How is the AI?

Fury Games has now signed with Matrix Games, and we are working together on the next Strategic Command. Will use the Slitherine PBEM++ server for asynchronous multi-player.

Moderators: MOD_Strategic_Command_3, Fury Software

User avatar
Hubert Cater
Posts: 6000
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:42 am
Contact:

RE: How is the AI?

Post by Hubert Cater »

ORIGINAL: fatgreta1066

I'm playing the 1939 Campaign as Allied. It took Germany until November 25 to conquer Poland. It seemed to me that the AI did a good job of cycling units in and out of position when making important attacks (I.e. against Warsaw). It seemed to not do a very good job in figuring out how to bring Poland down. By comparison, I played 5 times as Germany and conquered Poland in 2 turns 4 times, 3 turns once.

Germany was in good position to invade France by late March, 1940. I held on to France until early August. I thought the AI diffused it's initial strikes a bit too much, not creating a breakthrough when it might have. To be fair, I did a pretty gamey thing by placing the entire French navy (including its Med fleet) on raiding duty against the Norway convoys, as well as some RN units. That cost Germany a number of MPP. I also sent an extra British Corps to France, in addition to the BEF.

Now that Germany has French ports, we will see how the AI handles the Battle of the Atlantic, and the war in Africa.

This post caught my eye so as Poland and the invasion of France and the Low Countries were a portion of the AI that I had spent quite a bit of time on fine tuning.

General speaking, any optimizations here for the AI would not only be good for this part of the game but also for every other part of the game when it comes to effective AI combat.

For Poland, the goal on my end was to attempt to recreate the 2 turn victory that most human players can achieve... essentially this was the bar.

The challenge in Poland for the Axis AI was that while there are many targets and many towns between the Axis start lines to Warsaw, how to ensure the Axis AI would focus enough of its assault not only on Polish front line units, but to also focus its drive towards Warsaw as quickly as possible.

This was a tricky one since there are so many targets it is easy for the AI to get distracted but after a lot of watching the AI play and determining what most human players would do, we did at one point have the AI (if the rolls were good and the weather cooperated) capture Warsaw within two turns 50% of the time. Part of this was achievable through more tightly focused scripting but also by adjusting certain behaviour such as having the AI to hold back its Tanks (not always and only under the right conditions) after the initial wave of attacks. This allowed it to breakthrough a bit further with its tanks and position itself closer to Warsaw for the follow up turns.

This one general behavioral change, combined with many many others, seemed to improve AI assaults quite a bit and also played out quite well in other parts of the map such as France and the Low Countries and so on.

Unfortunately we also then found that Poland was too easy to defeat in general so there were changes that led to requiring the Axis to use most of its frontline units to achieve quick victories over Poland, i.e. rather than being able to move half of those units towards France right away, and this then led to the AI also being less likely to capture Poland in 2 turns on a regular basis.

As it is now, the results will vary from game to game, and although it is extremely rare for the AI (I've run countless AI vs AI debug games during development) two turns is still an outside possibility but 3 or 4 turns is more likely. In some cases where the rolls and weather combine to frustrate the AI a longer time frame sometimes occurs as it did in your game here.

That being said, on average by the time of Barbarossa things seem to even out and the fact that the AI was able to capture France by August shows that made up some of that delay in Poland as an August capitulation against a human player in France is still a pretty good showing for the AI... at least from all the tests we've run.

Based on this, my guess is that Barbarossa will likely start near the historical timeline as well for the Axis AI.
User avatar
Hubert Cater
Posts: 6000
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:42 am
Contact:

RE: How is the AI?

Post by Hubert Cater »

ORIGINAL: fatgreta1066

I've always heard that AI in general is better as a defender than an attacker. I know very little about programming so I can't speak to that other than to say the thought seems to make sense to me.

I'm playing on the medium setting, so to speak. No advantages for the AI in production and such.

And also, I love this game, I certainly don't want any comment to appear critical of it. This is the most fun I've had with a PC game since the first Harpoon way back in the 90's, and High Command as mentioned in another thread.

Thanks again for this feedback and while I can't speak for all games what I've found is that many games tend to give the defensive AI quite a few bonuses, in terms of extra units or otherwise, to help it play a more complete defensive game.

One game in particular that stood out this way was the original Panzer General series from 1994 where if you were ever to play the scenarios in reverse, i.e. as the Allied side you would quickly notice how lopsided some of the scenario were in favor of the Allies and only to ensure that the Axis human player otherwise had a very tough time of it all. The Kursk scenario comes to mind as I have a very distinct memory of that one.

Speaking for the AI in Strategic Command I would actually argue the reverse in that that the AI will probably be more impressive on the OFFENSIVE than on the DEFENSIVE as the defensive portion of the AI is very much limited to even what a human player is able to achieve, and that is just to say try and hold off the attacker for as long as possible by staying in good defensive positions such as behind rivers, inside towns and cities and to remain in as good a supply as possible.

As an aside, and from a development point of view after quite a bit of effort working to improve the tactical combat portion of the AI for this release, hearing that the AI can still manage to capture France on par with the efforts of some players for when they play the Axis, is always nice to hear [:)]


User avatar
Hubert Cater
Posts: 6000
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:42 am
Contact:

RE: How is the AI?

Post by Hubert Cater »

Thanks for the feedback Polonthi and we can certainly add more adjustments to take into account your diplomatic strategy, since as mentioned most of these are fairly straight forward to improve on our end. Taking into account the many different strategies is always a challenge, but not impossible and we always appreciate this type of feedback where we can continue to improve the game.

That being said, and again from a development point of view, seeing the game still last until 1945 tells us that despite any failings, the AI still gave you a pretty good run and that is still good to see from our end. The fact that the AI still managed to surprise you with an early D-Day is also good to hear as that was an area we spent quite a bit of time working on since as Iain also mentioned, most games if not all, tend to fail in this regard.

To answer some of your more specific queries, the AI will indeed vary from game to game and doesn't always necessarily land in North Africa via the Torch landings, and could indeed make landings in Spain and even southern France, although these are of much lower percentage chances for them to occur, but they are possible once Spain joins the Axis. Again each game is different and we are happy to continue to improve the game as the scripting system does allow us to make these types of adjustments quite easily once an area is highlighted and in need of adjustment.

For example, Sealion came up as an issue during Beta (and during the video Beta previews) and I think players will find that much more challenging now in the official release.

User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 6637
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

RE: How is the AI?

Post by BillRunacre »

Thanks for the feedback Polonthi, and as Iain said it might be that some tweaks to diplomacy will help here.
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
User avatar
Grotius
Posts: 5842
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 5:34 pm
Location: The Imperial Palace.

RE: How is the AI?

Post by Grotius »

I think the strategic AI is pretty good. Polonthi is not pointing to major flaws in the AI's overall approach, but instead to one small part (diplomacy) that could easily be countered. And even Polonthi didn't win a Decisive Victory. Has anyone won a Decisive Victory as the Axis yet?f

I've been playing wargames as long as anyone here, and the AI is giving me a great game, but I confess I haven't paid much attention to Diplomacy.
Image
User avatar
FF_1079
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Bluffton, South Carolina

RE: How is the AI?

Post by FF_1079 »

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

It sounds like there is more of an issue with Diplomacy than anything else. This seems to have been the decisive impact in the game mentioned. I've been finding it definitely pays to go for Spain and Turkey so it may be we need to raise the cost of those or add a bit more uncertainty to that tactic. Maybe a diplo chit should have a small chance of backfiring too (maybe 1%) - people don't like being pressured! This would reduce the rate at which nations moved towards your alliance and increase the risk of such tactics.

This.

Spain and Turkey both had a VERY high resistance to being diplomatically pressured and could easily have taken offense and swung away from Germany. I believe the old CoS diplo worked that the higher a nations favorability of you was, the easier it was to influence them. If they had a low to negative leaning towards you, diplo could easily backfire and have negative outcomes.

I find the AI is a good opponent for me in my casual way of playing the game. The AI will punish any sloppy play I make, and take advantage of any holes it sees. I am very happy with the base game and look forward to playing it with modded scripts after I beat the base game. Good job.
Fondly remembers SSI's "Clash of Steel"
User avatar
sveint
Posts: 3837
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Glorious Europe

RE: How is the AI?

Post by sveint »

It's far too easy to make nations join the Axis (Spain and Turkey).
Capitaine
Posts: 1028
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:00 am

RE: How is the AI?

Post by Capitaine »

You may be ignoring the ability of an Allied player to oppose Axis diplomatic moves. Not sure if it was an event or not, but in one game the Allied AI secured Sweden as an ally early in the war. I'd think a human Allied player could make diplomacy a harder task on the Axis.
User avatar
Hubert Cater
Posts: 6000
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:42 am
Contact:

RE: How is the AI?

Post by Hubert Cater »

Agreed as we'll look into having the Allied AI be a bit more reactive to this type of Diplomacy as even Edwin posted some feedback on this as well. All in all some straight forward adjustments on our end to hopefully improve the game even further.
User avatar
FF_1079
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Bluffton, South Carolina

RE: How is the AI?

Post by FF_1079 »

He is an outside idea on a simple fix to the diplo, keep the 50 mpp cost for influencing nations that have a 51% or higher initial/current view of your nation. Increase the FIRST diplomatic overture to a nation whose relationship is 49% or lower favorable to 150 mpp to simulate the initial effort to overcome resistance and then drop back to 50 mpp for each additional point. If you are serious about winning that nation diplomatically, you will have to reduce your research and development or war spending by 100 mpp extra for each unfriendly nation attempted.

This may not slow Germany much - but it will keep an Axis player from emptying Italy's MPP bank as well to get that plus 30% combined chance.
Fondly remembers SSI's "Clash of Steel"
ILCK
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 11:28 pm

RE: How is the AI?

Post by ILCK »

I found the AI countered my diplomatic moves with Spain quite well. They essentially stalled me out on the verge of getting them into the war and moved Spain away from Germany in fact.

As the Allies the Germans launched a VERY early and unexpected Fall Gelb that began in January 1940 and took me rather unprepared.


User avatar
wodin
Posts: 10709
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

RE: How is the AI?

Post by wodin »

Considering how many people I see post about this games useless AI or that games useless AI I realise I must be absolutely useless at wargames..which is great cos on the whole I've found most AI's a worthy opponent. I've actually never played a wargame and analysed it enough to suss out an AI..
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 10049
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: How is the AI?

Post by sPzAbt653 »

A comment about the computer's use of Airborne units [I don't think anyone else has commented on this]. Every now and then the computer will launch an Airborne assault behind my lines. This seems to work well in this game, as I can recall in other games the computer is either constantly dropping these units and making a boring nuisance of itself, or the computer doesn't use them as airborne units at all, which is disappointing. SC3 falls somewhere in between - not often enough to become a nuisance, seldom enough to keep us on our toes.

Good job with the Airborne scripts, if such a thing exists [&o]
User avatar
IainMcNeil
Posts: 2784
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:01 am
Location: London
Contact:

RE: How is the AI?

Post by IainMcNeil »

I think most of the people complaining about the AI are finding a specific loophole that was missed and exploiting it rather than looking at the big picture of how the AI is playing. To some extent a game as complex as this is always going to have loopholes as when you close one you likely open another (just like tax law!) and so you play a cat and mouse game, but for the vast majority of normal players the AI does a more than decent job. It certainly gives me a good game! It lets me play in a realistic way and still achieve goals. Other games that often force you to play to the loop holes on the hard settings to survive and I really don't enjoy that.

Having said that I'm sure there are some bugs we missed or things that can be improved with some more of Hubert's time!
Iain McNeil
Director
Matrix Games
Hartmann
Posts: 883
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2000 10:00 am

RE: How is the AI?

Post by Hartmann »

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

I think most of the people complaining about the AI are finding a specific loophole that was missed and exploiting it rather than looking at the big picture of how the AI is playing.

I think that nails it. If I see how the AI (on both sides) handles Fall Gelb and Barbarossa, and compare this to other AIs of WW2 strategy games within the same category, everyone should see that it is really rather good. OF COURSE it is not as good as an experienced human player(it still sometimes misses opportunities as well as obvious threats), but it "feels" much more like a (casual to mediocre skilled)human than other AIs.

The only time it really shows that it's "just" an AI is situations where it stubbornly sends one single unit after another to its certain doom, like it sometimes does when the African front is stalemated or when the US tries to transport troops after a successful "Sea Lion".
User avatar
Hubert Cater
Posts: 6000
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:42 am
Contact:

RE: How is the AI?

Post by Hubert Cater »

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

A comment about the computer's use of Airborne units [I don't think anyone else has commented on this]. Every now and then the computer will launch an Airborne assault behind my lines. This seems to work well in this game, as I can recall in other games the computer is either constantly dropping these units and making a boring nuisance of itself, or the computer doesn't use them as airborne units at all, which is disappointing. SC3 falls somewhere in between - not often enough to become a nuisance, seldom enough to keep us on our toes.

Good job with the Airborne scripts, if such a thing exists [&o]

Thank you and this part is actually unscripted and just the AI doing its own thing, i.e. assessing the OFFENSIVE combat situation and assigning Paratroops and subsequent targets all on its own. This is what will make it hopefully interestingly dynamic from game to game.

Glad to hear it is working as expected [:)]
Nubis
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 12:15 pm

RE: How is the AI?

Post by Nubis »

The AI is pretty vicious as the Axis and I haven't beaten it yet.. but I will [;)]
The Land
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:58 pm

RE: How is the AI?

Post by The Land »

On the subject of France, I found that once I had concentrated my panzers in south-east Belgium (not looking at the game map as I type but in the Charleroi/Namur area), the AI moved the French army West to protect places like Lille and Amiens. Leaving nothing between my tanks and Paris.

Really enjoying the game but I thought that was foolish!
1985 Red Storm mod - Beta testing!

Always wanted to play a "Cold War goes hot" scenario? Come and join in!
Hartmann
Posts: 883
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2000 10:00 am

RE: How is the AI?

Post by Hartmann »

That's strange as I always see them trying to maintain an unbroken line from Alsace to Calais. But of course - as they don't have precognition abilities - they don't (and shouldn't) prepare for a mighty panzer strike through the Ardennes either.
The Land
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:58 pm

RE: How is the AI?

Post by The Land »

They did know the tanks were there - they'd had to go through some Belgian troops to get there.
1985 Red Storm mod - Beta testing!

Always wanted to play a "Cold War goes hot" scenario? Come and join in!
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII War in Europe”