AI Army in the Field (REALLY)!! - Page 2

alexman · March 2, 2004, 08:15

My quote above was in reference to smellymummy's suggestion to reward armies instead of leaders from elite combat so that the AI uses them.

Brundlefly · March 2, 2004, 09:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Antrine
Sure, do you want original at start with other supporting files, I tweaked both the resourse and goody hut files? However the goody hut is not critical.

Or do you want the game file somewhere along the way? I have many saves.

Original please

ducki · March 2, 2004, 13:01

Dang. Misleading subject line. And I was so excited, too.

I tried an experiment where every AI started with an army but they just load a warrior into it and fortify it in the capitol.

I wish any victorious army would let any and all civs build the Military Academy, kinda like the Manhattan Project lets any civ build nukes. I _think_ that might help the AI get armies in teh field. Could be wrong, though.

Antrine · March 2, 2004, 13:11

Quote:

The AI's seem to bogart the first two Armies in their Capitols and stuff them with defensive/offensive units mixed. Then the third one comes out offensive only and is not shy.

Solve this problem and the AI uses Armies in the field.

Sorry I misled you, I guess I'll take my place behind Firaxis.

ducki · March 2, 2004, 13:21

No worries, I'm just one of the many wondering where the AI armies are in Conquests.

With their power boosted, the AI is at a decidedly bigger disadvantage versus a player that fields multiple armies. Armies with obsolete units already had a longer shelf-life than un-armied units and the attack and movement bonus stretch it out even further it seems.

vmxa1 · March 2, 2004, 14:36

It would make the highest levels much harder and I don't think they need that.

I think it is only at emperor and Demi that it would be useful. Lower levels will not save the AI and higher levels will make the humans burden even heavier.

Antrine · March 2, 2004, 16:30

I agree, vmxa1. I have thought that it is, (was) a cheap shot for Firaxis to simply load the AI with psudo advantages, (free unit support and discounted shield production etc.) and then call that a higher level difficulty.

Instead of focusing on improving the AI routines. Developing AI personalities replete with varied responses, tactics and long-term planning is I believe the 'future' gaming. Let's get the word Intelligence finally into the term AI.

Sorry I am 'preaching' again.

Thanks ducki, no worries, we just may be singing the same song anyway. Just different tunes.

Brundlefly · March 2, 2004, 16:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Antrine
I agree, vmxa1. I have thought that it is, (was) a cheap shot for Firaxis to simply load the AI with psudo advantages, (free unit support and discounted shield production etc.) and then call that a higher level difficulty.

Instead of focusing on improving the AI routines. Developing AI personalities replete with varied responses, tactics and long-term planning is I believe the 'future' gaming. Let's get the word Intelligence finally into the term AI.

Sorry I am 'preaching' again.

As long as most people are satisfied with 'fluff' enhancements like the ones given with C3C, there is no business need for them to make the AI think better.

It costs them exponentially more in development costs to improve AI routines than it does to implement a new tobacco resource. Why pay all of that extra wages if everyone will by a new expansion anyway just because it gives you a new resource or a new civ.

If you're giant company like IBM and you gain a lot of positive publicity by developing a chess program that will beat the world's chessmasters, thats different if than if you are a small software company trying to make a game barely challenging enough so you can turn a modest profit.

vmxa1 · March 2, 2004, 17:28

bfg9000 I am not quite as cynical as that, but it is not far from wrong.

The thing you have to remember is that most buyers of games are not going to beat it at Warlord and a lot will lose at Chief.
So they do not need a better AI for the masses, only us knuckle heads.

TheArsenal · March 2, 2004, 17:59

Yep. Agreed. Knowing plenty of people who play versions Civ III, but don’t go to games sites, Regent level is a very serious butt kicker and Monarch is out of the question. Personally, I’m all for improving the AI routines at higher levels (although I currently only play at Monarch). But it would probably be a very expensive move for a small, albeit vocal and knowledgeable, minority (really now, can anyone who reads up on the math behind corruption, really call themselves the average game player?)

On topic: I have yet to see a single AI army since PTW.

bongo · March 2, 2004, 18:53

Hmm, I don't think you need to visit game sites to beat the game above regent, but it certainly makes the process faster.

Even more OT, I beat the AI on the top level on civ and civ2 long time before I knew there was civ sites on the net. Of course, I spent silly amounts of time beating the AI on my own, and I found a lot of 'new' strategies on the net when I finally started looking.

TheArsenal · March 2, 2004, 19:14

I didn’t mean to imply that one couldn’t win at a particular level without going to game sites. I will venture to say that many people (me with the higher levels, for example) would hit a wall without the aid of sites like these and the insight of “better” players.

vmxa1 · March 2, 2004, 20:46

The point was not that you need the web, but rather what avg really means. Remember many people do not know how to set up their VCR's.

So of course there are lots of people that will study the gme and figure out out to beat it at al levels. They just are not the bulk of the gaming world.

You see that even here. People post that they are losing at chief or get a low score.

The company has to keep in mind the lowest common denominator or risk shutting off customers.

dexters · March 5, 2004, 22:15

.

bongo · March 6, 2004, 07:43

Three wishes:

1 I wish that the source code that controlled the Ai would get released.

2 I wish that the programming interface that controlled the game would get released

3 I wish my own programming skill were not that rusty.

Then I could understand the AI-logic, improve it and implement it in either civ3 or freeciv.

Antrine · March 9, 2004, 00:19

I heartily concur with your wishes 'king' bongo

I am here posting an e-mail response I have sent to an inquirer, jamesyao received today, as reference for the boards and to update those who requested a copy of my modded BIQ game file.

" Hi Jamesyao,

How familiar are you with using the Conquest Editor?
Do you set up your own games?
Design maps or use only random?

So far as I can tell there are only a few key reasons why the AI uses or does not use Armies in the field.

A. It use Leaders to 'rush' improvements instead of converting to an Army

B. It bogarts (or holds in reserve) at least two and sometime all of them in the Capitol.

C. It brings them out in the field maybe by the third one on. I say maybe, because in my current game I am seeing as many as six AI Armies held in the capitol. Mayhap that will change as the current war drags on. I am not playing on 'debug' mode so I am not seeing everything.

If you wish to set a game similar to what I have, let me know and I will give you the detailed instructions. Otherwise I am polishing my own mod and will make it available soon. (soon of course is relative to time available)

Many thanks for asking,

And happy gaming!

Antrine"

mesut · March 12, 2004, 11:43

Hi Antrine,

what exactly are the modifications you did in the editor to encourage the AI using armies? Just make the palace produce an army every 15 turns?

I would appreciate your answer.

Mesut

Antrine · March 12, 2004, 12:45

Real quick, basically yes only the Palace plus 1 army per two cities. However, there are other consideration more involved, such as making sure the AI has the units to stuff the Armies with.

I will have to answer that quandary another time, sorry.

Chrush · March 13, 2004, 07:00

Hi!

Surely I didn't come across an attacking AI Army very often.

But I happened to play the Mongols on Pangaea standard map. I rushed th pyramids with the first leader and poprushed my next two neighbours to death. I had Japan and Carthago fighting each other for quite a while to keep them busy

. When I conquered China I had borders to both of them. My diplomatic skills were far from experienced, so they both started war on me

. So few turns later I was facing two samurai and a knight army

and the usual stuff like cavalry and longbowmen. Quite a horror, considering that my border was running along a chain of mountains.

I never saw an attacking army again. But as I play quite peaceful (Spacerace-Victory), I never wondered. But as you say that it's quite rare, I have to agree.

Ciao,

Agran

Sinapus · March 15, 2004, 13:23

Modded my game to allow the Palace to spawn armies every 50(?) turns and the AI does use them, though as others have noted they don't pick the best mix of units. Found 2mp and 1 mp units loaded in the same army. Oh well, they're hard kills requiring an army of my own or a bunch of sacrificial units/bombard attacks to destroy.

Antrine · March 15, 2004, 16:12

Great! Actually I have only tested the Palace producing an Army every 15 turns and lately even every 10 turns.

As far getting the AI to 'stuff' worthwhile units in them, I do this:

Have something the AI normally builds in the Capitol, such as Barracks and Colleseum also spit out 'longbowman' and 'the Roman Swordsman' every so many turns say 8-10 so those units will be there plentiful, ready to be stuffed into Armies.

This is how make it work (work-a-round)

mesut · March 19, 2004, 09:39

I experienced that armies in the early game are not properly used by the AI. However after a while the situation changes and the AI makes good use of them. I encountered attacks by 3 armies on one city!

Mesut

Antrine · March 19, 2004, 13:44

It makes a goodly difference in gameplay!

Conqueror · March 19, 2004, 14:22

Just played some C3C 1.15 and saw a Zulu army with 3 Impi in it.

So AI armies do exist in C3C, with standard game rules. Even tho very rarely.

Used to see much more AI armies in PtW and vanilla. Somehow C3C has cut down the amount of them - or then i just have the bad luck of not seeing them in action in C3C.

Antrine · March 24, 2004, 01:17

News Flash

News Flash

An AI (Egyptian) ELEPHANT ARMY!! Just smashed 2nd Horse Brigade (Army) of the West Aryan Empire in North Egypt.

Antrine · March 26, 2004, 20:10

Update, for any who care.

Now on Version Twenty-NINE, have the TechTree for Ancient Age completed and fine-tuned (mostly). Thirty-six Techs. The next Age will be Napoleon/Civil War Era, and then followed by World War II and lastly Doomsday Era of escape or annihilation.

I may want to ‘name’ this Mod ‘Armies Arise’ or something, for they are now being used widely and consistently by the AI and found stuffed with Ancient Calvary, Legionaries and very nicely ‘War Elephants’.

See images below:
I am getting closer to finishing this puppy, however it seems there is no fear of Firaxis beating me to the punch!

Happy Smiles

Antrine · March 26, 2004, 20:12

Antrine · March 26, 2004, 20:13

vmxa1 · March 26, 2004, 22:20

I guess you like purple.

Krill · March 28, 2004, 14:55

Pity about the tech tree, but atleast you proved that the AI uses armies offensively.

All is not lost