AI performance on latest official patch

[gazfun]

Guys
Does anyone know of what are the expectations of the AI with the current upgrade 1.04 will do.
I was hoping that finally it might be open for a vacant MP in a game to be adequatley taken over by the AI
ATM we are using UMP rules in a game, and I would like to be away with it finally

[delatbabel]

It's still not clever enough for that I think but at least it's not boneheadedly stupid.

If you let it run something like Spain or Turkey then it might be fine but you can't really negotiate with it, enter deals with it, or ask it to ally with you against someone.

[Marshall Ellis]

I think tactically it is better. There should be better chit selection management. I strategically it is better as well since there are much smarter diplomatic moves.
 
BUT
 
It still needs improvement and we will continue to work on it.
 

[NeverMan]

The AI is still pretty god awful, IMO.

But this does bring up a question:

In Human/AI games, does the AI still give itself tons of free PP/VP? Or not?

[carnifex]

Just had a game as Russia. I set up for Sweden and for far east minors, with half the army on the Turkish border. Couple of months later, the Turk declares on me. He has his corps placed one to a province. I form the stack and start stepping on his corps one at a time. For four turns, the Turk does nothing. Doesn't move a single unit. Then on the fourth turn he attacks two of my reinforcing corps with his now depleted army, loses the battle due to chit pick, and surrenders the next turn due to instability. So yeah, still needs work.

[Tater]

The French still start out with whole navy (EXC: Dutch) in one port with a 1 factor garrison.

[ndrose]

ORIGINAL: carnifex

Just had a game as Russia. I set up for Sweden and for far east minors, with half the army on the Turkish border. Couple of months later, the Turk declares on me. He has his corps placed one to a province. I form the stack and start stepping on his corps one at a time. For four turns, the Turk does nothing. Doesn't move a single unit. Then on the fourth turn he attacks two of my reinforcing corps with his now depleted army, loses the battle due to chit pick, and surrenders the next turn due to instability. So yeah, still needs work.

Huh, that's strange. I've played a few times with Russo-Turk wars, and although I wouldn't say the AI played terribly well, it was better than what you describe. They would usually, as soon as I crossed the frontier, send everything into one battle. Then as they fell back (assuming I won), they would usually take opportunities to disrupt supply.

The main problem I've noticed is that if they have forces too far away to do anything useful this month, they don't do anything at all, so they stay too far away. And generally, there seems to be a steep time horizon drop-off in the AI's outlook.

[obsidiandrag]

Something I have noticed about the AI that wories me for long term AI applications is the lack of intelligent placement after purchase of units.  Not the in or out of corps as such as the where on the map.  It seems that the AI prefers to stack all corps into a single stack for reinforcement if at peace.  In some cases not a bad idea but for the majority it is.  As France there will be ONE stack on a single front and nothing else - Or as I have seen there will be the Prussian stack on Denmark and none in Berlin...  but that is where they keep building them.  Spain will build them in the north west port and not have fleets there and nothing on the French border making them useless except against Portugal.  As the game progresses into the later years against the AI this becomes more noticeable and extremely more ineffective for the AI as it is easier to get around the bulk or its army (or as France stage a devestating blow to the entire army on the first attack).  So in all the AI still needs alot of work but it is declaring better than before so I keep hoping that eventually we can improve on all aspects as we get to them.

[ndrose]

ORIGINAL: ndrose

ORIGINAL: carnifex

Just had a game as Russia. I set up for Sweden and for far east minors, with half the army on the Turkish border. Couple of months later, the Turk declares on me. He has his corps placed one to a province. I form the stack and start stepping on his corps one at a time. For four turns, the Turk does nothing. Doesn't move a single unit. Then on the fourth turn he attacks two of my reinforcing corps with his now depleted army, loses the battle due to chit pick, and surrenders the next turn due to instability. So yeah, still needs work.

Huh, that's strange. I've played a few times with Russo-Turk wars, and although I wouldn't say the AI played terribly well, it was better than what you describe. They would usually, as soon as I crossed the frontier, send everything into one battle. Then as they fell back (assuming I won), they would usually take opportunities to disrupt supply.

The main problem I've noticed is that if they have forces too far away to do anything useful this month, they don't do anything at all, so they stay too far away. And generally, there seems to be a steep time horizon drop-off in the AI's outlook.

Update: As it happens, I'm playing a Russian game now, and seeing just what Carnifex describes. I'm not sure what's different in this case from those in which the AI did better, except perhaps that there was a period of inactivity after war was declared and before the fighting started. I don't know why that should matter, but I have noticed other ways in which the AI sometimes appears to go to "sleep".

[Tater]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I think tactically it is better. There should be better chit selection management. I strategically it is better as well since there are much smarter diplomatic moves.

You must have a different patch than the one I downloaded. Because as far as I can tell there hasn't been much if any improvement to AI performance across all the patches. The proof of this is that the AI still has terrible, TERRIBLE set-ups...this has been true from day one.

[NeverMan]

I would still very much like to see Matrix involve the community in the way of Open Source; HOWEVER, if this can't happen and since the AI is still god awful, how about making user-modded AI scripts possible?

This:

1. Adds robustness.
2. Gets more hands involved in improving the AI WITHOUT the need for more hands on the code.

Makes sense to me but then again everyone here thinks I'm some crazy raving lunatic because I want this game to be good and it's not there.

[Tater]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Makes sense to me but then again everyone here thinks I'm some crazy raving lunatic because I want this game to be good and it's not there.

I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt for a while...but now, a year later and something as basic (and critical) as initial set-up is still not fixed. [:(]

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Makes sense to me but then again everyone here thinks I'm some crazy raving lunatic because I want this game to be good and it's not there.

I can only speak for myself, but I do not think you a crazy raving lunatic. You have a strong affection for the originial game, that is not wrong.

Some of your ideas are good, but they often lack a realistic understanding of what would be required to make them happen assuming they are even possible given the situation.

To better days in the future.

[pzgndr]

The proof of this is that the AI still has terrible, TERRIBLE set-ups...this has been true from day one.

I'm curious why the AI can't simply randomly select from the customized setups that players can make (it's like the one editor feature we do have). It would be good to have a standard setup plus a couple of viable alternatives for each country. Bottom line is players could then have some control over available setups to ensure none are terrible. Not sure if that would help the AI or not at this point, but wouldn't hurt.

[pzgndr]

how about making user-modded AI scripts possible?

My experience with the Strategic Command series suggests that a new game engine/editor package would need to be developed to do this. SC1 had a basic scenario editor but no way for players to edit event and AI scripts. These were all hard-coded in the game engine. SC2 development focused on a new comprehensive editor to do all this, and the game engine was rebuilt accordingly to accomodate the changes and new features. It was not a trivial effort and took a couple of years. And it still wasn't done done. Two expansions have followed and a third is due for release shortly.

Editable scripts may not be necessary. Napoleonic wars were relatively short except in a few cases and mostly linear. AI adjustments are needed for sure, but once a handful of fundamentals are established then the AI should be OK. The real scripting issue is diplomacy. How does the AI decide to make alliances, declare wars, establish peace conditions, etc. For these a few editable tables should be adequate, and then let the game's randomness create the diplomatic conditions of the game? Within those given conditions, the generic AI using sound fundamentals should be able to handle it.

Maybe Marshall can provide more insights regarding how his generic AI programming works, and then the community can provide specific feedback for improvements. But there are still some bugs and rule deviations that need to get resolved first. And a lot of them seem to have been addressed in v1.05. I'm looking forward to trying that beta when it gets posted next week. Onward ho! [:)]

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Makes sense to me but then again everyone here thinks I'm some crazy raving lunatic because I want this game to be good and it's not there.

I can only speak for myself, but I do not think you a crazy raving lunatic. You have a strong affection for the originial game, that is not wrong.

Some of your ideas are good, but they often lack a realistic understanding of what would be required to make them happen assuming they are even possible given the situation.

To better days in the future.

I don't see how any of my ideas have a "unrealistic understanding". I code everyday. I have been coding for over 10 years. I'm quite aware of what can be done with code.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

how about making user-modded AI scripts possible?

Editable scripts may not be necessary. Napoleonic wars were relatively short except in a few cases and mostly linear. AI adjustments are needed for sure, but once a handful of fundamentals are established then the AI should be OK. The real scripting issue is diplomacy. How does the AI decide to make alliances, declare wars, establish peace conditions, etc. For these a few editable tables should be adequate, and then let the game's randomness create the diplomatic conditions of the game? Within those given conditions, the generic AI using sound fundamentals should be able to handle it.

Maybe Marshall can provide more insights regarding how his generic AI programming works, and then the community can provide specific feedback for improvements. But there are still some bugs and rule deviations that need to get resolved first. And a lot of them seem to have been addressed in v1.05. I'm looking forward to trying that beta when it gets posted next week. Onward ho! [:)]

Yes, bugs need to be fixed first. With the rate that new bugs pop up in this game I'm not sure that Matrix will ever get past this stage, but if they do:

The point of having scripts is to allow the community to hone the AI based on strategies, not necessarily tactics AND to take that work away from Marshall so that he can focus on other things.

The scripts could be less detailed and get more detailed as time goes on.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Tater

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I think tactically it is better. There should be better chit selection management. I strategically it is better as well since there are much smarter diplomatic moves.

You must have a different patch than the one I downloaded. Because as far as I can tell there hasn't been much if any improvement to AI performance across all the patches. The proof of this is that the AI still has terrible, TERRIBLE set-ups...this has been true from day one.

The setups are files. You can create your own, and always have been able to. If you don't like it, change it.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: Tater

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I think tactically it is better. There should be better chit selection management. I strategically it is better as well since there are much smarter diplomatic moves.

You must have a different patch than the one I downloaded. Because as far as I can tell there hasn't been much if any improvement to AI performance across all the patches. The proof of this is that the AI still has terrible, TERRIBLE set-ups...this has been true from day one.

The setups are files. You can create your own, and always have been able to. If you don't like it, change it.

The problem with this is predictability. Why should you have to manually place your opponents pieces intelligently in a COMPUTER GAME??????

That is like playing solo and IMO, if you are going to do that then I'd rather play Empires in Arms.

[Tater]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

The setups are files. You can create your own, and always have been able to. If you don't like it, change it.

If I wanted to play myself I could have saved my cash and just played the boardgame solitaire. [8|]

Not to mention, why should I have to pay the cash for the game and then have to build the game for myself? [8|]