Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I resent those remarks, Richard! I have no order in my thinking!

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
Just so you guys know:

We will be working on the AI but this patch was to get critical bugs (game crash, etc.) addressed. I expect to spend more and more time on AI and general enhancements (Scenario editor) as the bugs get fewer and fewer.

Great to hear Marshall! Once again not a programmer, but may I suggest that you guys look at the method that WIFFE is using to develop their AI?

Here's a link
tm.asp?m=979605

It's obviously a lot more complicated, but I think that it should work to fix many of the issues. I'll be willing to help you as needed with "generic rules" as well as country specific ones.

Keep up the good work. It's appreciated.

Jason

ORIGINAL: zaquex

This is a variant on how I think you can make the AI reasonable in EiA - the use of doctrines/agendas/strategies to restrict the AI's choices and streamline them in a direction that is consistent and reasonable, is in my oppinion the only way to create a competative AI with the resources at available.

Clearly the system presented for WIFFE deals with completly different goals and mechanisms than what a similar system for EiA would. One of the areas where WWII much differ from this and other earlier conflicts is that politics and alliances are very static and a similar system for EiA would need to put much more emphasis on this on the other hand the resource and economy functions are very simple etc .

Clearly there is a lot of work needed to develop such system for EiA but if the goal is to make EiA a strong or even reasonable game for computer controlled opponents there isnt much room for shortcuts and the investment would be well worth it.

If the system also allows a simple way to add agendas and strategies either by the devs or by player moding, the game will also be easily adapted to cover other conflicts.

To be reasonable the AI will have to have several agendas and strategies to choose from, and this will be another big task, but once the community know the format for these im sure the community have people who would be very helpfull or even eager to supply these for the different powers.

I would be very interested in such a system for EiANW and if it would help I'm very willing to provide input or in any other way I can support such development.

 Engine is allowing hostile MP to move into and steal a minor from a neutral MP that is already in nation
• Making AI stay away from areas that have neutral MP forces attempting to conquer a minor FIRST.

ORIGINAL: qgaliana

 Engine is allowing hostile MP to move into and steal a minor from a neutral MP that is already in nation
• Making AI stay away from areas that have neutral MP forces attempting to conquer a minor FIRST.

I'm not sure this was an AI issue. It seems to me the problem was that the minor was going to war with everyone that it's controlling major power is at war at. The game is blurring the difference between a controlled minor power and a free state if the controlling major power is already at war.

E.g. - France and Austria are at war. Prussia, at peace with both, declares war on Bavaria. Austria gains control. Bavaria, in the game, will go to war with both France and Prussia. My reading of the rules is that Bavaria, should _only_ go to war with Prussia until such time as war with Prussia lapses - then it becomes a free state. However if Prussia had been at war with Austria then it makes sense for Bavaria to go to war with all of Austria's enemies.

ORIGINAL: bresh

Im bit courious what does the FOW affect in PBM-games ?

IF no AIs involved ?

If  fow doesnt show battlelosses, how do we justify it showing forage looses ?

Regards
Bresh

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: qgaliana

 Engine is allowing hostile MP to move into and steal a minor from a neutral MP that is already in nation
• Making AI stay away from areas that have neutral MP forces attempting to conquer a minor FIRST.

I'm not sure this was an AI issue. It seems to me the problem was that the minor was going to war with everyone that it's controlling major power is at war at. The game is blurring the difference between a controlled minor power and a free state if the controlling major power is already at war.

E.g. - France and Austria are at war. Prussia, at peace with both, declares war on Bavaria. Austria gains control. Bavaria, in the game, will go to war with both France and Prussia. My reading of the rules is that Bavaria, should _only_ go to war with Prussia until such time as war with Prussia lapses - then it becomes a free state. However if Prussia had been at war with Austria then it makes sense for Bavaria to go to war with all of Austria's enemies.

This CAN be thought of as a problem. OR, it can be thought of as an opportunity.

I can't remember if it worked this way in the boardgame or not. But, this can be an opportunity.

From a realism perspective, it kind of depends on whether the major is simply controlling (making the moves for) the minor, or are they, in fact, taking it over completely (for the length of the war)? Since the "influenced" and "allied" minors become the property of the major that has the counter on them at the start of any war against that major, it seems as though the other way should work as well.

I sadly lost my rules to the last campaign I played something like 15 years ago, but my recollection was that until war lapsed, the controlling MP was basically just providing someone to move the minor. It goes along with the controlling MP not having to be at war with the MP attacking the minor. Also note you usually couldn't have more than one MP at war on the same minor without them declaring war on each other (or being at war with the controlling MP).