vicberg wrote:This .ini isn't in the Alias folder. Now the question I have, can an AI_Interest.ini be placed into the Alias directory, affinities added to leaders (which I can do via program quite quickly) and it will auto-magically work, or do I need to regenerate the scenario?
vaalen wrote:I was wondering if some of the AJE team might be able to help on the AI issues, as they have demonstrated great talent in this area.
In Hannibal, Terror of Rome, I saw massive improvements in the AI by the time the patching was finished. I had some great games in the scenario covering the entire second Punic War, solitaire.
The AI created strong, well balanced forces, inflicted numerous defeats on me, and was very good at forcing me into difficult supply situations. It was able to respond very well to my offensive actions, and was able to use different, appropriate strategies In Spain, Italy, and Africa, at the same time. It also was very formidable at sea, breaking naval blockades of besieged cities, defending the coast of Africa against naval invasions, and maintaining powerful stacks of ships that were a real challenge to deal with. I was able to win both as Rome and as Carthage, but it was a real challenge, and luck helped me a great deal, as I has to take some huge risks that payed off, but could have easily failed.
On release, the AI did not do many of these things, and was very easy to defeat. But now, it is a much better general, and admiral.
My point is that whatever they did to the AI worked, and I am wondering if they could help with this game.
vaalen wrote:I was wondering if some of the AJE team might be able to help on the AI issues, as they have demonstrated great talent in this area.
In Hannibal, Terror of Rome, I saw massive improvements in the AI by the time the patching was finished. I had some great games in the scenario covering the entire second Punic War, solitaire.
The AI created strong, well balanced forces, inflicted numerous defeats on me, and was very good at forcing me into difficult supply situations. It was able to respond very well to my offensive actions, and was able to use different, appropriate strategies In Spain, Italy, and Africa, at the same time. It also was very formidable at sea, breaking naval blockades of besieged cities, defending the coast of Africa against naval invasions, and maintaining powerful stacks of ships that were a real challenge to deal with. I was able to win both as Rome and as Carthage, but it was a real challenge, and luck helped me a great deal, as I has to take some huge risks that payed off, but could have easily failed.
On release, the AI did not do many of these things, and was very easy to defeat. But now, it is a much better general, and admiral.
My point is that whatever they did to the AI worked, and I am wondering if they could help with this game.
lodilefty wrote:It would be interesting to see what could be done...
...but let me be a devils advocate again, with a specific example.
Playing the Long Campaign, and it's now 1810:
What direction should we give to Prussia? What is the situation? What possible situations do we need to script for????
Multiply by 7 for scripting all player nations.
Add a few critical non-player nations that might need tweaking.....
AJE is not a diplomatic campaign game, different beast...
...but I hope they will pitch in!
Pocus wrote:The AI is far from perfect, but is not utter crap. You can definitively play it SP. Some scripts might do weird things, like the Caucasus focus. Without scripts on the other hand, France will try to capture Gibraltar. Indeed, a human would probably not do that. As for the British, the AI will always keep a huge force in the homeland.
vicberg wrote:Actually, if playing single player, it's relatively easy. By 1810/1812, everyone against France.
Omnius wrote:Kev_uk,
I was playing with the 24 March and then April 11 patches so am familiar with some recent improvements. However a smarter AI wasn't one of those improvements. You may think the Athena Ignorance is worth playing against but I want more of a real strategic challenge that it can't provide. Perhaps you just don't see the lone artillery recon units, especially the coastal battery ones. After so many games one would like to think the AI is getting better, not worse. Thanks for confirming that AGEOD's AI programming is getting worse instead of better. The best thing AGEOD can do for us grognards is to get the AI completely out of the game, let us control the minor nations once allied with them.
vicberg wrote:Not sure. I just saw Affinity in the AI.LOG, so it's doing *something*. I'll need to play test a bit, when I have time, in order to know the full affects.
11:59:40 AM (Reporting) _CLD_ Leader Affinity 1002651 Francis de Rottenburg Raw Affinity for 1010091 Valetta Garrison 30 Family Affinity: 112 Final Affinity: 34
11:59:40 AM (Reporting) _CLD_ Leader Affinity 1002651 Francis de Rottenburg Raw Affinity for 1002645 Stuart' Force 42 Family Affinity: 96 Final Affinity: 40
Omnius wrote:lodilefty,
The problem is that with a game that lasts about 480 turns it's really Mission Impossible to script each country. However from what I see whomever is programming the AI is just clueless about what to do. All I see is really stupid things from the Athena Ignorance. I see lone artillery and HQ units doing recon beyond the frontlines, and perfectly good corps or forces being broken down and reformed under poor commanders way over command limit while better leaders end up alone. Why do I see Ferdinand leave Italy with his whole army leaving southern Austria wide open? Just stupid! What possible purpose is there to Kutusov going to Azerbaijan with a huge force in 1805-1806 and then building fortifications there? He should always be heading into central Europe helping Austria and Prussia against France. Why do I see AI-French coastal batteries hanging out around Gibraltar instead of staying put? Your AI strategies are totally Mickey Mouse!
Plus why can't we control minor nation forces? Why are we stuck with the Athena Ignorance controlling them oh so poorly. They are pathetic at defending their home turf, always off going somewhere they shouldn't be. As Britain I watched my clueless AI ally Portugal running around southern Spain by Gibraltar accomplishing nothing while AI controlled Spain had most of northern Portugal? It would be smarter for it to be trying to take back captured regions in Portugal, not marching around in Ronda. I had Gibraltar protected and had no need of help from the AI. The AI minors should stick around their home turf. Why can't we ask for expeditionary units from the minors the way it was done historically? Napoleon could get his minor nation allies to lend him units to fight under Napoleon's command, a trick we can't replicate in WoN.
I just wish we could have the minor nations controlled by the AI for diplomacy purposes only. Once a minor nation becomes allied to a major nation then that major nation should control them if played by a human. It would make the game so much more enjoyable if you put the Athena Ignorance out of our misery!
I also see the random retreat routine is as clueless as ever. I complained about it in Birth of a Nation and Napoleons Campaigns and see it's really not been improved. While it's nice that we can control retreat direction as a human, it only works if we're playing the AI. If we play solo hotseat or PBEM we're stuck with the absolutely ignorant retreat routine that chooses the most ignorant region to retreat to most of the time. Why can't you make it smarter, having units retreat towards the capital or a supply depot as the first choice, not the last. You place too much emphasis on retreating back the way a force came, even when that force has been in the region for at least a turn and should have the choice of retreat path as long as it's under military control. Just stupid to watch an Austrian force retreat into the mountains away from Linz or Wien from Salzburg. Especially when Innsbruck is French controlled for more than a turn. Especially when that force was in Salzburg for more than a turn before the battle.
I'm going to do a short video series on beginning the 1/1805 campaign as France. I'm going to show how easy it will be to trash the Austrian and Prussian AI's in 1805 around Bavaria because someone thought having Prussia attack Bavaria and Wurtemberg was a bright idea when it's the most clueless strategy of all time. I call the AI plan the Concentration of Farce because it'll allow me to concentrate Le Grande Armee in Bavaria with Napoleon running most of the battles. A broad front strategy would be far smarter for Prussia, working on taking Hannover and forcing the French to split forces and have someone other than Napoleon controlling battles. Just like the Allies smartly did in 1813. I'll give you a heads up when I've got a few episodes done on YouTube. Then I'm going to do a much longer YouTube series playing all 7 of the major nations, then you'll be able to see smart strategies for each major nation.
Instead of Mickey Mouse strategies that have the Athena Ignorance spreading forces all over the place or attacking in the wrong places, try dumbing it down and keeping it simple. Plus a busy AI is a pathetic AI! Considering the defensive bonus of staying put over time it would be smarter to have nations play on the defensive and stay put, especially on their capital with a large force. A country like Austria should be on the strategic defensive in 1805, not attacking the Ottomans endlessly for years along with Russia instead of focusing on defending against France.
MarshalJean wrote:Wow...You sure give a lot of time to a series of games that you repeatedly claim to have given up on and repudiated. And, apparently, plan to give even more time to recording yourself playing them and then posting it on YouTube. I think that if I truly hated something with as much vitriol as you have expressed here, I wouldn't still be coming to this forum to proclaim said vitriol. Interesting.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests