Thinking about the AI

[Dancing Bear]

Since Marshall has worked very hard on sim dip, I thought I should try to help with the AI game, if I could. I don't play against the AI, except when running a test game, but I did notice a couple of things that might help. Here is the first of them.

A hard AI appears to only have one extra talent, and that is an extra 20% manpower and taxes. However, I can not see how this helps the AI that much. From what I hear the human player brutally takes out the AI nations in the first few years, so that they are only left with a rump of their former states, so what is an extra 20% really mean, when the nation only have a few provinces?

I suggest that the AI is getting knocked down way to fast in the first few years, before the 20% becomes effective. To get around this, I think to make the game "hard" each of the AI nations should be given additional resources straight away. I would suggest the hard AI have the following:

1. Two extra infantry corps at full strength
2. Be given an extra 0.5 morale in all combats (helps with the reported AI losing all battles problem).
3. double starting money
4. Be given extra minor states as free states with full strength forces as follows:
Austria: Bavaria
GB: Hanover
Spain: Portugal and Morocco
Russia: Sweden
Turkey: Egypt and Tunisia
Prussia: Baden and Hessen.

This is not revolutionary, but if it were done, I think the AI might out up enough of a challenge to be called hard. A human France, for instance might be challenged by a Prussia-Austrian alliance with this many forces, and might not be able to crush them. Then the extra 20% money and manpower that the AI would come into play in later years.

For the medium AI, give each AI nation the following:
1. One extra full strength corps
2. An extra 0.25 morale
3. 1.5 times starting money.
3. The following minors as full strength free states:
Austria: Bavaria
GB: Hanover
Spain: Portugal
Russia: Finland
Turkey: Egypt
Prussia: Baden

The trick would be to only to assign these extra forces to AI nations, only, not human player nations.

[MarshallEllis]

I like the extra morale idea!

[Dancing Bear]

Think about the extra troops as well. Maybe if this is too hard to do, let the AI have built in reinforcements arrive during the first month, or be given saved manpower to use in the first eco turn (or maybe an extra eco turn right after set up), so the AI has some extra advantage in the first year of the game, and does not get smashed so easily.

[pzgndr]

Players can also use the editor to beef up any or all AI nations for whatever game they want to play. I see that as a work-around for the time being. But some way for the game to use the difficulty settings to give AI nations extra morale and starting money would be good.

It's more important to work on other low hanging fruit for AI improvements, as DB suggests in the other AI post. Fix some of the more glaring AI mistakes and make some improvements to AI diplomatic thinking. This will be an iterative exercise to make the AI better, not perfect.

[MarshallEllis]

I like these kinds of ideas! Thanks guys!

[Dancing Bear]

One thing I don't like about players setting up their own scenarios for "medium" and "hard" AI's is that these things should really be external benchmarks as to how well someone is doing when they beat the AI. If they beat a "hard" AI, then they should feel that they have passed some test set by others, and have graduated to a new level. If players create their own scenario, then it is liked they wrote their own questions for the exam. Who judges them on whether that scenario was really hard or not.

Now, if we agree that the above suggestions represents a "hard" scenario for let's say one nation, like France, and this scenario is created by a third party player, then it obtains some legitimacy as a test of a players skill. Perhaps this is worth while, that in addition to creating alternate scenarios for the popular 1792 variant, individiual players create "hard" scenarios with higher morale opponents who have more money, more troops, and more minors and post these in the mods page, as truely "hard" scenarios.

[pzgndr]

DB, I agree with you and ideally some beefing up of the generic difficulty levels could help some for the time being. But simply giving the AI more money, morale, troops, etc. won't be very satisfying if the AI continues to misuse whatever it has. Everyone recognizes the AI needs to be a bit smarter making strategic decisions, conducting its operational campaigns, and such. A few modest improvements in these areas would go a long way. If and when those areas are addressed, we may find the current difficulty settings are adequate?

they should feel that they have passed some test set by others

Frankly, I am quite capable of setting my own criteria for wargame entertainment. [;)]