The AI

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I just wanted to clarify a little bit here...

I'm not making the AI do any type of smokescreen to fool you into thinking that it's doing something useful???????
Not my style!
I've got too much blood involved to try and do that to you guys???
Hope everybody understands that???

I do. I know this is a work in progress and that it will get there someday. Like I said before, the AI doesn't have to be great, or even good for that matter, but it must at least make some sense and on "Hard" (with all the VP/PP etc giving) it should force the game to the end.

I didn't start this thread as a bitching post (it kind of got hijacked it seems). I started it as a "what's wrong with the AI and what it needs to do to help make it better".

[Marshall Ellis]

Neverman:
 
I'm with you. I liked this thread! I could learn something from the input! I'll keep watching.
Appreciate your support.

[Minedog]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Mandatory GBR-FR unconditional is NOT in the game. How important is this?

I would say very important as long as France and Britain are Dominant Powers. The French/British conflict is the primary driver in the boardgame, with Britain propping up one Coalition after the next with money and a few troops, and dominating the naval war.

In my head I would try and separate the tactical AI (i.e the manoeuver and battles) from the strategic AI. I think the tactical AI is slowly getting better, but there are some important tactical concepts the programmers need to grasp, foremostly what kind of war the power wants to fight (wide front or concentrated), the type of battles you want to fight I.e high casualty or morale breaker & pursuit battles. Within the battles, reinforcement and guard commitment are important choices not just to win the battle, but to limit the harm of a loss.

In the strategic (or diplomatic AI) I think the game should start with predispositions towards the historical alliances (France ,Spain & Turkey vs Britain, Austria & Russia), but swing towards defeating the leader based on %VP as the game goes on. However, at this point, even a strategic AI that did nothing offensive and called allies when DOWed would be better than the random war generation that seems to happen.

[NeverMan]

Minedog, I agree with most of your post but I disagree with the tactical and strategic being separate. Personally, I think one usually dictates the other and vice-versa. For me, sometimes what I am doing strategically depends on how I look tactically (the ability to adapt), but usually my tactics are dictated by my strategic goals.

It seems right now that the AI will send a lot of little Corps out trying to capture Minors from me. It's annoying yes, for awhile it works, but eventually the AI doesn't know when to surrender so it always gives me time to crush those little Corps scattered all over the place and take back all my minors.

The AI also seems to not attack very often with enough Corps/Factor Strength. I have seen Nappy and other good leaders thrown away by attacking with too little forces.

The AI also seems to continue attacking in hopes of a "last battle". For example, France kept attacking me with Militia under Davout even though I had large forces (Charles with 8 Corps) sieging Paris and even a month after I got into Paris it was still attacking me. The same thing happened with Prussia and Blucher. The AI just doesn't know when to cut it's losses.

On the other hand, when I went after Turkey, it let me walk right to Constantinople unattacked. I had a supply chain unguarded of 5 depots behind me and it did nothing. John went to Constantinople while Charles went around and destroyed all the little Corps that were left alone. Turkey had a stack down south with a leader not far from John, but it made no attempt to attack John. Turkey was also at war with GB and Prussia at the time. GB had blockaded the port where these Corps were, but the AI needs to prioritize in that situation.

[Marshall Ellis]

A couple of confirmations:
 
The AI will try to protect a capital with anything that it can. This does create suicide attacks. It is difficult for the AI to understand that surrender is maybe better than losing one's capital. I call this the Japan syndrome!
 
The AI also is NOT taking minors like it should!
 
The AI is getting lost after successfully taking a minor. Right now it is not answering questions like, "What do I do with my forces in Egypt after Egypt is conquered?" or "What is the next minor I should go after?"
 
These are all things that I am looking to make better in 1.03
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[ndrose]

The way the AI protects the capital (though sometimes overdone, as when France alls back the entire Armee to obliterate a lone Spanish cavalry corps that, if it were unfortunate enough to get a breach, would be wiped out by the 25-strong Paris garrison) is not so bad, generally. The real problem is the way it goes after an opponent's capital--like that lone cavalry corps, or the way France attacks Berlin: the army will sit, a huge stack of corps, in Lausitz, and send one corps at a time to face the Prussian army.

And a peculiar habit with minors: even when it does declare war on them, the AI will do nothing about it if they get run by an MP it's already at war with. Now, on the one hand, this shows the AI is thinking a bit: I don't have to worry about lapse of war, since I'm at war with the MP, and can take this minor at my leisure. However, it never does do anything. Egypt is a good example. If Turkey is at war with the controlling MP, it just sits in Jerusalem. Conversely, the MP controlling Egypt starts launching suicide attacks at the Turkish army until there is no Egyptian army left. But even then the Turks don't move. And, as far as I can tell, though they may be left unmolested for years, the Egyptians never rebuild their army--not even to garrison Cairo. Both sides seem to be doing everything they can to lose....

[Tater]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
France DOWs Russia. Prussia DOWs Turkey. These are obviously not right. But the AI is in fact doing things, which is good, so it's more a matter of making some adjustments for the AI to make more "smart" decisions and fewer "stupid" decisions. I'm optimistic these things are eventually possible, but also fully aware of how difficult and time consuming AI scripting and playtesting can be. So while I doubt the AI will ever get close to the quality of an experienced veteran human opponent, with difficulty level bonuses included the computer opponent(s) should be a fair match for an average human opponent and certainly a below average one.

In my experience with EiA (and any other wargames) it isn't even a matter of making "smart" decisions. The players that do well are usually just not making "stupid" decisions. IMHO, just getting the AI to make as few bad choices as possible will, by itself, make the AI a better opponent. I think this is reasonably achievable and some of the improvements to date already demonstrate this.

The single biggest step now is getting the AI's to build "good" armies. So far they just aren't doing that. Over and over, regardless of which side I play or play against I go into battle after battle vs crappy armies:
1) To much militia
2) No militia
3) Half empty corp
4) No cav...
5) All cav...
6) etc...

IOW, there is no balance at all to the AI's constructing of an army.

I think two rather simple concepts that the AI needs...force balance in building an army and creating multi corp stacks using said balanced army. I get the impression from the AI actions that supply costs are much more important to the AI than having a usable army.

[Hornblower]

bump

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: ndrose

The way the AI protects the capital (though sometimes overdone, as when France alls back the entire Armee to obliterate a lone Spanish cavalry corps that, if it were unfortunate enough to get a breach, would be wiped out by the 25-strong Paris garrison) is not so bad, generally. The real problem is the way it goes after an opponent's capital--like that lone cavalry corps, or the way France attacks Berlin: the army will sit, a huge stack of corps, in Lausitz, and send one corps at a time to face the Prussian army.

And a peculiar habit with minors: even when it does declare war on them, the AI will do nothing about it if they get run by an MP it's already at war with. Now, on the one hand, this shows the AI is thinking a bit: I don't have to worry about lapse of war, since I'm at war with the MP, and can take this minor at my leisure. However, it never does do anything. Egypt is a good example. If Turkey is at war with the controlling MP, it just sits in Jerusalem. Conversely, the MP controlling Egypt starts launching suicide attacks at the Turkish army until there is no Egyptian army left. But even then the Turks don't move. And, as far as I can tell, though they may be left unmolested for years, the Egyptians never rebuild their army--not even to garrison Cairo. Both sides seem to be doing everything they can to lose....

I think that the current work that Marshall is doing, based on some of the early testing I've seen, is on the way to fixing both of these problems. Here's hoping, anyway.

[Marshall Ellis]

This is my intent!
 

[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.

[NeverMan]

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]

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]

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

[delatbabel]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.