Does the AI build sealed roads and rail?

[Malevolence]

Given an auto-pull logistics system in place, I'm not sure why the AI shouldn't play by the same rules.



Many images like these in games, an AI minor surrounded by an AI major. Both passive toward one another.

[stryc]

ORIGINAL: HansLemurson

ORIGINAL: Warjager

WHAT????? Ai dont use the logistic system at all?? ok! I was on the forum to read about more of the game, to see if i buy it or not. Clearly i wont ever after reading this!!! Big part of the fun is to think about how to outsmart your enemy, dealing with your logistic and their, and maybe find a weak spot to use to your advantage. Ok for some special unit or bandit to be able to do that, but for an entire empire to bypass the core of the game? no way! They made it with Atg, why not include this to SE? After all, its kind of its spiritual succesor!

Hope its because the game still a work in progress and will be added at a later date, but if not, its really immersion breaking for me! Will go back to Atg instead!

The AI does use the Logistical system, it's just given some boosts to make sure it doesn't trip over itself.
It gets:
- Free Road Construction
- Free Logistics points generated from cities

The complaint was just that cutting a road doesn't hurt the AI like it does a human, because the AI can immediately build a new road to bypass your blockage and get its troops back into supply before they suffer any real problems.

You're oversimplifying the complaint somewhat.

The AI 'uses' the logistics system in perhaps the loosest way possible, diluting an otherwise intricate system down to pretty much only needing to be able to trace an unbroken path back to any town regardless of quantity, distance and terrain. So easy does the AI have it that it often doesn't need more than grade II transport hubs (thus won't need supply bases, et al), and doesn't need to build sealed roads or rail (if it can build such things at all; I've never seen it happen).

Cutting enemy forces off from supply is a core principle that is familiar to any grognard, in just about any wargame. When you are presented with a game that has such a gloriously detailed and intricate logistics system the grognard in all of us immediately starts to draw up plans on how to screw with the enemy in interesting and varied ways. Imagine the disappointment when you discover how little of said intricate system actually applies to all of your foes; you're simply not playing the same game as them, and yet the game is presented in such as way as to suggest that you are.

As I've said before, all games cheat. They have to. That being said, it is my opinion that the AI in this game gets, literally, far too many free passes.

[Smidlee]

ORIGINAL: stryc
...
As I've said before, all games cheat. They have to. That being said, it is my opinion that the AI in this game gets, literally, far too many free passes.

Is it even possible to lose to the AI? Look how the AI builds roads.

[Twotribes]

Try against Nemesis

[gmsitton]

ORIGINAL: Smidlee

ORIGINAL: stryc
...
As I've said before, all games cheat. They have to. That being said, it is my opinion that the AI in this game gets, literally, far too many free passes.

Is it even possible to lose to the AI? Look how the AI builds roads.

Yes, especially if you roll a bad starting situation.

[Malevolence]

Placing the player in an impossible situation is certainly fun play, but it isn't losing a game on the basis of rules. The OP and others point out that the fundamental physics of the game is broken.

No one is demanding the symmetry of sport, but the game's play should be cogent and convincing. I agree that it is not cogent when the AI uses contrived magic.

It's also not convincing if the AI can't win without god mode.

[Twotribes]

Then quit playing and take your ball and go home. I don't know of a single complex game that does not give the AI cheats.

[stryc]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Then quit playing and take your ball and go home. I don't know of a single complex game that does not give the AI cheats.

That's a rather reductive attitude.

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Then quit playing and take your ball and go home. I don't know of a single complex game that does not give the AI cheats.

You can't seriously believe the player should be forced to destroy roads like this to ensure supplies move correctly?

Don't forget it was your so called "vocal minority" that suggested the ability to demolish infrastructure in the first place.

No comments here are intended to harm the game or the developers.

[Twotribes]

Ya removing roads is the same as redesigning the entire way the AI works......

[stryc]

Did the AI ever try to use the same logistics system? I presume there was an alpha/beta and people here played in it.

[HansLemurson]

I think the real issue here is rather than the "AI Cheating" or "Ignoring Logistics limits", is that it's doing so too visibly.

[ZiggyMaca]

I remember Bic mentioning he could have the AI use the exact same rules as the player. I think the reason he has not done so is that would have to be a new beta version number with iteration on the bugs and AI behavior issues it would create, thus requiring quite a time investment. I may be wrong, but he seemed to indicate it was possible. I would vote for this being a feature I would like to see, I would recommend any one that feels the same way to push for this to happen, or at least get a confirmation of why it is not something that could or would not happen.

[stryc]

ORIGINAL: ZiggyMaca
I remember Bic mentioning he could have the AI use the exact same rules as the player. I think the reason he has not done so is that would have to be a new beta version number with iteration on the bugs and AI behavior issues it would create, thus requiring quite a time investment. I may be wrong, but he seemed to indicate it was possible. I would vote for this being a feature I would like to see, I would recommend any one that feels the same way to push for this to happen, or at least get a confirmation of why it is not something that could or would not happen.

Intriguing.

Personally, if it only comes down to longer turn processing time considerations, I'd gladly endure that. (Perhaps have a Simple/Advanced AI Logistics toggle in the options.)

I don't play this game anymore since discovering how much the AI ignores the game's core system; it put me right off. If there's even a glimmer of hope that something can be done then I'm right behind that movement!

[stryc]

ORIGINAL: HansLemurson
I think the real issue here is rather than the "AI Cheating" or "Ignoring Logistics limits", is that it's doing so too visibly.

That would only influence how quickly the player discovers how much the AI doesn't do.

[Foxador]

ORIGINAL: stryc

ORIGINAL: HansLemurson
I think the real issue here is rather than the "AI Cheating" or "Ignoring Logistics limits", is that it's doing so too visibly.

That would only influence how quickly the player discovers how much the AI doesn't do.

Well they could make it so the AI still has the ignore logistics BUT pretends to need it. That's a common thing that happens in other games where you just have the AI pretend it needs something it doesn't to give the illusion of using said system.

So you can have the AI actually build the logistic buildings that it ignores currently, so now it would actually make and upgrade truck stations as well as rail stations. Then have a rule where the AI can only move X titles away from a town depending on the level of truck/rail stations that it has. So if it has a level 1 truck station only it they TRY to stay within 10 tiles of a town but with a rail station and a truck station it could move like 20.

Honestly the second idea would be a lot harder to code in than just doing the first one were the AI builds the actual buildings and at least has a leash to it. The leash would be so you don't have 100 troops going across the world to fight which I have seen happen. So have it so they can't go past 30 tiles of a town

[stryc]

On the one hand I applaud the devs for putting (most of) their cards on the table and explaining what the AI doesn't do; however, on the other hand the player is able to see how different the game being played by the AI really is and for a game that prides itself on its intricate logistics systems, and having the AI ignore so much of it, does end up harming the game somewhat. It kind of feels a bit like the devs _wanted_ the AI to use most of the systems, and had every intention of it doing so, but, for whatever reason, couldn't make that happen.

Having simple rules that emulate the observable outcomes of the actual logistics system might have helped conceal all of the AI's free passes, and that might well have been enough. Who knows.

[Leslac]

On big maps the current system basically makes the AI unable to survive too far from it's cities, giving the player the rest of the planet. The AI won't build new cities with new logistic producing systems and will thus let it's furthest troops starve to death because of overextension.

In my current game there aren't many cities around on a big map, so massive areas to expand into and fight over. And the AI did just that, but now their farthest moved troops are dying without me cutting them off (and no radioactivity etc). So the AI system as it is, really doesn't work, not on big maps.