Notes on the AI

[AZKGungHo]

I just finished playing as Russia in the 1943 Campaign, with the AI controlling the rest of the Allies and the Axis. I've done this several times and find watching how the AI moves, fights and researches fascinating.

Some Observations on the AI:

It knows how to invade pretty well but has some strange behavior. I've noticed that it tends to send all the US forces to the UK in transports, unload them, and then send them to France in amphibious boats. Even after it has ports and space in France it still sends US troops to UK, unloads them and then for quite sometime sent them to France in amphibs. Later it reloaded units into transports to France.

As the German it seems to use paratroopers much better than it does the Allied para's. No idea why but the German airborne especially invading France can be deadly.

It often has trouble focusing on what units to hit. In one game it invaded Sicily but didn't take any ports. Went up the boot and finally after maybe 6 months took a port in Italy. Then it took one port in Sicily and finally the other one too.

It usually does a great job of defending. It knows how to hold out but when it finally breaks there's often little or nothing behind it.

I am very impressed with the AI and the game is playing with no bugs for me. It looks beautiful.

One more note - I've noticed that Hitler seems to kill himself when a Russian unit is next to Berlin, even if they haven't attacked. In this last game Hitler was announced dead (love the recording BTW) but it took me several turns before I could even attack and two turns after than before taking Berlin. Maybe set things so that Berlin has to be attack on the ground before blowing himself away?

That's all for now. Keep up the GREAT work!

[Ason]

That seems like a bad event, about Hitler killing himself... What if the Axis has big areas of territory but only lose Berlin (either by airborne invasion or soviets pushing through Poland)? If nothing else we should get events about other leaders dieing after capitals are captured..

[sPzAbt653]

That seems like a bad event

Especially since it was all propaganda !! Hitler moved to the Antarctic ! [or whatever that cold ass place is called]

But, it is said that Hitler was planning to move from Berlin as the Soviets approached, then he changed his mind and went down with the capital. If anybody has heard why he changed his mind, maybe some event could modified in the game, otherwise, let him suck a bullet when the Allies are next to or in Berlin ?

[Ason]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

That seems like a bad event

Especially since it was all propaganda !! Hitler moved to the Antarctic ! [or whatever that cold ass place is called]

But, it is said that Hitler was planning to move from Berlin as the Soviets approached, then he changed his mind and went down with the capital. If anybody has heard why he changed his mind, maybe some event could modified in the game, otherwise, let him suck a bullet when the Allies are next to or in Berlin ?

Does that mean the germans don't have an alternative capital? Imo Hamburg, Dusseldorf(the Ruhr) or München should be alternative capitals..

[BillRunacre]

It doesn't, but the fall of Berlin may not necessarily automatically end the game, it depends on what other locations are held, e.g. Moscow, Paris and any others listed in the Victory Conditions.

If Berlin were the last Victory Objective remaining in Axis hands and it was taken by the Allies, even if we gave Germany an alternate capital the game would still end, as the Victory Conditions would kick in at that point.

So Germany really does have a very strong incentive to invest heavily in the defence of Berlin.

[AZKGungHo]

I forgot to add one thing I've noticed about the AI and Finland.

I've had Soviet units push deep into northern Finland and have little or no response. In my last game a Soviet Corps and garrison unit got all the way to Helsinki and attacked it. The Finns facing Leningrad didn't move. I amphibiously brought two more corps and the Finns didn't respond. I took Helsinki and Finland surrendered.

There ought to be some response I think, but in the big picture the Finn's don't really add much either way. Still...

[Ason]

I got the same thing but I'm playing against the soviets. The Stalingrad/Caucasus front is packed with units, at the same time Moscow is about to fall, but there is simply no response by the soviets.. It would be great if the AI could recognize these dangers, atleast when it comes to capitals.

I'm playing on expert +1-2 spotting, 1,5+ exp, 20% MPP for the AI.

Also, this has probably been the easiest scenario on expert with 1,5+ exp of all the ones I've played.
This is imo both good and bad. It was possible to advance (not a wall of invincible russians which is good) but the AI seems to be lacking intelligence to perform more aggressive and concentrated attacks and also to move troops from stronger areas to weaker..

I would like to see some kind of random event from time to time that tells the AI(especially soviets) to just go all out in a small area, completely ignoring losses for a limited amount of time.

I think that is the thing that is missing, more counter attacks from the AI. Right now it feels like it's too passive and scared of losses..

[TheBattlefield]

I'm not quite sure if we expect something too much "I" from the "AI". Your pictures suggest that in spite of your generous bonuses, Russia is on the safe loser road. I suspect that each AI would be overwhelmed in such a situation even if there were still some Kamikaze responses via AI offensive scripts, triggered by threats to a specific city. There are just too many variables that a good human player just gets on the line. I think in the long campaign the AI works amazingly well: spaces are closed, cities secured, fronts built up, and by good placements of new units even occasional gaps in the "human" defense used for a counter-attack. On top of that there is the carefully scripted framework for one or other large-scale offensive. But when it comes to the "last stand" the strategic planning of the AI is still reaching its limits (yet). Under these conditions, almost only unit scripts (similar to the "Siberian troops" event) can simulate the impression of a crisis reaction. Personally, I am not a friend of such a tool, but it would be an option. Or you just look for a suitable human opponent. [:)]

[sPzAbt653]

Just for another look, I kind of think the computer is doing a good job. This is a custom campaign on intermediate with no bonuses and v1.11a. I am the Axis with the computer running the Soviets/Allies.

Two turns ago the Moscow area was sparse for the Soviets, but he has reacted to my advance there and now it is a fight. Similar to Slobadan's observation, the south is crammed with Soviets. There is one area just north of Moscow that is undefended, but that is that swamp and forest area with no roads, so the threat there is minimal.

My opinion is that for the Soviets, they are handicapped by having Army units in the stock campaign. Less units makes it a little more difficult for the computer to deal with the huge frontage. My campaign uses all corps for the Soviets and I think the difference can be seen in the screenshots. However, I use all corps [no army's] for all the majors, so that changes everything. But it doesn't change the AI Scripts. So overall my opinion would be that maybe if the Soviets had less army's and more corps, they might be able to do better. Maybe.

[Ason]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Just for another look, I kind of think the computer is doing a good job. This is a custom campaign on intermediate with no bonuses and v1.11a. I am the Axis with the computer running the Soviets/Allies.

Two turns ago the Moscow area was sparse for the Soviets, but he has reacted to my advance there and now it is a fight. Similar to Slobadan's observation, the south is crammed with Soviets. There is one area just north of Moscow that is undefended, but that is that swamp and forest area with no roads, so the threat there is minimal.

My opinion is that for the Soviets, they are handicapped by having Army units in the stock campaign. Less units makes it a little more difficult for the computer to deal with the huge frontage. My campaign uses all corps for the Soviets and I think the difference can be seen in the screenshots. However, I use all corps [no army's] for all the majors, so that changes everything. But it doesn't change the AI Scripts. So overall my opinion would be that maybe if the Soviets had less army's and more corps, they might be able to do better. Maybe.

Yes, that's also how I feel. I was also able to get those looong pretty frontlines in my custom scenario with mostly corps and divisions, so yeah being able to produce more corps or even divisions (after 1941 perhaps) would help the AI a bit with the frontline coverage.

[TheBattlefield]

The results with an increased unit density are comprehensible. A great front dynamics of the German also means a quick end of the Russian. How are the experiences with the Axis AI with many smaller units on the Russian side? Does it get stuck too early in the more massive (human) Russian defense?

[sPzAbt653]

Well, for me in the custom campaign, the Axis computer does VERY well. He seems to pick an area [usually Moscow or Leningrad] to concentrate on, and as the human playing the Soviets you have a real fight on your hands. A line two corps deep in front of the German Tank Units is still vulnerable, and three corps deep creates movement issues for the human.

I removed the 'two strike' ability for most units as I felt it was overkill. However, the German Tanks with only one strike did get bogged down, so I restored them to two strikes. I know some would cry foul at that [giving the Germans an advantage], but they really did have an advantage, historically. And again, for me it plays quite well. I alternate between playing sides and have a great time doing it.

[TheBattlefield]

Interesting. In my mod for SC2 I partly had a similar approach, but I have come to a different result. I have also transformed the armies into corps and the corps into divisions. Accordingly, I have moved the number considerably in favor of the smaller units. At first I would have liked to change the strength ratio of the basic units to 5:10:15 and for this prefer to do without the "elite" bonus units. But the editor does not allow such an intervention. A possible adaptation to 3:6:10 seemed somewhat too odd. Therefore, I have allowed all (reduced in number) units on corps size the double attack (Tanks, Infantry Corps). After an adjustment of the AI scripts I had as a result a little more units on the map and a slightly more gripping differentiation of the unit size.