________________________

"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")

(in reply to Pistachio)

Post #: 38

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/10/2009 1:08:09 AM

jscott991

Posts: 530
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439

JSCOTT - how many brigades have YOU captured here? It seems to me there are only small number of CSA troops left on the map. And the fact that the AI captured 5 of your brigades in the east does not really count for alot as long as you have two entire armies + two corps out there, it seems to me you outnumber the AI immensly.

Terje

I posted the manpower report on the previous page. I outnumber him by about 5 boxes, compared to 2.5 boxes at the start of the game, whatever that means.

I have a corps of 25,000, another corps of 30,000, two western armies of about 60,000 each, an eastern army of about 60,000, and an eastern army of about 85,000, plus garrisons.

The CSA seems to have a bunch of western divisions in Nashville totalling about 50,000, an ANV of about 90,000, another floating western division of about 12,000, and an army of 20,000.

That's about a 2-1 advantage in field forces (320,000 to 170,000). It looks like he has no men in some ways because a ton of his containers are in Richmond (all of his corps are there, plus two armies).

I gave him a ton of resources. If he won't build brigades, I'm not sure what to tell you. As for how many brigades I've captured, I never have captured more than two at a time, but he loses a lot of brigades by attacking my western armies with divisions and then retreating. Still, I'd be surprised if it totaled more than 10 the entire game, considering how often I reload when CSA brigades surrender.

< Message edited by jscott991 -- 6/10/2009 1:10:25 AM >

(in reply to terje439)

Post #: 39

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/10/2009 10:27:46 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Your screenshots are helpful, though of course it's hard to know everything that has been going on. I do note that you don't seem to have tried any amphibious invasions. That would hurt the CSA in one way, but at the same time it would be facing fewer forces up north. So that's an issue, though not the main one.

quote:

I gave him a ton of resources. If he won't build brigades, I'm not sure what to tell you. As for how many brigades I've captured, I never have captured more than two at a time, but he loses a lot of brigades by attacking my western armies with divisions and then retreating. Still, I'd be surprised if it totaled more than 10 the entire game, considering how often I reload when CSA brigades surrender.

What do you mean by "a ton" of resources? Is this still 1st Sgt., or did you try a higher level?

Higher up in the thread you wrote:

quote:

I didn't think it was just a CSA problem. It's a capital bias problem. The AI overvalues the capital province (when this discussion first began in another thread, Gil even said it was something they were looking at tweaking; he's backed off that now). It's a pretty obvious problem to see, when you create the conditions that cause it. A lot of players play too high of a difficulty level or deliberately play a strategy that avoids causing the migration (HS mentioned in his test AAR in the main forum that he doesn't muster much), but I'm pretty sure you can make it happen on any difficulty level.

I have not backed off that statement. You must have misread something I wrote. As you'll see below, I still believe that the CSA AI can sometimes hurt its overall strategy by overemphasizing the defense of Richmond, but even though we have yet to see proof that this is a serious problem affecting multiple players we are considering ways to make that less pronounced.

Much as you hate AI bonuses, why don't you play a game or two on one of the 2-3 highest levels and use your approach and see if this really does happen? That would provide more useful data points that playing multiple games at 1st Sgt. or a comparably low level.

The thing to understand about the CSA AI is that it is programmed to fight defensively most of the time (with occasional bursts of aggressiveness, like Lee's heading into Union territory twice, in order to keep the Union player from becoming complacent). This means that if the CSA AI expects to lose, it usually will not engage. What's happening in your games is two things: out west the AI sees it's going to lose, and back in Richmond there is a perceived threat, so those western armies head to the eastern theater rather than be destroyed.

The graph you posted showing strength is a bit instructive, but doesn't tell us the whole picture. The AI judges its odds not just based on the respective sizes of the armies, but also weapons and brigade attributes -- both of which require resources. (I've been referring only to troop strength, and should have noted this earlier. I forgot that the AI includes those in its calculations as well.) If you play at one of the easiest levels then not only does the AI produce fewer troops, it does not arm them as well as the North (which already has a massive advantage in iron, money, and weaponry), and also can't purchase as many brigade attributes. (There's another graph for weapons, though not brigade attributes -- perhaps check that and see how things look.)

And here's a related issue: if we increase the CSA AI's aggressiveness, then we will be hearing an awful lot of complaints from players who see the CSA making suicidal attacks that destroy its armies. The CSA is at a manpower and resources disadvantage, so the CSA AI can't be programmed to become more aggressive, since that guarantees it will lose routinely at all but the very highest difficulty levels. (It might survive longer by bloodying the Union a bit more, but ultimately it will destroy itself. So instead of falling back to Richmond in 1863 you'd see its armies decimated over and over until they evaporate in 1863 or 1864.)

As I've said before, I understand your position on not wanting to play a game in which the AI has bonuses, but as I've pointed out before, computer games typically do have such bonuses. As you know, the way companies make AI's tougher is by AI cheats and AI resource bonuses (since the notion that one should program an AI to be "smarter" at higher levels is preposterous), and we've taken the bonuses route with FOF. The most fundamental thing to know about playing any computer game is that if you are beating it at an easy level then you increase the difficulty, but you're not doing this. I guarantee you that at higher difficulty levels what you're complaining about will not happen nearly as much. And as I've noted previously, the game was balanced and tested for typical players, i.e. those with no compunction about playing an increasingly wealthier AI.

Does any of that mean that I'm going back on my earlier statement that the high value placed on Richmond can create a problem for the AI? No. But I do not believe it is as big a problem as you are making it out to be. As I have already said, we will consider what might be done to make this less common at lower levels next time we produce a FOF patch, since obviously we want the game to be challenging at all levels. (Our programmer has suggested that maybe he can have the AI not bother with Richmond at the lowest 2-3 levels -- a change that would be relatively easy for him to make, and that might be worth testing when the time comes.) But we don't feel that the product is flawed if it can be easily beaten at a low difficulty level. And until it is proven that the CSA AI collapses and hightails it to Richmond at higher difficulty levels and when faced by a Union opponent using a normal strategy (which includes thinning out its armies by sending some forces by sea to the eastern and southern coastlines) we will have no reason to conclude that this is a serious AI flaw.

(in reply to jscott991)

Post #: 40

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/10/2009 11:58:23 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

you got the game stacked in your favor, enjoy it, if that is how you want to play it

I have the game stacked in my favor when playing on a difficulty that includes an economic penalty to my side (First Sergeant reduces player resources slightly)? We come from very different worlds.

You're a strange guy.

You act like I want the AI to stop packing the East so I can win the game.

I can win the game either way! It's EASIER to win the game when he packs Richmond than if he followed almost any strategy other than outright disbanding his brigades.

Seriously, do you even read my posts? Do you even look at the screenshots? Or do you just find it amusing to imply (or just explicitly state) that I'm an idiot?

Dude, I can read better then you can, and overall, I think you hit the nail on the head

_____________________________

(in reply to jscott991)

Post #: 41

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/10/2009 12:04:49 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

and yes, I have looked at your screen shots, what I think you forget, it is some of us can read the screen shots and see what is going on from them

we were the ones who got most of the info put into those screens

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 42

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/10/2009 3:22:23 PM

jscott991

Posts: 530
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline

The last four screenshots were played on a game with CSA power set at +2.� Isn't that a 40% increase in CSA resources?

If that isn't adequate to address the issue, what you really are saying is that AI resources don't matter. What needs to happen is that Union forces must be at ahistorically low levels in the east (under 100k) in order for the AI to stop packing the capital province with western brigades. 140k Union troops in the eastern theatre is hardly absurd. It isn't the AI economic bonuses on the higher difficulty levels that matter, its the player penalties. So the AI really needs to have it both ways to function: it must be much stronger and the player must be much weaker.

And why does this involve an increase in AI aggressiveness!? Let the AI sit on its behind, if it wants. But it should be defending the west as well as the east, because the game is just as easily won out west as it is in the east. So we're talking at cross-purposes, repeatedly.

Pistacchio (I think) reported that the Union moves troops east too. I don't know what difficulty he is using, but I don't think its 1st Sergeant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Dude, I can read better then you can, and overall, I think you hit the nail on the head

I challenge anyone to figure out what the heck the above means.

< Message edited by jscott991 -- 6/11/2009 3:04:25 PM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 43

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/14/2009 4:24:15 AM

jscott991

Posts: 530
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline

Power increases don't help. I guess I should test whether they do anything by giving them to myself.

It seems more a function of human resources than AI resources.

(in reply to jscott991)

Post #: 44

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/14/2009 4:45:37 AM

terje439

Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

I am now well into a fresh game vs the AI (although as the CSA), and I do not see this behaviour there. However I would like to ask you if the text in the attached picture is correct.
What I am guessing at, is that uou decimate the AI so much in the West, so that keeping troops there makes no sense in any way. Also I am guessing you are building more troops in the East as well.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")

(in reply to jscott991)

Post #: 45

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/14/2009 5:24:03 AM

jscott991

Posts: 530
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline

1st Turn Power + 0 CSA resource income = 191, 93, 30, 100

1st Turn Power +2 CSA resource income = 264, 118, 43, 139

That's a big jump.� But it means nothing in terms of behavior.� Three games played now through late 1863.� Three times the AI pulled his forces east (gradually and not in a rush).�

In the last several games, I did NOT build Meade's second eastern army up higher than 50,000-60,000 men.� This meant that the CSA AI actually outnumbered me at the end of the game in the east (about 150,000 Union field forces to 161,000 CSA troops in Richmond).� In the game I just quit, he actually beat me in Fredericksburg and took out the fort there, plus Fort Monroe.

Of course, he still lost the game.� There wasn't a single container in Miss., Louisiana, Tennessee, or Georgia, and the game ended when I took Savannah, New Orleans, and Little Rock.

So, it's lose-lose.� If I pack the West, he gives up and marches east.

If I keep men in the east, he panics and marches east.

But no one else sees any of this.� It's remarkable.� This happens in every single game I play, whether its power +0, power +1, or power +2 (in fairness, I stopped the +1 game pretty quickly, deciding to just go straight to +2). One thing that bugs me about this thread, is that people seem to think this all happened in one game. There are five different games documented here. 4 on First Sergeant +0 and 1 on First Sergeant CSA +2. I could have documented three more +2 games (and still can document one of those), but it doesn't seem to matter. The consistent theme is that as the Union army gets bigger, the AI simply surrenders the game by marching his entire army to Richmond and either sitting or bouncing back and forth attacking Fredericksburg or Rappahannock (and even after a victory, he withdraws to Richmond). Gil R. argued that the problem is that the AI has too few resources to compete on First Sergeant. I submit that's flatly wrong. The AI can't compete regardless of its resource base. I submit what to me is obvious: the AI can't compete in this game competently at all; the higher difficulty levels MASK this by penalizing the human and stacking more bonuses on top of the CSA's already formidable combat advantage. When you distort economic and combat reality to that point, are you really playing the Civil War?

So for the AI to play semi-competently, I need to have fewer brigades than the Union had historically, and I need to be suffering from a combat penalty.

Terje - I do win lots of battles agains the AI where he suffers terrific losses (he doesn't understand the basics of quick and instant combat; instead of leaving an army in reserve to reinforce a 27 brigade army, he attacks with tons of brigades at once, which is easy fodder for a human with one 35 brigade army and another waiting to reinforce; I refer to this as the ping-pong effect; he bounces back and forth between Rappahannock and Fredericksburg, getting savaged by McClellan calling on Meade or vice versa; this would NEVER happen if he sat in Fredericksburg early in the game instead of Richmond, but he won't do it, another major AI flaw). But I never allow the AI to lose more than 2 brigades by surrender in a single combat. I reload the game, regardless of the outcome, if he does. Despite this the AI does suffer heavily from the brigade surrender chance after a quick or instant combat.� He loses at least 10 brigades over the course of the war just from his insistence on attacking big containers with little ones and then instantly retreating.� That's why I would love to turn this chance off entirely.� At this point, I don't even think a reduction is the answer.� It needs to go.

Edit: Oh, one other question, raised by Terje. The western AI doesn't seem to consolidate its units into army containers nearly as well as the eastern. Little containers are dangerous and lead to more brigade surrenders.

< Message edited by jscott991 -- 6/15/2009 2:11:20 PM >

(in reply to terje439)

Post #: 46

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/15/2009 1:36:44 AM

jscott991

Posts: 530
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline

Another set of 4 shots. This time to establish that the eastern migration is NOT based on my occupation of Fredericksburg. In this game, the CSA holds Fredericksburg, having driven me off twice (though it lost two of the forts because it inexplicably LEAVES Fredericksburg for Richmond after winning).

This will also rebut that its based on my superior weapons, because the CSA is practically tied with me in weapons.

It will also show, for the umpteenth time, how early the migration can begin, when the war is still in doubt, plus the extreme incompetence of the western CSA AI in deploying the few forces it does have.

This game is my fourth in a row with the CSA receiving +2 power (40% more resources; the exact increase is shown above). He uses these resources to build lots and lots of partisans. At one point, I counted five partisans and raiders running around.

First shot, the enormous ANV is reinforced by a western army container.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jscott991)

Post #: 47

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/15/2009 1:37:45 AM

jscott991

Posts: 530
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline

Second shot, the army overview screen (the most depressing screen to view in the game).

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jscott991)

Post #: 48

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/15/2009 1:38:36 AM

jscott991

Posts: 530
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline

Third shot, the manpower overview. I don't have him overwhelmed. Why is he moving everyone east?

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jscott991)

Post #: 49

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/15/2009 1:39:28 AM

jscott991

Posts: 530
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline

Final shot, the weapons view. This is to rebut Gil's point that superior muskets can cause the AI to panic. That might be true, but he's not really losing the weapons by late 1862.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jscott991)

Post #: 50

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/15/2009 1:45:44 AM

jscott991

Posts: 530
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline

Conclusions:

1. The AI's move east is not mitigated by increasing the AI's resources.� CSA +2 power gives the AI enormous resources to play with (a 40% increase).� That does not help.

2. The AI's move east is not based on falling way behind in the weapons race.�

3. The AI's move east cannot be stopped by dumping more troops in the west.� If anything, that speeds it up.

4. The AI's move east is not really affected by control of Fredericksburg.� He starts doing it even if he has control of the province and some of the forts remain (this dashes one of my theories).

5. The AI is simply incompetent.� It can't manage quick combats properly.� It can't manage resources properly.� It can't manage VP objectives properly.� It doesn't combine its units in a cohesive manner (western units seldom combine into larger units at all; every western division functions as its own army until they merge with the ANV -- the CSA hivemind).�

If people on higher difficulties aren't seeing this phenomenon, it is because of the penalties being applied to the player (limiting their army size) and not because of the AI's need for more resources of its own.

Oh, but I will say one thing.� You can draw CSA forces towards amphibious landings.� This must be hard-coded, because CSA troops make a bee-line for any marine landing in New Orleans.� It's reminescent of all AI troops making a beeline for the Union fort on the Gulf of Mexico when you first start the game.� This doesn't really make the game any better, though.� The AI's fundamental problem is that it can't fight effectively in the west; 10 brigades kicking Butler back to Annapolis doesn't really solve that. Amphibious landings are a bit of a waste of time though, if the AI is going to abandon the west.

Let the wave of nonsequitur rebuttals begin! (Or not, without a patch this can't be fixed and no patch is coming soon even if WCS aknowledged the problem (which they haven't), so I'm not sure what I'm trying to accomplish anymore except getting this frustration off my chest.)

< Message edited by jscott991 -- 6/15/2009 1:52:29 AM >

(in reply to jscott991)

Post #: 51

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/15/2009 6:47:40 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

What you're reporting is not very convincing. Hard Sarge -- who knows the game better than anyone with the exception of its programmer -- and I both have suggested multiple times that this issue is linked to difficulty level, but you instead changed the power setting. This is fairly significant, since as the manual states clearly, "Power" provides +25% production from cities, while "Difficulty" is described in part, "Each level of difficulty adds 20% to every category of income each turn for computer-controlled players, gives computer opponents increasing bonuses in combat, and subtracts from every category of net income each turn for human-controlled players." Now, there is a world of difference between giving economic bonuses to cities and giving them to all provinces. Moreover, those combat bonuses are significant, because they make the enemy tougher. You've complained a number of times about how easy it is to capture brigades, and you've even taken the extreme measure of restarting games when you feel that you've captured too many. Well, at the higher difficulty levels that won't be a problem.

Also, up above you wrote:

quote:

1st Turn Power + 0 CSA resources = 191, 93, 30, 100

1st Turn Power +2 CSA resources = 264, 118, 43, 139

That's a big jump.

First, are those numbers the stockpile that the CSA starts off with, or its expected income for the following turn? If the former then Turn 1 resources are largely irrelevant. As you know, both sides begin the game with a stockpile, so what matters is how much comes in as the game progresses. (By the way, why are those numbers so high? When a human plays the CSA in the November "Standard" scenario he gets just 100, 50, 25, 90.)

As for your screenshot showing weapons, I have no way of interpreting that without knowing what your weapons production has been like. As the North, you should be using your money/iron/labor resources to produce many more guns, and much better guns. That should be somewhat evident in late 1862, when the screenshot was taken, but should be much more evident by mid-1863 (when the AI usually begins to flee, based on your reports).

Overall, as I noted previously, when one feels that a computer game is too easy one is supposed to increase the difficulty level. You still have not played the game at a level anywhere close to what the overwhelming majority of players use, so while your complaints may be valid for the tiny minority who play at beginner level, you have not demonstrated that they are relevant to most players. (Again, I understand your philosophical objection to AI bonuses, but you shouldn't expect WCS to conclude that the game is flawed because of what you're reporting. Most players use beginner levels to get the feel of a game and then ratchet up the difficulty, and few if any finish those games. You've probably played more total turns of the game at 1st Sgt. than anyone else ever has, so you're seeing a problem that others haven't. Or, to be more accurate, you're seeing something that others -- including myself -- have seen, but you are seeing it far more frequently.)

To quote the ending of my previous post: "...we don't feel that the product is flawed if it can be easily beaten at a low difficulty level. And until it is proven that the CSA AI collapses and hightails it to Richmond at higher difficulty levels and when faced by a Union opponent using a normal strategy (which includes thinning out its armies by sending some forces by sea to the eastern and southern coastlines) we will have no reason to conclude that this is a serious AI flaw."

(in reply to jscott991)

Post #: 52

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/15/2009 2:13:08 PM

jscott991

Posts: 530
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline

Those aren't stockpile numbers.� They are the first turn income numbers on�a game on 1st Sergeant, Richer economy, CSA +2 power.� Since you knew the stockpile numbers, I'm not sure why you couldn't figure out what I was talking about. Still, sorry for not being more specific.

I played with the power increase, because you had a very long explanation about why the AI stinks on first sergeant in the other thread.� You explained how the AI needs more resources because, although it is intelligent, it is inefficient.� So if the AI hopes to play at its "true" base level, it requires more resources.� The solution: give the AI more resources.� I did.� But I suspected all along that what the AI really needs is for the human player to be severely, ahistorically handicapped. It's odd to be derided for trying to use an option to achieve the effect that you told me to achieve. Now you've clearly enunciated that the AI needs the combat bonuses and other penalties as well as the economic bonuses. So that's a different wrinkle. (and as for anything Hard Sarge says to/about me or this, it's usually too buried in outright insults to be of any value).

So my fears are exactly right.

The AI doesn't just need bonuses.� He needs penalties as well.� You've created a game where the AI is so incompetent, it can't remotely function unless the player is severely handicapped.� The AI needs resource bonuses (and more than a 50% increase in CITY production to boot).� It needs a combat boost (odd again that it requires this when playing quick combat, since it's not at a tactical disadvantage).� But it also needs the player to be suffering from penalties.� The player's production must be handicapped and the player's units must stink.� If AI behavior is the same on all levels and the only difference is his resources and the player penalties, then I can't understand why WCS isn't interested in having a behavior flaw uncovered, REGARDLESS OF DIFFICULTY LEVEL.� The AI's behavior in packing its capital and drifting its armies east is quite clearly a flaw, regardless of how I've discovered it. It's pretty clear that these penalties and extreme bonuses that the higher difficulty levels cause merely mask the AI's fundamental stupidity at spending resources and defending its territory (but, hey, give it unlimited money and resources and severely limit your own, and you'll get a good game!).� But as I alluded to above, the main motivation behind every post is always: this isn't an issue if the human player has no brigades, so don't worry about it.� Baffling.

You know, I can beat Tiger Woods at golf if you add 100 to his score at the end of the round.� But why bother?� Are we even playing golf at that point?

< Message edited by jscott991 -- 6/15/2009 3:10:11 PM >

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 53

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/15/2009 5:22:09 PM

cesteman

Posts: 845
Joined: 2/15/2004
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Status: offline

Why not put this to rest jscott991 and try a higher level? I noticed the same things you pointed out and stopped playing at the sgt. level.

(in reply to jscott991)

Post #: 54

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/15/2009 5:53:10 PM

terje439

Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991
It's pretty clear that these penalties and extreme bonuses that the higher difficulty levels cause merely mask the AI's fundamental stupidity at spending resources and defending its territory (but, hey, give it unlimited money and resources and severely limit your own, and you'll get a good game!).� But as I alluded to above, the main motivation behind every post is always: this isn't an issue if the human player has no brigades, so don't worry about it.� Baffling.

I find it weird that you make this allegations against the higher levels when you do not play them. Actually I do not recognise the picture you paint at all.
Higher difficulty does NOT reduce the ammount of brigades I can field, I still field 500.000 men as the CSA on full general with no economic boost, the only difference is that I will have to play better to defeat the AI.
You claim that it is not "fair" to allow the AI to have advantages on the higher difficulty level, yet every single game I've played does this to aid the AI. Sure AI means artificial intelligence, that does not make it intelligent at all. The computer is stupid, always will be. This is because if you find out how the AI works you can counter its every move, which is what you are doing in your games.

You have discovered that if you pack two armies out west and wear down the enemy he will eventually withdraw. Well, so would I, no point in fighting 1:3 odds and waste your units. My remedy, either give yourself some set of HR to avoid exploiting this fact, or up the difficulty. (there is a reason I play full general in FoF, Deity in Civ etc etc, yet I do not feel cheated because of having to play the higher difficulty levels)

Anyway, just my two cents.

Terje

_____________________________

"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")

(in reply to jscott991)

Post #: 55

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/15/2009 6:19:16 PM

jscott991

Posts: 530
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline

You are correct that almost all games offer difficulty levels where the AI gets bonuses and the player gets penalties to make the game more challenging for hardcore or above average players.

However, almost NO game requires you to play on those levels to get a passable game. The AI in FoF is so unbelievably stupid that it abandons an entire theatre of the war to uselessly pack men in a single province. Furthermore, enhancing its resources is no help (the difference between giving it power +2/+3 and going up to Captain, economically, is marginal not decisive; I can't calculate the exact difference, because there are contradictory numbers). If the AI improves on higher difficulties, it's because my position is being made worse. Not many games penalize the player to this extent on the "base" level.

There are no house rules that will solve this. I used to pack my eastern armies (two 35 brigade, 100k armies in the east). He withdrew then. Now you say the problem is that I have too many men out west. So what's the solution? I have to have to less men, since the AI refuses to field more men of its own.

What's galling to me about this is that I don't expect a "challenging" game. I don't care whether I win every time or win easily every time. But I do expect a Civil War game to have an AI capable of managing two fronts. The whole Civil War revolves around those fronts. This is like a WWII German AI that doesn't keep an army on the eastern front. No one would tolerate it; no matter what difficulty level this problem occurred on.

And what I want is not that far away in this game! That's what's so galling. If the AI would just sit an army in Memphis and an army in Fredericksburg and control its Richmond-love just a little bit, FoF would be so much better. Why on Earth is it is unreasonable for the AI to do this? (It would also be great if he'd stop using little containers and losing brigade after brigade to pointless attacks against big armies, followed by instant retreats, but I guess that's way too much to ask.)

Edit: Does anyone who plays this game play regularly as the Union? Almost every counter-argument is always prefaced by "I don't play as the Union."

< Message edited by jscott991 -- 6/15/2009 6:46:09 PM >

(in reply to terje439)

Post #: 56

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/15/2009 6:40:27 PM

jscott991

Posts: 530
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
You've complained a number of times about how easy it is to capture brigades, and you've even taken the extreme measure of restarting games when you feel that you've captured too many. Well, at the higher difficulty levels that won't be a problem.

Really? On the higher difficulty levels, the AI doesn't attack and retreat a ton during quick combat because of its emphasis on little containers over concentrated force?

What's the explanation for that? How do economic penalties on the player and a combat boost prevent the AI from attacking Union corps and armies with single divisions? This problem would seem to be a behavioral problem, but the AI is supposed to behave the same on each level (in other words, it doesn't get smarter).

I can see how in detailed combat these bonuses/penalties might prevent the capture of brigades, but I don't see how it could possibly matter in quick/instant combat.

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 57

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/15/2009 7:12:52 PM

terje439

Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991

You are correct that almost all games offer difficulty levels where the AI gets bonuses and the player gets penalties to make the game more challenging for hardcore or above average players.

However, almost NO game requires you to play on those levels to get a passable game. The AI in FoF is so unbelievably stupid that it abandons an entire theatre of the war to uselessly pack men in a single province. Furthermore, enhancing its resources is no help (the difference between giving it power +2/+3 and going up to Captain, economically, is marginal not decisive; I can't calculate the exact difference, because there are contradictory numbers). If the AI improves on higher difficulties, it's because my position is being made worse. Not many games penalize the player to this extent on the "base" level.

There are no house rules that will solve this. I used to pack my eastern armies (two 35 brigade, 100k armies in the east). He withdrew then. Now you say the problem is that I have too many men out west. So what's the solution? I have to have to less men, since the AI refuses to field more men of its own.

What's galling to me about this is that I don't expect a "challenging" game. I don't care whether I win every time or win easily every time. But I do expect a Civil War game to have an AI capable of managing two fronts. The whole Civil War revolves around those fronts. This is like a WWII German AI that doesn't keep an army on the eastern front. No one would tolerate it; no matter what difficulty level this problem occurred on.

And what I want is not that far away in this game! That's what's so galling. If the AI would just sit an army in Memphis and an army in Fredericksburg and control its Richmond-love just a little bit, FoF would be so much better. Why on Earth is it is unreasonable for the AI to do this? (It would also be great if he'd stop using little containers and losing brigade after brigade to pointless attacks against big armies, followed by instant retreats, but I guess that's way too much to ask.)

Edit: Does anyone who plays this game play regularly as the Union? Almost every counter-argument is always prefaced by "I don't play as the Union."

Hmm I believe you do not quite "hear" me I'm afraid.

The problem is not the fact that you keep your armies here or there. The problem arises when you have done enough battles to completely wear down the AI armies.
If you would please look at your own screenshots. ALL of them shows the AI being all run down in the west while you hold atleast two armies. How much help would it be to bring one more brigade (or one more div for thats sake) out west?

You want the game to be more "civil war". Well, if the CSA lost 80% of its armies in the west by -62, and the Union fielded 150.000 men there, how much could they do really?

About AI bonuses.
When I play a new Civ game, I always go for Prince as a STARTER level, I will then go to Monarch for my second game, and then at game 3 or 4 I will be at Deity. So I do not agree that most games do not require you to play at higher difficulty levels for a passable game. They do actually. Sure it can be fun to win a spacerace victory in civ in 500AD, but there is no challenge in doing so.

What I feel when I read your posts is that you are too hung up on "base level". The way I see it, base level as you call it would be the ideal starting level. You have proven time and again that you can win that one, it might be time to up the difficulty. Yes, I know you feel that the AI should not cheat.

But then again I feel that I should be paid a mill a year and have my beer served by Drew Barrymore in her birthday suit..

At higher levels I do feel that the AI is capable of managing two fronts.
About me usually playing CSA, sorry. But I have played a few games as the Union, it is just that I prefer the role of the underdog in all games really.

But could I ask you to please consider trying playing on say 3rd highest level and see how that works for you?

Terje

_____________________________

"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")

(in reply to jscott991)

Post #: 58

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/15/2009 7:21:36 PM

jscott991

Posts: 530
Joined: 4/23/2009
Status: offline

You are wrong about how the games develop.

There are few or no decisive battles in the west.� There is no wearing him away.

It is siege after siege after siege.

He moves divisions and armies east and packs them into the ANV.� They aren't destroyed.� They just move away.� I'm sorry I can't convey this information better.� This whole "experiment" started because in my first few games I never fought a battle in the west.� I still don't fight battles in the west.

The battle report from these games would prove it, but you can't export it as a text file and its far too big to take screenshots of.� The AI armies in the west do melt away; but they move to Richmond or die as a result of division v. army retreats.� They aren't being chewed up in battles.� In all my games, I've only had 1-2 where decisive-level battles took place outside of Washington, Fredericksburg, or Rappahannock.

< Message edited by jscott991 -- 6/15/2009 8:25:47 PM >

(in reply to terje439)

Post #: 59

RE: The AI CSA in the West - 6/16/2009 1:44:00 AM

Graycompany

Posts: 511
Joined: 8/19/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jscott991

Edit: Does anyone who plays this game play regularly as the Union? Almost every counter-argument is always prefaced by "I don't play as the Union."

I play as the Union, I am not seeing what you are seeing , to the degree you are, I am playing the same level as you. I almost always play detailed combat. I think alot of how it goes is how you structure your Armies, and how you pursue the war. At some point, if I am forcing the west, the computer will pull east, and what else could it do? You stated that in the east you sit in your entrentchments. Why not try an come out and push in the east, an see what happens. It seems you follow a general strategy, with little changes if any (by your posts) and expect the a different result. I know you are feeling a little frustrated, but perhaps, try doing as they have suggeted, an increase the diffuclty level, whats the worst that could happen? I know you dont want to give the AI advantages to play the game in the vein that you want, but unless you at least try what they have suggested, this debate will continue, and they are not going to (imho) rewrite the program without you at the very least trying it the way they suggest. It is very obvious, you are a very smart gentleman, and have been very polite in your arguments. Which, now days seems to be the exception, rather than the norm, and for that, I think all can appreciate your manners.

_____________________________

I thought this place was a empire, now im the last, I can't be sure...

(in reply to jscott991)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: The AI CSA in the West