The AI CSA in the West

[jscott991]

Gil always prefaces or postscrips his remarks by saying its not a serious problem.

It is a serious problem. Erik R. has mentioned in his posts that AI turtling was looked into before, so I get two totally different vibes.

Playing as the Union and not using detailed combat leaves you with two choices:

1. You can play a difficulty level where the Union will enjoy a manpower advantage in line with the historical balance of power and win the game by taking advantage of the migration issue. The AI will migrate in every First Sergeant game. It will migrate on Captain as well. And it will pack the east whether it migrates or not on all the difficulties in between (I just wanted to see sample ANVs, so I didn't play these games beyond mid-1862) producing a near 1:1 situation in the east, even if the Army of the Potomac numbers over 100,000 men. Factor in the 27 brigade limit on QC/IC and Lee will never be seriously outmanned or even outmanned at all.

2. You can play on a high difficulty level and, maybe, not face the migration issue. However, the war you're fighting will bear absolutely no resemblance to the Civil War, because the CSA's combat boost and economic levels will produce an unrealistic balance of forces and require ludicrous odds to win a QC/IC (3-1 is no guarantee on these levels, especially during the first 2.5 years of the war).

I am convinced that this game was primarily tested playing as the CSA, on difficulty levels well above captain, using almost exclusively detailed combat. That would explain a great many things (the insane quick combat results because of rallies, the migration issue, the USA v. CSA balance of forces, the brigade surrender issue, etc.).

[Mr. Yuck]

JScott,

My only thought at this point is that you've found some perfect strategy of your own that makes the AI turtle. What are your early goals?

The game was absolutely not playtested only as the CSA.

I'm unclear-how did the July-start work out for you? Have you noted what CSA Nat'l Will is at when they start turtling? I've yet to see this, and I've  been trying since I came back to this game and saw this thread.

[jscott991]

There's no trick to my "perfect" strategy.

It boils down to "don't attack in the east if the CSA is in Fredericksburg."  Build your troops up intelligently.  Move post to post in the west.  Focus on getting your main AoP to 36 brigades immediately and then creating a second army in the east that should be 15 or so brigades as soon as possible.  Couple this with four western independent commands (a corps in Missouri usually under Hunter to protect Topeka and Jefferson City, plus eventually take Little Rock; a corps in Kentucky, usually under Buell; a main army under Grant that will lead your sieges at Cairo, Ft. Henry, Donelson, Nashville, Memphis, and then down the Miss. River; a second army, usually under Halleck, operating in Kentucky and central Tennessee to cover Grant's sieges) and the AI will just give up.

The AI shifting at least one western army container east happens so fast (early to mid-1862), that I don't understand why people can't replicate these results in 20-30 minutes of play.  I can do it every time. And do people not notice that the ANV evacuates Fredericksburg to sit in Richmond on the first or second turn of every game? Isn't that a tip that something is off? Why would the South give up its impregnable defenses in Fredericksburg to sit in its capital?

The July start is not that much fun.  The Union economy is ENORMOUS.  The CSA is totally overmatched.  The AI is completely different in a lot of respects, as I mentioned above; he is more aggressive, pushing little containers all around the map to their death.  But he doesn't stand a chance.  I couldn't even spend all the resources I had as the North and my armies were much bigger than my November 1861 forces.

[Erik Rutins]

Just FYI, we looked at your saves, we see the issue, we're discussing what can be done and when. Given that this is not typical for other players and that FOF was pretty much at the end of its support cycle, it's not really something that takes higher priority than the other projects the dev team is working on now. However, thanks to your reports and saves, I think we'll be able to do something about this in the long run, though ultimately that will depend on Eric.

With that said, making broad assumptions based on your personal experience is shaky ground. Look at how many responses you've gotten here from other players saying "I haven't see this". This isn't because everyone is playing the CSA. A lot of testers focused on the Union.

I personally played the Union primarily throughout testing and played primarily quick battles both solo and for PBEM (except when specifically testing detailed battles) because I didn't have time for a lot of detailed battles. I found the early manifestations of this, which by the time a couple of updates were out were completely resolved _in my games_. Obviously, some of this still remains and it's exacerbated by your settings and play style, which is what seems to make it more prevalent than it is for other players.

The upshot is that your typical FOF player isn't experiencing this and hasn't seen it. You see it all the time, we now have your saves and we've got it on the list of things to address when we get more FOF development time, which may not be very soon unfortunately.

Regards,

- Erik

[jscott991]

Please tell me the settings that are causing this and I'll change them.

Which settings should I choose that will cause the ANV to hover around 60,000 to 80,000 men instead of 100,000 to 160,000?

Which settings need to be on to cause the AI to stay in Fredericksburg instead of retreating to Richmond (and, again, does anyone not see this happen on the first or second turn and again after almost every major battle)?

Which settings should I use to cause the AI to group its western divisions into armies instead of using little containers that float around the map and ultimately end up in Richmond?

I've tried combos of most settings at this point. I don't think the settings cause this.

And if my playstyle (no suicide runs into Fredericksburg) is causing it, I'm baffled.

[Anthropoid]

Have not played this game for a very long time, but might be feeling the urge to reinstall and patch up. Making me remember how challenging the AI can be sometimes . . .

[cesteman]

Go for it Anthropoid! I stepped away from the game just because I was burned out. Well worth it.

[Rekm41]

I agree I cannot seem to put the game away either.1/2 way through 63 and the south is giving a good fight as the AI. Just started a PBEM game with cesteman and looking forward to that one.

Ron

[steel god]

Not trying to be a smart ass or anything, but I would suggest that the one setting you need to adjust is the one where you select a local game over a PBEM game.  As a veteran war gamer with 30+ years playing, and numerous credited play tests under my belt I can say with confidence that no AI developed for any war game will ever be even half as good as a human opponent.  Find a living breathing opponent and put that AI play behind you and you'll never worry about such things again.

Respectfully.

[jscott991]

ORIGINAL: steel god

Not trying to be a smart ass or anything, but I would suggest that the one setting you need to adjust is the one where you select a local game over a PBEM game.  As a veteran war gamer with 30+ years playing, and numerous credited play tests under my belt I can say with confidence that no AI developed for any war game will ever be even half as good as a human opponent.  Find a living breathing opponent and put that AI play behind you and you'll never worry about such things again.

Respectfully.

I don't want the AI to be that good. I just want it to be semi-competent. Maintaining a western front is a pretty basic quirement for a Civil War game.

[Longstreet_slith]

I agree with jscott991. I too have experienced what he has very clearly described in many posts. An adjustment so that the AI does not abandon the western front would be nice. Please consider doing this!

-Longstreet

[vonRocko]

Why do people always say "play pbem" as an excuse for bad AIs'? When I got time to play,I do not have time to set up a pbem,and I don't want to play at the convenience of another person.What happens when the other player isn't around?I want to get more than one turn in.It is not possible to have another person at the ready any time I want to play.
These games need a decent AI. The fact is,the majority of players play against the AI. So like it or not, The AI is THE single most important issue in a wargame.

[Randomizer]

Dumb question perhaps but here goes...
In the Data folder there are a couple of files of interest.

The ACWProvinces file Column K (in M$ Excel) is headed "Theater" and the following provinces are assigned a value of 5 out of a range of 0 to 5:

Shenandoah
Fredericksburg
Rappahanock
Petersburg
Norfolk
Cumberland
Annapolis
Potomac_River
James_River

Meanwhile the ACWConstants file has an entry (row 100 in M$ EXcel) reading as follows:
AI_OutOfTheaterMultiplierOnValuex100 15

Now is it merely a coincidence that the AI seems to gather in the provinces with highest "Theater" value?

Will admit to not having conducted any experiments editing either the "Theater" value or the "Out of Theater Multiplier on Value" since I tend to keep my Eastern Union armies fairly small and generally see continued Confederate AI presence in the West. Since I could find no text or information detailing what these values actually do, I figure that changing either or both of the above would likely have major unintended consequences.

Still I wonder if what jscott991 is seeing is in the Confederate AI is related to either or both of these values and so perhaps this AI behavior might be configurable by the player.

Perhaps one of the designers can enlighten us. Thanks in advance.

Best Regards

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Randomizer
Dumb question perhaps but here goes...
In the Data folder there are a couple of files of interest.

The ACWProvinces file Column K (in M$ Excel) is headed "Theater" and the following provinces are assigned a value of 5 out of a range of 0 to 5:

Shenandoah
Fredericksburg
Rappahanock
Petersburg
Norfolk
Cumberland
Annapolis
Potomac_River
James_River

Meanwhile the ACWConstants file has an entry (row 100 in M$ EXcel) reading as follows:
AI_OutOfTheaterMultiplierOnValuex100 15

Now is it merely a coincidence that the AI seems to gather in the provinces with highest "Theater" value?

Will admit to not having conducted any experiments editing either the "Theater" value or the "Out of Theater Multiplier on Value" since I tend to keep my Eastern Union armies fairly small and generally see continued Confederate AI presence in the West. Since I could find no text or information detailing what these values actually do, I figure that changing either or both of the above would likely have major unintended consequences.

Still I wonder if what jscott991 is seeing is in the Confederate AI is related to either or both of these values and so perhaps this AI behavior might be configurable by the player.

Perhaps one of the designers can enlighten us. Thanks in advance.

No, the theater number isn't quantitative of anything.

[steel god]

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

Why do people always say "play pbem" as an excuse for bad AIs'? When I got time to play,I do not have time to set up a pbem,and I don't want to play at the convenience of another person.What happens when the other player isn't around?I want to get more than one turn in.It is not possible to have another person at the ready any time I want to play.
These games need a decent AI. The fact is,the majority of players play against the AI. So like it or not, The AI is THE single most important issue in a wargame.

I can't speak for others, but I can speak for me, and I always say try PBEM because when playing an AI you will always have to contend with it doing irrational and illogical things. Considering you are buying a $50 product, the AI is pretty darn good, but it will never be able to handle the infinite permutations of possible moves like even a very poor human opponent. So if just "playing" is all you are after, than AI play will certainly satisfy. But if you desire being challenged by an opponent that can think and plan as well as you, then PBEM or live on line play are your only real choices until someone figures out how to put a next generation AI into a $50 hobby game.

As I stated originally, I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm pointing out that it is unreasonable to expect a game's AI to behave as a human would, and if you want the experience of playing a human, than do so.

Regards.

[hgilmer3]

I have always seen pretty large armies in the east for the CSA.  I never really thought much about it because I'm not a person who has studied the Civil War for any length or period of time (although I have been getting more interested.)  It does seem of note that I read a brief on the Battle of Gettysburg and it didn't seem like they had very big armies.  Total casualties ended up being like 23K for Union and 25K for CSA and the total forces were something along the lines of 160K total troops both sides put together?

The AI does not handle the west well, though, especially once you build up enough troops.  I have only beaten the game on DC/QC up to 2nd lieutenant so I'm not sure how good I am as a reference.

[steel god]

ORIGINAL: hgilmer3
It does seem of note that I read a brief on the Battle of Gettysburg and it didn't seem like they had very big armies.  Total casualties ended up being like 23K for Union and 25K for CSA and the total forces were something along the lines of 160K total troops both sides put together?

The AI does not handle the west well, though, especially once you build up enough troops.  I have only beaten the game on DC/QC up to 2nd lieutenant so I'm not sure how good I am as a reference.

Your perception on army size is correct. The Armies in the east were the largest for both sides, and the South usually had less than 70,000 men in the Army of Northern Virgina, sometimes significantly less. The Army of the Potomac hovered around 90,000 men, sometimes going well over 100,000, especially in the Spring before the campaign season started, but did not maintain that level of strength until very late in the war.

Out west the armies were considerably smaller, and usually below 50,000 men, and for the south almost always below that. The population of the US in the 1860s was about 27 Million (non-slave), of which less than a 1/3 of that was in the southern states. So using some very loose math you can speculate that of the south's 9 million population, 4.5 million were men, and roughly 40% of that total would be between the ages of 16 and 40, giving a manpower reserve of 1.8 million. From that you imagine how impossible it wold be for the south to have ever fielded 3 or 4 100,000 man armies and kept them up to strength (not even considering the manufacturing needed to equip them). So yes, armies in the ACW tended to be small compared to their European contemporaries. Also gives some good insight into what effect a European intervention would have had.

As for the AI having issues in the west, I would expect the AI to have greater problems there than in the east. The west is larger, more open, and has less natural geographic barriers to form a defense line on, and therefore has exponentially more permutations to consider when it calculates each more. The more the AI has to think the more likely it is to do something unreasonable.