Historical AI?

[Graf Leinsdorf]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

As for the particular problem of the Ottomans not protecting their ports  it would be simple for me to add a script demanding that that be a top priority.  It would leave the Ottomans short several corps on the front but it would block amphibious moves.

All the current debate seems by now focused on how to improve CP-AI against Human player-EP. I wonder whether Frank Hunter could consider as equally simple to tweak somewhat the script in order to make better (and more historicaly) react the behaviour of AI against the human player acting as CP instead.

I wonder for instance whether the AI could be randomly (the way we can do with events in "The Operational Art of War") bound to some courses of action, like e.g. undertaking a Gallipoli expedition in spite of odds and hindrances, therefore simulating the influence of not always clever politicians like Churchill at the time.
AI could also be made to react to general development of operations on other fronts, with e.g. Serbians, Russians or Saloniki expeditionary corps ready to take the burden of heavy losses and not so favourable odds if Western allies are bearing the brunt of too massive German offensive in France. I think that this kind of programming could enhance enormously the fun and life of a game like this, otherwise at risk of being put in the shelf for being to easy to win.

As former boardgamer I was taught that playing the role of the force historically defeated was a greater challenge, like for instance winning at Waterloo as Napoleon or at Gettysburg as Lee. I would hope that Gun of August be developed in a way that AI is hard to be beaten AT LEAST when it plays as EP and the human player is the historical underdog.

[SMK-at-work]

What is "EP"??  The 2 sides in this are the TE (Triple Alliance - France, russia, UK + others = the Allies) and the Central Powers - Germany and Austria + others still = the Central Powers.

Turkey should perhaps have more troops?

they had 3 corps at Gallipoli at the time of the landings (see http://www.military.com/Resources/Resou ... erview.htm) plus a corps split betwen Baghdad and Kut, byt the time of the 3rd battle of Gaza they have 10 infantry divisions in Palestine plus a few smaller and cavalry units, in 2 armies (see http://www.military.com/Resources/Resou ... erview.htm)

Another map of turkish army dispositions in 1914 from a contemporary source is given at http://www.diggerhistory2.info/graveyar ... my/007.jpg (the whole page is intersting reading at http://www.diggerhistory2.info/graveyar ... h_army.htm)

note that although there is no a Corps at Smyrna there are definitely troops there - the dispositions are roughly 2 corps in European Turkey around Adrianople, 3 at Constantinople, 4th Corps on the st coast of het sea of Marama, 1 each at Baghdad, Damascus and Mosul, 3 in the Caucasian mountains. Smaller units are noted at Smyrna, Beiruit, both sides of the Dardanelles, Allepo and also along the Russian and Perians borders in hte Caucassus mountains. Cavalry units are noted at Constantinople and along the Caucasian borders.

the text on the last page of the main document lsits the following for "1915" - all corps are nominally 3 divisions

1st army - 1, 2, 3, 4 Corps at constantinople.
2nd Army - 8th Corps at Damascus, 5th and 6th corps at "centres undetermined"
3rd Army - 9th, 10th, 11th Corps at Erzrum, Erzinghian and Van respectively. 9th and 11th were 2 divisions only
4th Army - 12th at Mosul, 13th at Baghdad, both 2 divisions only
independant 14th corps with divisions at Sanaa, Hodeida, Ebka (essentially in the Yemen)
Hedjaz Division

So ignoring the Yemen and Hedjaz that's still 13 corps, although arguably 4 of them should start weakened, plus cavalry,

[FrankHunter]

I would hope that Gun of August be developed in a way that AI is hard to be beaten AT LEAST when it plays as EP and the human player is the historical underdog.

Actually, I have lost to the AI a number of times when I've played the Central Powers side.  I don't believe I've ever lost when playing the Entente side though.  You may be a far better player than I [:)]

Things like knowing when the German line in the east is weak is difficult for the AI to know.  Obviously I could let the AI "see" the German forces and that would allow the AI to become much more aggressive on other fronts.  But I wanted the AI to play under the same fog the human player has to.  That doing so handicaps an AI more than it does a human after the first game I don't think is in doubt.

[hjaco]

I hold to an earlier suggestion in another thread that making it possible to load a saved setup for the AI at game start start would go a long way to give the AI a better chance to starve of a "blitzkrieg" style warfare in the beginning.

This together with changes to trenches/artillery in 1.2 should make both the campaigns in France or Russia more difficult.

If you add what some one else suggested a possibility to switch sides when playing the AI I think playability will boosted a lot.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

Actually, I have lost to the AI a number of times when I've played the Central Powers side. I don't believe I've ever lost when playing the Entente side though. You may be a far better player than I [:)]

Actually i have not [8|]

In the east the problem is deployment with one Russian corps pr. border hex so with no concentrated forces there are no threat.

In west French units are stockpiled along the German border with nothing in the north which makes a Schlieffen plan devastating at all times.

Again: the main problem is initial deployment of forces.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

What is "EP"?? The 2 sides in this are the TE (Triple Alliance - France, russia, UK + others = the Allies) and the Central Powers - Germany and Austria + others still = the Central Powers.

Turkey should perhaps have more troops?

they had 3 corps at Gallipoli at het time of the landings (see http://www.military.com/Resources/Resou ... erview.htm) plus a corps split betwen Baghdad and Kut, byt the time of the 3rd battle of Gaza they have 10 infantry divisions in Palestine - that's 5 Corps, plus a few smaller and cavalry units, in 2 armies (see http://www.military.com/Resources/Resou ... erview.htm)

Another map of turkish army dispositions in 1914 from a contemporary source is given at http://www.diggerhistory2.info/graveyar ... my/007.jpg (the whole page is intersting reading at http://www.diggerhistory2.info/graveyar ... h_army.htm)

note that although there is no a Corps at Smyrna there are definitely troops there - the dispositions are roughly 2 corps in European Turkey around Adrianople, 3 at Constantinople, 4th Corps on the st coast of het sea of Marama, 1 each at Baghdad, Damascus and Mosul, 3 in hte Caucasian mountains.

Smaller units are noted at Smyrna, Beiruit, both sides of the Dardanelles, Allepo and also along the Russian and Perians borders in hte Caucassus mountains. Cavalry units are noted at Constantinople and along the Caucasian borders.

Interesting information Mike.

Perhaps the solution is a new Militia/Garrison unit instead to all powers ? They should be next to useless in ordinary field battle but get a bonus if attacked in a home city ?

After all the British had Territorial Guards of substantial size in both Egypt and Kuwait. Although i have no knowledge of this it would make sense that a garrison would be in place at all cities with major harbor facilities in Europe ?

[FrankHunter]

If you add what some one else suggested a possibility to switch sides when playing the AI I think playability will boosted a lot.

But how does the AI do better by allowing the human player to view its strength, dispositions, builds etc?

[hjaco]

It would be an asset in steadily making the game harder for the human player from game to game.

1. step is normal play.

2. step could be loading setup for AI.

3. step could be making a single move for the AI at some soon to be critical juncture to make sure everything is on track.

4. step is to reverse sides when you have gained superiority in a game.

So it would not really make the AI better on itself but give the player an additional instrument to make the the game harder.

[Graf Leinsdorf]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

What is "EP"??  The 2 sides in this are the TE (Triple Alliance - France, russia, UK + others = the Allies) and the Central Powers - Germany and Austria + others still = the Central Powers.

I'm sorry, I took the meaning of "EP" for granted. It is an acronym for "Entente Powers" (it comes from the French "entente" but used in English too to mean friendly relationship between countries). Actually the "Entente" ("Entente Cordiale") was an alliance stipulated in 1904 between France and Britain; in 1907 the treaty was exended to Russia and the resulting alliance became the "Triple Entente". During the Great War the term "Entente" was referred to all powers (major and minor) fighting against the Central Powers (CP).
In most Great War scenarios in "The Operational Art of War" wargame that is the way the "Allied" or "Triple Alliance" or whatewer name may be used to mean the enemies of the Central Powers are usually called.

[EUBanana]

The biggest problem I find with the AI, if we're talking about  touching it up, is its tendency to suicidally attack.

If strength 20 attacks strength 60, then the end result is the strength 20 side is annihilated, and the strength 60 is untouched.

The Foch-AI does this all the time on the Western Front. 

[SMK-at-work]

i've only seen it do this when it thinks it is attacking an empty hex - usually with the Russians - at het same time I move in 2-3 corps and the Ruskies get crushed.  I don't think I've ever seen it with the French.

[hjaco]

I have the same experience as SMK.

[EUBanana]

Really?  I've seen this constantly.  Its probably the biggest reason why I now thrash the AI every time.  It throws away troops in offensives like theres no tomorrow.

[SMK-at-work]

Get 1.2!![8D]

[Joel Rauber]

ORIGINAL: hjaco



Perhaps the solution is a new Militia/Garrison unit instead to all powers ? They should be next to useless in ordinary field battle but get a bonus if attacked in a home city ?

After all the British had Territorial Guards of substantial size in both Egypt and Kuwait. Although i have no knowledge of this it would make sense that a garrison would be in place at all cities with major harbor facilities in Europe ?

Something like this seems like a good idea and may help with some of the invasion problems (Wilhelmshaven??) that people notice. Perhaps something like all cities have a 4-point garrison (or other value) It should be large enough to throw some doubt on an amphibious invasion but small enough that a reasonably sized land attack would usually be successful; and/or the quality rating adjusted so that the above would happen. What would work best depends on the defence bonus that defenders from amphibious invasions receive vs. the city bonus for defence against land attacks.

[Graf Leinsdorf]

ORIGINAL: Graf Leinsdorf

As former boardgamer I was taught that playing the role of the force historically defeated was a greater challenge, like for instance winning at Waterloo as Napoleon or at Gettysburg as Lee. I would hope that Gun of August be developed in a way that AI is hard to be beaten AT LEAST when it plays as EP and the human player is the historical underdog.
[/quote]

Playing the beta 1.2 update version as CP against the Entente AI, I was just appreciating a more challenging behavior of Entente Allied on the Western Front, when, in the November-December 1916 game turn, Britain all of sudden surrendered. A quite mysterious as well unhistorical oucome, considering the successful conduct of operations in France at the time. Thus a critical situation for Germany is strangely reversed and, in the end, I’m not able to remark any apparent improvement of AI resilience in comparison to previous versions, as already complained in this thread.
Moreover, together with some notable improvements in game mechanics and interface, 1.2 update displays perhaps some new flaws:
- inability to strategic move various units along the game, in spite of plenty of rail points and selection of eligible hexes;
- inability, twice in the game, to activate a Bulgarian HQ, in spite of its 2 offensive points, against Rumanians and Russians.

[FrankHunter]

- inability to strategic move various units along the game, in spite of plenty of rail points and selection of eligible hexes;

This is happening?  I haven't received any saved games about this.

- inability, twice in the game, to activate a Bulgarian HQ, in spite of its 2 offensive points, against Rumanians and Russians.

If you have a save where I can run this I'd be happy to fix it.

[Graf Leinsdorf]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

- inability to strategic move various units along the game, in spite of plenty of rail points and selection of eligible hexes;

This is happening?  I haven't received any saved games about this.

- inability, twice in the game, to activate a Bulgarian HQ, in spite of its 2 offensive points, against Rumanians and Russians.

If you have a save where I can run this I'd be happy to fix it.

Unfortunately I haven't a save of my game.

However I‘m afraid that the first “flaw” was rather a misperception of the new, very fine Iron X counters loaded, properly a (small, they're wonderful) flaw of the counters themselves, as Bulgarian HQ and Infantry Corps counters look rather similar in attire and beret and thus probably I clicked twice on the false counter.

As to the inability of strategic moving units, it happened 4 or 5 times in the entire game: I could move the units in the Orders Phase, but in the Playback Phase they were mysteriously repositioned in the pristine hex. I suppose it’s the same flaw complained in the other thread "Strat movement bugs?".

[Graf Leinsdorf]

Playing in the role of CP, after a couple of games with the Pro-Entente bias switched on (as suggested by SMK-at-work in another thread), AI has been a tougher nut to crack indeed (playing update 1.2 beta 2), in spite of a good execution of Schlieffen plan (1 win and 1 defeat) which in all previous games did assure me an easy win.

However, contrary to the enhancement of difficulty levels in chess computer programs, I suppose that in GOA increasing the bias has only effect on odds calculation of combat. I could not remark indeed any great difference in the conduct of operations by the Entente AI, as Russians in the east still were slow in exploiting the weakness of CP (stemming from their huge effort in the West), Serbians were still too easy to dispose of (historically they were a very hard nut to crack for Austrians) and Ottoman Empire had no troubles in funneling all its resources to Germany and Austria, due to the non-existent pressure on its fronts in the Caucasus and (especially) Middle East and Mesopotamia. At least with bias on I could appreciate that Britain didn’t regularly surrender in 1916, as instead regularly happened in my games when the pro-Entente bias was switched off, having a more resilient fleet in North Atlantic.

I wonder whether, through some diffrent programming, AI could be made to somewhat replicate in East Prusia-Galicia, Serbia and Turkey (as well as in the Salonika area too!) the aggressive conduct of operations it regularly displays on the Italian Front: in every game I did, just after entering war, Italy’s onslaught alongthe Alps, in spite of the difficult terrain, has paid huge dividends and CP could not afford – as in East Prussia and Galicia – to leave the defense only to scanty and scattered troops, as this brought about a deep penetration of Italian and Allied corps in Austrian territory.

[SMK-at-work]

I'm not sure exactly what increasing the bias does....but with beta v2 winning is pretty easy due to the excessive casualties casued by artillery!!