How does the A.I works and is it any good ?

[Phoenix100]

I wonder if it's true - as someone above said - that it does no long-term planning? I hope that's fake news. For instance, raising recruits is essential in the longer games and I cannot think they've actually designed an AI that doesn't do this. The games wouldn't get anywhere near the lengths advertised if this was so, no?

I am very new to the games and have never played above around twenty turns so far. I haven't noticed any glaring AI weaknesses in that time frame. I hope as I learn and progress that it will do enough long term planning to continue to fight well through much longer time frames, because I too don't play PBEM anymore.

It's true that the consensus in the forums is that the AI is better in shorter scenario titles - like Alea Jacta Est (which I don't have), but I've noticed that a lot of the criticism has been directed at Wars of Napoleon, not because it's longer and the AI doesn't do long-term planning, but because there are many smaller factions that the AI must handle each scenario, and it doesn't handle that very well. Most titles are just 2 sides, including WoS.

[marek1978]

not all the players are in to arcade games , and not all the people love memories of playing toy soldiers

pike and shot and field of glory are fine but really boring


if one is in to history, loves reading about it, then grand strategy level provided by ageod will be perfect

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Play Pike n Shot instead or Field of Glory II; you'll enjoy the ai play much better than ageod games.

[mkeogh76]

ORIGINAL: Phoenix100

I wonder if it's true - as someone above said - that it does no long-term planning? I hope that's fake news. For instance, raising recruits is essential in the longer games and I cannot think they've actually designed an AI that doesn't do this. The games wouldn't get anywhere near the lengths advertised if this was so, no?

I am very new to the games and have never played above around twenty turns so far. I haven't noticed any glaring AI weaknesses in that time frame. I hope as I learn and progress that it will do enough long term planning to continue to fight well through much longer time frames, because I too don't play PBEM anymore.

It's true that the consensus in the forums is that the AI is better in shorter scenario titles - like Alea Jacta Est (which I don't have), but I've noticed that a lot of the criticism has been directed at Wars of Napoleon, not because it's longer and the AI doesn't do long-term planning, but because there are many smaller factions that the AI must handle each scenario, and it doesn't handle that very well. Most titles are just 2 sides, including WoS.

You seem to have misunderstood what I meant by "long term planning." The AI approaches every turn the exact same way- it will recruit, it will move its units usually to places where it the player has strength, it will combine its units into stacks, and it will attack if it thinks the odds favor it. However, it does NONE of those things with any concept of how it will effect the game the next turn, let alone 5, 10, or 20 turns down the road.

This is ok when the scenario isn't too long, but the longer the scenario then the more Ageod's AI will struggle even with boosts and/or the player handicapping himself through the attrition and activation options. What makes those monster scenarios so much fun for the player are their demands of setting long term goals and trying to figure-out how to achieve them, but the AI doesn't do that. It works strictly in the moment.

I have a great deal of experience with Ageod games, and, although I think their AI is decent as strategy PC gaming AIs go, I'm already noticing a lot of the same AI behavior in WSS that has undermined it in every other Ageod game. It's 1705 playing as the Bourbons, I've already opened-up a significant NMP lead over the AI and that's only going to get more exacerbated as the game goes by. I've watched large AI armies whither away due to the AI's mishandling of the attrition and supply rules. It attacks with armies consisting of just artillery batteries which I then capture. It currently has a Dutch army in Hungary. The script helped it with an invasion of Spain, but then it had its armies wandering all over the map to no strategic purpose where I'll be able to corner and destroy them. It hasn't blockaded the port of one of my besieged cities and thus the siege goes on and on.

Frankly, I don't expect much from the AI. I put-up with its glaring weaknesses because PBEM sometimes isn't feasible and trying to outsmart myself playing both sides hotseat has no appeal. I love Ageod's games, and they can be a lot of fun even playing solo. However, I know that I'm probably going to quit my current campaign long before its end because the AI is going to get weaker and weaker the longer I play. It's strictly just crunching numbers on a turn-by-turn basis with no ability to plan ahead that could provide a long-term challenge. It is what it is.

[marek1978]

what made my experience with War of Succesions much higher was bit of adjusting setting

first of all i turn off historical attrution for AI
it is bit game - yet it makes it easier for AI to manouver armies

then i gave high raking to the AI - meaning it genneraly is more lucky and thus harder to bit

then gave it medium adventege in fog of war ( AI sees bit more)
yet the very same time i gave it edium agresivvnes

so i have lucky opponet who can easily manouver and sees a lot but is cautios

and since that change i am having bit of a challenge

( i am playig sweden in GNW sceraio)

what works well in almost evry Ageod game it to take the side that doeas have to attack - so sweden and great alliance here

Athena is doing much better job in defending

and when you are on the ofencive you have to take care of the most ipmortant thing in that game - supply

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: marek1978

not all the players are in to arcade games , and not all the people love memories of playing toy soldiers

pike and shot and field of glory are fine but really boring


if one is in to history, loves reading about it, then grand strategy level provided by ageod will be perfect

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Play Pike n Shot instead or Field of Glory II; you'll enjoy the ai play much better than ageod games.

Imho Ageod games are very boring and old school wargames of the cardboard and board game era (a dying breed I might add). Now are the days of games like Pike n Shot and Field of Glory II and Battle Academy. Much more fun to play and don't take a year to play like some of these boardgame types.

[marek1978]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

ORIGINAL: marek1978

not all the players are in to arcade games , and not all the people love memories of playing toy soldiers

pike and shot and field of glory are fine but really boring


if one is in to history, loves reading about it, then grand strategy level provided by ageod will be perfect
De gustibus non est disputandum

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Play Pike n Shot instead or Field of Glory II; you'll enjoy the ai play much better than ageod games.

Imho Ageod games are very boring and old school wargames of the cardboard and board game era (a dying breed I might add). Now are the days of games like Pike n Shot and Field of Glory II and Battle Academy. Much more fun to play and don't take a year to play like some of these boardgame types.

De gustibus non est disputandum

[Rosseau]

To each his own my friend aaatoysandmore. But I am having a great time modding and playing To End All Wars (and WoS), for example. The scope and complexity of the large Ageod games makes the Battle Academy series now seem boring after repeated play - at least for single player. MP is great, but got no time for it.

I will admit English Civil War and Espana are snippets of games (for me). So unless you are very into the history, not complex enough.

[tevans]

ORIGINAL: mkeogh76
You seem to have misunderstood what I meant by "long term planning." The AI approaches every turn the exact same way- it will recruit, it will move its units usually to places where it the player has strength, it will combine its units into stacks, and it will attack if it thinks the odds favor it. However, it does NONE of those things with any concept of how it will effect the game the next turn, let alone 5, 10, or 20 turns down the road.

Is that really a problem though? As near as I can tell the AI plays the game the same way I do. I may have a general 'long term' plan but it's always subject to change based on the current situation. Isn't it better to have an AI that can change and adapt from turn to turn instead of having an AI with a rigid plan that never changes? The thing I like about Athena (Ageod's AI) is that it evaluates everything on a turn by turn basis. I would much rather have that than have an AI playing Civil War II and rigidly heading towards Richmond due to a long term plan when my army has Washington in it's sights. The AI needs to be able to adapt and change. To me evaluating the situation turn to turn seems to be the best way for Athena to do that.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: tevans
Is that really a problem though? As near as I can tell the AI plays the game the same way I do. I may have a general 'long term' plan but it's always subject to change based on the current situation. Isn't it better to have an AI that can change and adapt from turn to turn instead of having an AI with a rigid plan that never changes? The thing I like about Athena (Ageod's AI) is that it evaluates everything on a turn by turn basis. I would much rather have that than have an AI playing Civil War II and rigidly heading towards Richmond due to a long term plan when my army has Washington in it's sights. The AI needs to be able to adapt and change. To me evaluating the situation turn to turn seems to be the best way for Athena to do that.

Toddlers operate in very much the same way and eventually you have to take them out of the sticky situations they inevitably will maneuver themselves into. Toddlers, nevertheless, eventually figure out that actions have long term consequences, some of them desirable, others not so much.

mkeogh observation is that long terms "goals" should influence decisions more strongly, not that "goals" need to be set in stone for the duration of a game. You'll eventually be replanning, but if you change your plans every turn on the basis of what a crafty adversary does, chances are you will not get anywhere.

[mkeogh76]

ORIGINAL: tevans

ORIGINAL: mkeogh76
You seem to have misunderstood what I meant by "long term planning." The AI approaches every turn the exact same way- it will recruit, it will move its units usually to places where it the player has strength, it will combine its units into stacks, and it will attack if it thinks the odds favor it. However, it does NONE of those things with any concept of how it will effect the game the next turn, let alone 5, 10, or 20 turns down the road.

Is that really a problem though? As near as I can tell the AI plays the game the same way I do. I may have a general 'long term' plan but it's always subject to change based on the current situation. Isn't it better to have an AI that can change and adapt from turn to turn instead of having an AI with a rigid plan that never changes? The thing I like about Athena (Ageod's AI) is that it evaluates everything on a turn by turn basis. I would much rather have that than have an AI playing Civil War II and rigidly heading towards Richmond due to a long term plan when my army has Washington in it's sights. The AI needs to be able to adapt and change. To me evaluating the situation turn to turn seems to be the best way for Athena to do that.

The OP asked about the AI. I think it's decent as long as one doesn't have unrealistic expectations, and expecting it to be a challenging opponent over 150-200 turns on a vast map with a huge array of choices as to strategy, army composition, and recruitment is NOT realistic. Ageod's games complexity as to the choices one has to make is a big part of their appeal, but don't expect the AI to be able handle it too well over the long haul due to it being programmed to do "strategy on the fly." That eventually leads to it collapsing. It fares best, like almost all PC strategy game AIs, when its options are fairly limited. It's been like this since Birth of America.

I don't expect any significant changes as to how it works. The only choices one has are: 1) PBEM, 2) solo hotseat, and 3) accepting the AI as it is and using the various options to give it some help. I certainly have chosen #3 most of the time and obviously I enjoy playing that way, but when people ask about the AI I don't want them being deluded into thinking that AI will offer a significant, long-term challenge in the big campaign scenarios. It's going to start to struggle the longer, bigger and more complex the scenario.

[tevans]

You guys seem to be missing my point. Ageod's AI is dynamic. It reacts to what you're doing. Long term planning doesn't matter since it evaluates it's situation on a turn by turn basis. In a lot ways that's the same exact way I play the game. I don't recruit new units unless I need them. I don't buy replacement points unless I need them. My moves for a turn are based on what's currently happening in the game. The turn by turn evaluation by the AI means that it's making decisions based on the current situation. Not something that may or may not happen 10 or 15 turns in the future. Sure some things could be improved with Ageod's AI but Athena is perfectly capable of giving you a good game even in longer campaigns and scenarios. A lot of times I don't even mess with the default settings.

[mkeogh76]

ORIGINAL: tevans

You guys seem to be missing my point. Ageod's AI is dynamic. It reacts to what you're doing. Long term planning doesn't matter since it evaluates it's situation on a turn by turn basis. In a lot ways that's the same exact way I play the game. I don't recruit new units unless I need them. I don't buy replacement points unless I need them. My moves for a turn are based on what's currently happening in the game. The turn by turn evaluation by the AI means that it's making decisions based on the current situation. Not something that may or may not happen 10 or 15 turns in the future. Sure some things could be improved with Ageod's AI but Athena is perfectly capable of giving you a good game even in longer campaigns and scenarios. A lot of times I don't even mess with the default settings.

In my experience playing these games going back to the original Birth of America, I don't agree as to Athena holding-up as a competent opponent in the longer campaign scenarios and my current 1701 Spanish Succession campaign is once again bearing that out.

It's 1706 in my campaign and it's getting close to being over. Despite giving the AI boosts as to activation and detection and playing with handicaps such as the "player only" historical attrition option and a higher activation setting, I've already opened-up a 40-50 point NMP lead over the AI. It's not hard to figure-out why I'm easily winning- I set long-term goals for my campaign and set about taking some steps every single turn towards them. The AI simply can't compete when I'm able to methodically plan while it's doing everything on a turn-by-turn basis. I'm currently clobbering it, and it's only going to get worse. So, I'm getting close to shelving this campaign. It's been very similar to my experiences with my other Ageod games: a lot of fun in the early to mid game, but then degenerating into a tiresome, lopsided beatdown as my planning comes into fruition.

Long term planning matters a LOT in these games which I think is a huge part of their appeal. However, the AI's inability to be able to do so becomes a serious handicap in the longer scenarios. To me, Ageod's AI is just a convenient and always available opponent that handles the game's basic mechanics reasonably well, but that's all it really is. Don't require it to do too much and it's fairly decent, but it will struggle if taxed with too many options over too long of a time period.

Anyway, that's been my experience with these games, but you claim otherwise. I disagree, but that's where I'll leave it.

EDIT: It appears Ageod even recognizes the struggles of its AI over the long-term. I just got a message in my event log of my current campaign stating that my NMP has been lowered for game balance purposes with my being rewarded with additional VP and EP in exchange. It also appears that the AI's NMP got a boost. (It looks like I lost 5 NMP and the AI gained 5.) I suspect my having an NMP 50 points higher than the AI's may have triggered this balancing event. It's the first time I've seen this in an Ageod game which suggests that they are actively trying ways to prop up their AI in the long scenarios.

Also, I don't save-scum in Ageod games. In fact, even if I wanted to then Ageod's crazy save-game system works against the player trying to do that. Further, I don't think that I'm any great shakes as a player. If I took on an experienced PBEM player then I'd probably get my head handed to me, but my experience as a solo player of these games has repeatedly shown that the AI will not hold-up as a CHALLENGING opponent (rather than just an opponent) in a long-term scenario against any semi-competent player. (There are exceptions: playing the AJE's Cantabrian Wars scenario as the Romans can be extremely tough.)

[mikeCK]

ORIGINAL: Searry

You should really only play against other players in PBEM. The AI is for practising a new game.

Disagree. Many of us do not want to play MP and only play against the AI. The AI will give a good accounting of itself if you don’t cheat...as in reloading old turns to correct mistakes. Don’t get discouraged because one person said it’s not good. Of course it’s not as good as a human but it’s as good as any other
If

[tevans]

mkeogh76...

My Ageod experience goes back just as far as yours with Birth of America. The AI is what is what it is. Once you've played the system enough in different games you're naturally going to know where the AI is weak and how to rack up point totals. As far as I know there aren't too many turn based strategy games with AI that can do long term planning 5, 10 or 15 turns ahead. How do chess programs do it? I would make a guess that even they evaluate the board on a turn by turn basis and move pieces based on that evaluation. I honestly don't think Ageod's AI is all that bad. I think it's more like a puzzle. The more games you play with the same AI under the same system -- different conflicts, same game system -- the easier it becomes to learn the weaknesses of the AI and exploit them. That doesn't make it a bad AI or an AI that can't give you a challenge. It just means you've figured out the limitations of the AI.

Sure there's always room for improvement where the AI is concerned but it's never going to get to the point where it can plan up to 15 moves ahead. It can't because it has no idea what you the player might do. It has to react to you and you end up reacting to it. You don't need long term planning to that. All you need to do is move your pieces to either cause a reaction from the AI or react to the AI. You need to recruit units based on what you're doing and buy replacements based on your losses. Decision cards are played the same way. That's the way I've been playing Ageod games since Birth of America and the AI presents a good challenge even in the longer campaigns. I'm pretty sure I have the AI 'puzzle' figured out by now and can easily run up huge VP totals if I chose to play that way.

[Johan Grip]

I am presently getting a very decent showing from the AI, I treat it like a human opponent and dont make too bold moves.

[mkeogh76]

Edit