How is the AI?

[Forwarn45]

Since there is no current multiplayer option, the AI is especially important. So I was wondering how the AI was? I'd be interested to hear from some players with reference to how they are doing against the AI so far in games.

[Zakhal]

You can play multiplayer too. Just choose human players for the nations and then email/hot-seat the savegame. Kind of crude but it should work. 

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Forwarn45

Since there is no current multiplayer option, the AI is especially important. So I was wondering how the AI was? I'd be interested to hear from some players with reference to how they are doing against the AI so far in games.

I posted this in another thread:



The AI so far feels adequate, but I’ve only just played into Barbarossa, so I haven’t yet finished a game. The one problem I see with the AI is it defends every city (as it should), making it easy for you to bypass non-VP cities without having to fight those units.

I don’t view this is an AI weakness, but rather a scenario design weakness. There are few enough cities on map, that I believe each one should have at least one VP, more for critical production cities and capitals of course.

Then change it so non-winter turns are one week (gives you time to take all the extra VP locations) and I think the AI would be a lot tougher as you’d now have to fight all is units, not just those defending VP sites.

There is one AI problem I view as a bug and not a weakness. For some reason the AI sometimes abandons critical VP cities. I saw the AI pullout of Paris once as one of my armor units moved close enough to grab it in one move. I guess the AI failed to recognize the danger and was moving the defending unit towards the *front*. I saw this again as I closed on the Yugoslavian capital too.

The AI needs to keep a permanent garrison in every VP city no matter what. Perhaps creating fixed garrison corps that cannot be moved would fix this. Or simply tweak the AI so its first order of business is to make sure every VP city is garrisoned before it moves any other units.

Of course I restarted the game and this time around I’ve had to fight for every VP location I’ve captured so far.

Jim

[comrade]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

There is one AI problem I view as a bug and not a weakness. For some reason the AI sometimes abandons critical VP cities. I saw the AI pullout of Paris once as one of my armor units moved close enough to grab it in one move. I guess the AI failed to recognize the danger and was moving the defending unit towards the *front*. I saw this again as I closed on the Yugoslavian capital too.

The AI needs to keep a permanent garrison in every VP city no matter what. Perhaps creating fixed garrison corps that cannot be moved would fix this. Or simply tweak the AI so its first order of business is to make sure every VP city is garrisoned before it moves any other units.

Garrisoning algorithm has been improved and in 1.20 AI should no longer abandon cities.

[Vypuero]

Is the 1.2 patch available yet?

[JMass]

I am playing as Soviet in the 1941's scenario but the AI seems to be not so smart, it is very simple cut off from supply advancing german units and destroy them the turn after. Around Odessa, held by one my unit, it is a enormous concentration of axis units that remain in place turn after turn without to do nothing, I'll take one screenshot.
Definetively I hope in a patch to have a secure pbem.

[Vypuero]

Yes the British in North Africa seem to leave their cities when I approach, making their capture kind of easy.  Otherwise it was tough - one motor unit held out in Jerusalem for a long time.
 
No oil (resources) in the ME?

[JMass]

ORIGINAL: JMass

Around Odessa, held by one my unit, it is a enormous concentration of axis units that remain in place turn after turn without to do nothing, I'll take one screenshot.

Here's the situation, it it one full year that the ring is around Odessa, some units have left, some are arrived as substitutes.

[JudgeDredd]

I was very, very close to buying this...but looking at that shot, I'll wait. Clearly it needs a little tlc.

[Erik Rutins]

That is quite a bizarre situation there, I agree. Do you have a save for this that you could post or e-mail to me?

[JMass]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

That is quite a bizarre situation there, I agree. Do you have a save for this that you could post or e-mail to me?

Yes, here are the screenshot's savegame and another some turns later.

[comrade]

The reason for this is that it's not possible to assemble an attack with units from different countries, and AI won't attack on poor odds, so it just sends more and more units to the area. During our tests we've had the same problems with Gibraltar and Sevastopol where AI could not conquer the city. Events were added (Siege of Gibraltar and Siege of Sevastopol) to allow the AI to overcome this problem - if the city is blocked for 3 turns, garrison will surrender. There is an event for Odessa in 1.20, this should do the work.

[winky51]

Just FYI for all you gamers.  Making a good AI for a game this complex is very very VERY difficult. 

[JMass]

ORIGINAL: comrade

The reason for this is that it's not possible to assemble an attack with units from different countries, and AI won't attack on poor odds

Thanks, so for now I think the better thing to do is sea transport the unit away to unblock the situation.
Could you answer me if in the future it will be possible have a pbem's modality?

[Plainian]

ORIGINAL: winky51

Just FYI for all you gamers.  Making a good AI for a game this complex is very very VERY difficult. 

Which is why a lot of players graduate to PBEM or even prefer to play these type of games as pbem. The AI is usually only for training and learning the game mechanics. It will never be a good opponent. This is probably why Malta was left off the map, as the AI will have to deal with it.

[Plainian]

ORIGINAL: comrade

The reason for this is that it's not possible to assemble an attack with units from different countries, and AI won't attack on poor odds, so it just sends more and more units to the area. During our tests we've had the same problems with Gibraltar and Sevastopol where AI could not conquer the city. Events were added (Siege of Gibraltar and Siege of Sevastopol) to allow the AI to overcome this problem - if the city is blocked for 3 turns, garrison will surrender. There is an event for Odessa in 1.20, this should do the work.

But 3 turns can be differing lengths in game time depending on weather/season? Will this be taken into consideration? Other considerations would also be nice, eg who has naval control of the sea area. This could shorten the time period.

I like the idea of 'lack of cooperation' between different powers but how about allowing 'major powers' be able to 'borrow' or take control of limited numbers of 'minor countries' so that they could move and attack with them?

eg Germany with Rumania/Hungary....nad also Italy? That would also help in situations like this plus add further historical content? Too difficult to code?

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: winky51

Just FYI for all you gamers. Making a good AI for a game this complex is very very VERY difficult.

Well, we all know that's the case (or most of us)...but seeing so many units round a city because it's not taken seems a bit raw.

Seems to me the AI code is "if there is a city nearby send troops"....next turn is exactly the same and so on. No check to see if there is space round the city. No check to see if units round the city need replacing/relieving. No check to see how many units are around the city.

It just seems to me there are too few checks and that cities are magnets for units, regardless of requirement. I am, of course, only going on this screenshot and I haven't got the game as yet.

[Widell]

ORIGINAL: comrade
Events were added (Siege of Gibraltar and Siege of Sevastopol) to allow the AI to overcome this problem - if the city is blocked for 3 turns, garrison will surrender. There is an event for Odessa in 1.20, this should do the work.

This sounds like a reasonable quick fix, but not something you'd want to maintain over the life of the product. IMHO you can't fix all strange AI behaviours with events as the playability of the game will gradually be reduced as events take over rather than the player actually achieving military successes.

May I propose a piece of code that checks surrounded and cut of units every turn against some kind of factor (Attack vs Defence strength, number of turns surrounded, morale, whatever) and based on the result of the check, the surrounded unit may, or may not, surrender. The surrender may then of course trigger one or more events if that is the correct thing to do in the particular scenario.

[comrade]

ORIGINAL: Widell

ORIGINAL: comrade
Events were added (Siege of Gibraltar and Siege of Sevastopol) to allow the AI to overcome this problem - if the city is blocked for 3 turns, garrison will surrender. There is an event for Odessa in 1.20, this should do the work.

This sounds like a reasonable quick fix, but not something you'd want to maintain over the life of the product. IMHO you can't fix all strange AI behaviours with events as the playability of the game will gradually be reduced as events take over rather than the player actually achieving military successes.

May I propose a piece of code that checks surrounded and cut of units every turn against some kind of factor (Attack vs Defence strength, number of turns surrounded, morale, whatever) and based on the result of the check, the surrounded unit may, or may not, surrender. The surrender may then of course trigger one or more events if that is the correct thing to do in the particular scenario.

I very much like this idea, coz it's a) simple b) generic. It may work in a way that if the check fails surrounded unit level is reduced by 1. If check fails for lev 1 unit - it surrenders. Apart from the factors you mentioned, I'd add city supply value and an air superiority for the hex with the besieged unit (higher supply and ability to reinforce from air would make the siege last longer).

[Widell]

ORIGINAL: comrade
I very much like this idea, coz it's a) simple b) generic. It may work in a way that if the check fails surrounded unit level is reduced by 1. If check fails for lev 1 unit - it surrenders. Apart from the factors you mentioned, I'd add city supply value and an air superiority for the hex with the besieged unit (higher supply and ability to reinforce from air would make the siege last longer).

Agree, and to add to this idea, you may want to store the impact of the different values in one of the files so they are easily moddable later on.