AI Collapse?

[Mercutio]

So still slogging through my game where the AI had advantages. I thought we were at a stalemate until I could maybe out tech/produce them. That would have been a challenge as they had the most area, population, etc.

All the sudden, the AI just kind of gave up. True another AI and I were teaming up on them. My only guess is their morale dropped so much they are now push overs and collapsing.

Anyone else see this kind of thing?

[Maerchen]

Yes, the major sometimes falters, withers and dies. Morale, bad designs, problems with supply are the causes I was able to observe.

Were you able to see if your ally was hitting them hard? Which iteration are you playing?

[Sieppo]

Yes seen this a lot but I think the AI is also improving at the moment in the betas. Much more vicious (higher difficulties) than before where you usually saw the AI faltering even just after they declared war. Used to think the game is just too complex for a great AI.

[Mercutio]

1.07.01. Yes, my ally (not really, relations is 100, but we are cold war and any diplomacy option is 300+) was hitting them as well, although tech wise it is behind both the enemy and myself. I was actually 3rd in score until recently. Something like 30/29/25 in VPs.

The terrain is challenging for me as there are lava lakes, mountains, etc. No easy expansion areas other than my "friend" who borders on the edge of 2 cities. Fighting off the one AI was enough to dissuade me on that, for now. They essentially have the northern hemisphere and I the southern expect for the 1/3 the planet of the AI we are at war with.

Units on no retreat in the mountains as well as try building rail through those mountains! It amuses/frustrates me I can have lasers, plasma beams, extract materials from the soil. However a couple of hexes in low mountains costs a fortune! My "ally" had the plains right next to it, so there is nothing to do about it. What, no tunnels? Humans were mastering that over 100 years ago. I digress.

[BlueTemplar]

Considering how much they cost, they probably *do* involve (abstracted) tunnels, especially for high mountains ?
But then at that point you should be able to afford a big Industry, shouldn't you ?

Otherwise, what about a dirt road through the mountains, then an airbase on the other side ?

----

But we're digressing...

Is there a way to load the game *as* another major regime, to get a better idea of what is going on ?

[nathanebht]

Been playing the betas. Probably a cut supply line. The AI doesn't protect them very well but it will send a unit in deep to cut them.

[Mercutio]

No, I did cut several units off. Their morale just tanked.

As to rail, it wasn't the IP, it was the metal. 12k for 4 hexes! The issue with the logisitics was one was a new city, the other a minor I captured. I have plenty on road to handle it, but the other side of that minor city is the issue as I have to build it up from almost scratch.

[Sieppo]

ORIGINAL: Mercutio

No, I did cut several units off. Their morale just tanked.

As to rail, it wasn't the IP, it was the metal. 12k for 4 hexes! The issue with the logisitics was one was a new city, the other a minor I captured. I have plenty on road to handle it, but the other side of that minor city is the issue as I have to build it up from almost scratch.

I dont think there are that many railways or major roads crossing the Himalayas ..

[Mercutio]

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

ORIGINAL: Mercutio

No, I did cut several units off. Their morale just tanked.

As to rail, it wasn't the IP, it was the metal. 12k for 4 hexes! The issue with the logisitics was one was a new city, the other a minor I captured. I have plenty on road to handle it, but the other side of that minor city is the issue as I have to build it up from almost scratch.

I dont think there are that many railways or major roads crossing the Himalayas ..

Fair enough, but there are some! I don't mind the high IP cost. The metal is what gets me as a rail is a rail. Sure, you have to wind around some areas, maybe a bridge or 2. However costs several thousand a hex seems rather extreme. I guess that is what air bridges are for!

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Mercutio

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

ORIGINAL: Mercutio

No, I did cut several units off. Their morale just tanked.

As to rail, it wasn't the IP, it was the metal. 12k for 4 hexes! The issue with the logisitics was one was a new city, the other a minor I captured. I have plenty on road to handle it, but the other side of that minor city is the issue as I have to build it up from almost scratch.

I dont think there are that many railways or major roads crossing the Himalayas ..

Fair enough, but there are some! I don't mind the high IP cost. The metal is what gets me as a rail is a rail. Sure, you have to wind around some areas, maybe a bridge or 2. However costs several thousand a hex seems rather extreme. I guess that is what air bridges are for!

Railway are insanely efficient for moving a lot of stuff over longer distancs. However there are two things that Railroads can not do:
- curves
- gradients (either direction)
More often then not, you change the route to avoid those, then try to go through.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbUsKWbOqUU

Making a Railroad trough the himilayas means 90-99% bridges and tunnels. Wich take a lot of extra metal to build in a way they do not collapse.

[BlueTemplar]

Hmm, less than a minute in the video, and they're already confusing % and °, wondering about the quality of the rest of it ?

"The tractive force has to overcome the weight of the train"... kind of misleading too, as on NO incline, IIRC the train only has to overcome static and/or dynamic frictions (which for the wheels/rails contact might or might not be related much to the downward weight force, I guess larger weight means somewhat more contact surface for friction, and actually better performance ? P.S.: Ah, yeah, he talks about that later).

The gradient doesn't "add to the drag", it's just that the train now has to overcome gravity too. And since gravity now won't be perpendicular to the rails, I guess that friction is going to decrease, making the train operate even worse ?

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

Hmm, less than a minute in the video, and they're already confusing % and °, wondering about the quality of the rest of it ?

"The tractive force has to overcome the weight of the train"... kind of misleading too, as on NO incline, IIRC the train only has to overcome static and/or dynamic frictions (which for the wheels/rails contact might or might not be related much to the downward weight force, I guess larger weight means somewhat more contact surface for friction, and actually better performance ? P.S.: Ah, yeah, he talks about that later).

The gradient doesn't "add to the drag", it's just that the train now has to overcome gravity too. And since gravity now won't be perpendicular to the rails, I guess that friction is going to decrease, making the train operate even worse ?

It does not change the underlying truth: Trains suck at gradients. Either direction.

The one thing that gives them their efficiency, is the low drag from running steel wheels on steel rails.
A lot less then rubber tires on asphalt. They are a bit like a Ice-Skater, pulling a sled. The only thing more efficient, is a ship on the sea.

But that same property also makes them unable to deal with even weak inclines. If you are going up and try to go to fast, you end up with a train spinning it's wheel. If you go downhill and try to fast, you end up with a runaway train (basically a bit like a car suffering from Aquaplaning while going downhill).
Their acceleration/deceleration ways are measured in the hundreds of meters.
Once you realize the rules, you can see it in the design/useage of every single train track.
Look at the Appalachian Mountains, the Rocky Mountains, the Alps - all giant obstacles for Railways, in a way they never were for cars.

If you ever saw a "railway" going up a steep incline without issues, it was propably a Rack/Cog Railway. Those have been used in that time between railway and cars. But now are only kept for posterity reasons.

I have a Cog Railway, a steep incline/curve combination and very long stretches to go underground in my local Area train network. I can see the issues every time I want to.
If you hit a hill, it is easier to go around the hill in a wide turn or through the hill with a tunnel - rather then trying to go uphill/downhill with a train. That explains the giant pricetag for building in mountains.

[newageofpower]

Dunno, it doesn't take much metal to build a tunnel; but the amount of machinery, manhours, and explosives is pretty sizable, which I suppose would be represented by IP.

Time cost of building infrastructure in SE is not represented well, but that's a whole nother issue.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: newageofpower

Dunno, it doesn't take much metal to build a tunnel; but the amount of machinery, manhours, and explosives is pretty sizable, which I suppose would be represented by IP.

Time cost of building infrastructure in SE is not represented well, but that's a whole nother issue.

And bridges need more steel then IP. If they end up about equally commong, both valuesa are very high. Or you are just smart and take another route through easier terrain, like you should have all along!

[newageofpower]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
And bridges need more steel then IP. If they end up about equally commong, both valuesa are very high. Or you are just smart and take another route through easier terrain, like you should have all along!

Or you have a tremendous amount of industrial capacity and just build railroads through difficult terrain anyways (China's highspeed line into Tibet, for example)

[CaptBeefheart]

I see metal-hogging mountain railroads as another challenge to overcome. It forces you into certain geographical corridors and points to the need for getting de-metalization quickly.

Let's not make this game too easy.

Cheers,
CB

[newageofpower]

ORIGINAL: CaptBeefheart

Let's not make this game too easy.

How would this make the game easier? Your opponents can now build railroads through mountainous terrain as well.

[yutowap33]

No one mentioned time, which is a major factor in any major project. But gamewise no matter my industrial capacity there is no way to rush any city construction, like a warehouse, meanwhile I can pave half the planet in railroad infrastructure in just fraction of the time.

Personally, I like the way things are, as it indeed make terrain much more useful. Though I wouldn't mind for a way to upgrade rail to highspeed rail.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: newageofpower

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
And bridges need more steel then IP. If they end up about equally commong, both valuesa are very high. Or you are just smart and take another route through easier terrain, like you should have all along!

Or you have a tremendous amount of industrial capacity and just build railroads through difficult terrain anyways (China's highspeed line into Tibet, for example)

That one required a tunnel of 4km, a tunnel of 3.3 km and 675 birdges totalling 159.88 km
On a total lenght of ~1956 km.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinghai%E ... et_railway

In the alps they need tunnels measured in 2-digit Kilometer lenghts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alps#Transportation

[Soar_Slitherine]

The AI major I'm fighting in my ongoing game certainly looks like it's having morale issues. Scouting reports claim that their recently recruited heavy tank regiments have only 35-ish morale, which is getting close to the threshold for capitulation, and I don't think those have been in any combat yet. They initially tried to attack me with masses of infantry with no anti-tank weapons of any sort through a chokepoint, and I've been mowing them down with artillery and tanks while waiting to get all the hardware together for my own offensive, so the AI has taken a lot of casualties.

EDIT: Grammar.