PBEM question

[pzgndr]

The AI may surrender a little early for most of you. This is due to the fact that the AI estimates the PP cost a maintaining a war and often realizes that surrender is the cheaper way out and so it does.

With the difficulty settings and random AI personalities, couldn't these estimates be adjusted to put some more fight into the AI? A particularly aggressive AI on hard settings should be tough as a wolverine.

[pfnognoff]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


It's all about the PP! You may see the AI attack a minor country and lay siege on a non capital??? Why does this happen? Look at the city and see if it is fortified (probably is). This is done so that the AI can get another PP out of its war against that minor.

There must be a siege battle meaning a garrison must be there for this to result with the PP gain for your AI. Who would put minor forces in a non capital city or it's corps counters?

[tabpub]

ORIGINAL: pfnognoff

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


It's all about the PP! You may see the AI attack a minor country and lay siege on a non capital??? Why does this happen? Look at the city and see if it is fortified (probably is). This is done so that the AI can get another PP out of its war against that minor.

There must be a siege battle meaning a garrison must be there for this to result with the PP gain for your AI. Who would put minor forces in a non capital city or it's corps counters?

The other AI player trying to help out his "brother".....

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: Manfred

...

in the original boardgame, GB and France are dominant powers, so they cannot make peace other than the very painly "inconditonnal surrender". if France surrenders, they lose the Napoleon leader, if GB surrenders, 2 fleets are wiped out. in fact, it's rare to see France or GB end the war, and even more rare to see them ally after that.

This is an Optional rule (although we ALWAYS used it) so technically you COULD have a French/British alliance right at the start. I think you would be the only 2 humans playing though

[Ozie]

ORIGINAL: pfnognoff
Who would put minor forces in a non capital city or it's corps counters?

In some cases I would. Once as playing Turkey I got unlucky and lost a field battle agains the Egyptians as the player controlling it manned the both Corps.


Marshall

Is AI ever going to back stab? I hope it does sometimes.

[MarshallEllis]

Hey guys:

Ptnognoff:

First of all, I've seen the PC in some of the larger minors (Sweden, Portugal, etc.) garrison some of their auxiliary cities. This creates the siege you mentioned. Not all of the time but some of the time!

Murat:

A PC GBR player will ALMOST never ally with France The odds are close to that of the lottery (maybe your lottery chances are a little better).

Ozie:

Funny you mention the Turkey / Egypt scenario since it had happened to me in the game (Every once in a while)??? Good to hear that the game is ok there because I checked the tables and results and it's quite surprising how bad Turkish forces really are!!

Yes, the AI will backstab! Slightly independent of difficulty is my personality profile which allows me to put "Alexander the Great", "Atilla the Hun" or "Hitler" type tyrants in charge of nations. Treachery is our main attribute of these leaders and each has his own rating BUT that's up to you to find out for yourself!

Pzgndr:

See what you're saying BUT the AI will simply be smarter about their PPs in the increased difficulty settings. The AI really doesn't do much different in the higher difficulty settings but does get a little PP / Money / VP help in the higher settings forcing you to win quicker.

Thanks guys

[eg0master]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
[...]
See what you're saying BUT the AI will simply be smarter about their PPs in the increased difficulty settings. The AI really doesn't do much different in the higher difficulty settings but does get a little PP / Money / VP help in the higher settings forcing you to win quicker.
[...]

IMHO that is the worst kind of difficulty variable in any game. making the game harder with "cheating" AI is not good since it means you play the same opponent(s) with a little more money/PP. I can see AI for EiA is very hard to implement but in stead of having money cheating AI I would suggest using tha harder AI to have better "memory". Examples:

- A better AI will remember corp strengthes after field battles while easy AI will forget this.
- A better AI will remember back stabbing to a greater extent than easy AI.
- Easy AI could have more "random" built into each descision while difficult AI should be more logical and play for PP rather than revange. (which in some cases makes hard AI an easy predictible opponent).

The bottom line is that I think you should use the CPU power and let hard AI use it to remember and/or simulate things before descisions are made (and maybe consider more factors than an easy player) rather than let hard AI just cheat with money and PP.

[Murat]

Honestly playing for PP and getting out of wars early may turn out to really harm the big nations since they basically need wars to get the PPs they need.

[pzgndr]

See what you're saying BUT the AI will simply be smarter about their PPs in the increased difficulty settings.

Yes, but that's being smarter about the PPs it assumes it has. If the difficulty settings modify this by making an aggressive AI "think" it has more PPs or a more passive AI "think" it has less, then this should directly affect the AI's surrender decisions. This may help resolve the early AI surrender issue, that's all. The AI doesn't have to have 100% accurate information all the time. [;)]

[pfnognoff]

ORIGINAL: Ozie

ORIGINAL: pfnognoff
Who would put minor forces in a non capital city or it's corps counters?

In some cases I would. Once as playing Turkey I got unlucky and lost a field battle agains the Egyptians as the player controlling it manned the both Corps.

Ooops, my mistake in typing my first post, I should have said, who would put his minor country forces OUTSIDE his capital cities or it's corps counters. Because when the capital falls, all is over and the non capital garrisons fall without the fight.

[Ozie]

ORIGINAL: pfnognoff
Ooops, my mistake in typing my first post, I should have said, who would put his minor country forces OUTSIDE his capital cities or it's corps counters. Because when the capital falls, all is over and the non capital garrisons fall without the fight.

I think there could be situations when putting few garrison factors to other cities beside capital could be usefull. When there is no fear of immidiate fall of the capital and help from a major is on it's way.

Like if the attacking major is Russia and the minor is Sweden. If you are the France or UK player going to help Sweden. You might want to garrison Finland.

[YohanTM2]

It is also a bit realistic that countries might garrison a few cities <g>

[Irish Guards]

OK I am confused and will reply

Irish Guards