Historical AI?

[FrankHunter]

Since the AI never used artillery in the way it was being used by players, it would be good to give the AI a look with the current artillery rules.

I suppose that in GOA increasing the bias has only effect on odds calculation of combat.

I'm trying to recall if the AI gains a "cheat" benefit in combat when the handicap is on.  It may, I'd have to go back and look.  However, off the top of my head I believe the only AI advantage is 50% more economic points.  Since the AI will never spend as wisely as the human player I don't see this as being much of an advantage myself, more of an "evening up".

as Russians in the east still were slow in exploiting the weakness of CP

The Russians have a very long front and as the AI thinks defence first they will move slowly when on the offensive because they just don't do as well as a human at allocating troops and HQs so as to free up a reserve for offensive purposes.

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

It is probably possible to increase aggressiveness.

[Graf Leinsdorf]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

It is probably possible to increase aggressiveness.

Re: programming Entente AI against CP human player, I would suggest, in order to simulate Russian offensive efforts historically put in the Eastern front to relieve CP pressure against Western Allies, that a more aggressive conduct by AI Russians (and Serbians) be devised in a way that it works only for a couple of turns after each lowering of the moral level of either France or Britain (e.g. strong to good, or weak to wavering).

Moreover, for the sake of some historical flavour, I would recommend, if possible, an increase of Entente amphibious capability or other ways which encourage a kind of Gallipoli operation (or disembarkment on Turkish Mediterranean coast) by the British whenever a Russian predicament (e.g. loss of Batum, Tbilisi or both) occurs in the Caucasian region. Conversely Western Allies aggressiveness could be enhanced whenever moral level of the Russian decreases. And more links could be thought of (e.g. affecting aggressiveness of Saloniki expedition or of Mesopotamian- Middles East operations by the British). This kind of linked developments is rather easily programmed with the Events engine of Matrix game "The Operational Art War", I suppose they could are far more easily programmable with the GOA engine.

I would add here that the list of news appearing in the Strategic phase and detailing exotic events occurring on minor fronts, just after the two first games played, becomes a real annoyance. It would be better to devise random variable events each game which actually may affect the conduct of operations. As samples, there are plenty of such what-ifs events to draw on, well sketched in history books or in boardgames like XTR The Great War 1914-1918 or GMT Paths of Glory (e.g. Armenian uprising, Polish restoration, Albert King of Belgium caving in, etc.).

[Disintegration]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

The current AI, which doesn't use scripting, actually plays better than the previous one although it has a tendency towards cautiousness.

That's the biggest problem I've seen by far. Granted, I've only played 5 games, but in the three I played as the CP, the AI just defended on both major fronts - I was still attacking France in late 1915 and the Russians had yet to move a single unit into German territory or even stack many units on the front line. Likewise, when I attacked Russia first, the sole TE response was a few tepid bombardments from the French border. The Brits didn't even show up anywhere except Basra until the Italian DoW.

Playing the TE it was even worse. I've done that twice and both times the Germans stacked a huge army on the Western Front and then did absolutely nothing with it, again save for a few bombardments - and also did nothing as the Russians rolled to Berlin completely unopposed.

Honestly, I'd rather the AI cheat a little than be so ineffective. Would it be possible to let it look at the human player's setup just for the purpose of deciding on a simple strategy - i.e., whether to take a generally offensive or defensive posture on any given front - and then forget those dispositions and go back to FOW when giving orders? Then the AI could afford to be a lot more aggressive without reaching Plan XVII levels of bad judgment.

The game itself is fantastic - thanks so much for your work on it!

(Would be nice to have a more detailed manual, though...)

[Joel Rauber]

I'm currently fighting a CP AI, and the Germans are being relatively agressive in the east. While trying to hold a line in the west. I.e. its pursuing an East first strategy. Its not doing to badly either.

[Graf Leinsdorf]

That's the biggest problem I've seen by far. Granted, I've only played 5 games, but in the three I played as the CP, the AI just defended on both major fronts - I was still attacking France in late 1915 and the Russians had yet to move a single unit into German territory or even stack many units on the front line. Likewise, when I attacked Russia first, the sole TE response was a few tepid bombardments from the French border. The Brits didn't even show up anywhere except Basra until the Italian DoW.

Finally someone has got to the heart of the matter.
I don't see any reason to play a historical wargame which is neither really historical nor really challenging for the human player, whatever merits a clever design like this may have (and provided of course that one has no time to play PBEM).
Thus at the time I've placed Guns of August on the shelf and I will not take and play it again before the first update is released which seriously addresses the AI and makes it some more challenging, at least for average experienced players.

[Shawkhan]

...I would love to have an option in the game where the human player could choose which historical war plan the AI would use. There was an old wargame called '1914' where a player had the choice of several different OOBs based on the historical war plans of both sides in WWI. This enhanced replayability enormously, making the game so enjoyable I still pull out one of my copies of it now and again to try different combinations.
...For those of us wanting AI aggression the chance to fight the allies using plan17 and the Tannenburg opening for the Russians should fit the bill.