AGEOD Forums

One weakness of the UK AI is when it starts dispersing units to capture and garrison cities. Too easy to pick them off....

What do the AIRole_Raider and AIRole_Skirmisher parameters do?

Are these things we can adjust to reduce this behavior?

This can perhaps be improved, but this was also somehow the historical behavior, partly at least. To have the British garrison cities and thus be vulnerable to the Americans.

The 2 roles are for leaders, if they are fit to command raiders.

Pocus wrote:This can perhaps be improved, but this was also somehow the historical behavior, partly at least. To have the British garrison cities and thus be vulnerable to the Americans.

The 2 roles are for leaders, if they are fit to command raiders.

This AI behavior is the #1 reason that would make a person delete BoA from their hard drive.

The AI (both sides) should be completely concerned with capturing and defending objectives and strategic cities. All other priorities recended. After all that is how you play and win the game.

This particular AI behavior should be ripped from the code line before the final patch for 1.13. I can supply a list of other reasons why if you request.

By the way,

Does the AI implement a pilaging strategy, when RulPettyWar, is set ON. I am going to disable this value in a scenario and find out.

Stwa wrote:This AI behavior is the #1 reason that would make a person delete BoA from their hard drive.

The AI (both sides) should be completely concerned with capturing and defending objectives and strategic cities. All other priorities recended. After all that is how you play and win the game.

This particular AI behavior should be ripped from the code line before the final patch for 1.13. I can supply a list of other reasons why if you request.

I would disagree here.

The main strategy for the French is to pillage the British out of the war while holding 3 main points (Québec, Montreal, Louisbourg).

There is an argument that because they didn't stick to this effective strategy (as previously), they lose the Seven Years war in America, ultimately. I.e. that Montcalm was wrong when Vaudreuil was right.

Cat

Unfortunately, we are all talking in the abstract, focusing on what actually happended during the war, and not discussing AT ALL the games presentation layer or how you win the game (based on the games rules).


1. The game tells you that controlling the objective and strategic cities is the way to WIN the game.

2. The AI should act accordingly. It is a player. Not a guardian of historical realism. The games presentation layer and methods produce historical realism.
It should not be the objective of the code line for the AI.

3. Irregular troops will pilage the countryside through normal movement. Pliaging every acre is not necessary. When moving to and from objectives pilaging will occur.

The French should get VP and morale for pillaging, and the English lose some.

This is an asymetrical war: I.e. way to win for French and GB should be different so with different AI.

Cat

Cat Lord wrote:The French should get VP and morale for pillaging, and the English lose some.

This is an asymetrical war: I.e. way to win for French and GB should be different so with different AI.

Cat

But as a scenario designer, how do I turn the pilaging on and off, or how can I decide where it should occur. Do we pilage friendly or enemy territory. Is it totally indescriminate. Why should VP be awarded for some areas and not others?

Something in the games data (i.e. not the AI), or parameters in the scenario setup must determine to extent of said pilaging. Otherwise, you can not modifiy the behavior of the AI through scenario design.

With the regular war AI concept, a designer CAN modify the behavior of the AI, and the degree and scope of the war, by simply adding objective and strategic cities.

The main objectives of the AI is indeed to defend what it has and get more strategic cities. I don't see quite your point here, are you saying it is not focused enough on these tasks? That is a problem general to AIs...

As for pillaging and petty war, you can only do that if the region is not loyal to you.

Pocus wrote:The main objectives of the AI is indeed to defend what it has and get more strategic cities. I don't see quite your point here, are you saying it is not focused enough on these tasks? That is a problem general to AIs...

As for pillaging and petty war, you can only do that if the region is not loyal to you.

This is all in the other thread, so this is repeat, sorry about that
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Somehow through all this I am not conveying my main point. And please remember, I am addressing solitaire games. PBEM can pilage to their own delightment.

And, I guess I am not seeing what everyone means by a pilaging war. If you mean pilaging every acre on the map. I do not think the game should award VP for that.

1. A scenario designer must have some mechanism that he can use to initiate a prediactable AI behavior. How does one initiate piliaging in the scenarios now.

2. The AI code line, should not contain scenario specific logic.

3. The AI code line, should be the same for both sides. (i.e. everyone can pilage, right?).

4. The AI should not concern itself with historical realism.

5. The AI should concern itself with winning the game.

6. Pilaging is a by-product of moving irregular troops, and can happen without special AI assistance.

7. Strategic cities, or villages?, can be described by the scenario designer. The AI will attempt to capture them. If irregulars are involved, pilaging will occur.



It might be better to rid ourselves of the current French VP awards and subtractions for pilaging and substitute the following rule:

If the region that contains a strategic city (or perhaps objective city) is currently marked as "pilaged", then the faction owner will not recieve full VP for that city that turn.

This same rule would also provide a "scorched earth strategy" as well. (i.e. pilaging a burning your own stuff prior to its capture.)

This way, perhaps the AI can accomplish both types of strategies, (pilaging and conquest), with the same code line and approach. The difference, would be the troops involved. Pilage defense would be in place because the AI should know to defend strategic cities.

Furthermore, a scenario could be made more interesting because a designer can now control specifically where pilaging raids should occur (at the strategic cities)... and on the way to them.

Perhaps frontier forts and smaller settlements can constitute strategic cities in these scenarios.

And the number of them can be tweaked by the designers to achieve some balance. Under the current rule, the only way to do this is to REMOVE structures from the game.

The French strategy ---> If you can't capture it, burn it!

There is no specific scenario logic about the Petty War, it can only happen if you have a city in the region anyway. And the AI is not even aware that pillaging with irregulars if you have the Petty War rule give you a bonus VP, this rule has not enough impact to warrant that I devise some custom AI code for it, by lack of time as you can guess.

Ok,

Thats good, but please tell me there is not other scenario specific custom code in the AI.

And please consider the rule change mentioned above... which is,

It might be better to rid ourselves of the current French VP awards and subtractions for pilaging and substitute the following rule:

If the region that contains a strategic city (or perhaps objective city) is currently marked as "pilaged", then the faction owner will not recieve full VP for that city that turn.


I think this rule change will enable a weaker player to nullify a stronger players conquests by pilaging their strategic cities. I think it make all games more competitive and fun at the same time.

Stwa wrote:Ok,

Thats good, but please tell me there is not other scenario specific custom code in the AI.

And please consider the rule change mentioned above... which is,

It might be better to rid ourselves of the current French VP awards and subtractions for pilaging and substitute the following rule:

If the region that contains a strategic city (or perhaps objective city) is currently marked as "pilaged", then the faction owner will not recieve full VP for that city that turn.


I think this rule change will enable a weaker player to nullify a stronger players conquests by pilaging their strategic cities. I think it make all games more competitive and fun at the same time.

Pillaging is very effective in a 'hit them where they ain't' situation, which involves more than strategic targets. I believe that the intent is to simulate the frontier raids that distracted/dispersed British efforts. Raiding New York makes no sense, raiding Dayton does....

I'm not sure I see any difference in 'giving' VP vs. 'not receiving'....
I like it where it is, still see no need to change it. Gives good play balance.

lodilefty wrote:Pillaging is very effective in a 'hit them where they ain't' situation, which involves more than strategic targets. I believe that the intent is to simulate the frontier raids that distracted/dispersed British efforts. Raiding New York makes no sense, raiding Dayton does....

I'm not sure I see any difference in 'giving' VP vs. 'not receiving'....
I like it where it is, still see no need to change it. Gives good play balance.

Thanks for the input... this is what I have learned from all of this. Please remember, my interest is solitaire play only.

1. You can turn off the VP awards for pilaging by setting RulPettyWar = 0 in the scenarios.

2. The AI does not specifically address the Petty War.

3. It's too easy for a human player to beat the British AI in FWI if the Petty war is enabled.

4. You have to play nice when playing the AI. (but this makes sense).

------------------------------------------------------------------

1. I still would like my proposed rule change! (I wont hold my breath).

2. In my copy of the game, I am going to modify the user interface to eliminate completly the mention of victory points (if possible). I realize this only works for me.

3. I might turn off RulPettyWar in some of the scens.

Pocus wrote:This can perhaps be improved, but this was also somehow the historical behavior, partly at least. To have the British garrison cities and thus be vulnerable to the Americans.

Are you sure about this? Check the setup for the 78 Northern Campaign. Or the setup for the 75 and 76 campaings. Also, when this happened in the south, they British gotted picked off, as lodilefty has suggested.