AI wandering a Bug?

[Gwap]

Not had that problem at all. Installed diplofrenzy half-way through a game though. Perhaps that may give you a lead?

------------------
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be

[Gwap]

Have you tried a jigsaw puzzle? It's been a while since any of those fought back and gave me a bit of a challenge.

------------------
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be

[MR. SADDAM]

thanks it is done i d/l the ai diplomacy mod too. Why do they give away so much citys lol!!!! needs to be fixed

[Dale]

Rich thanks, but I'm gunna be even more evil than you.

V3.2 (which I'll send across now) will make it a little harder to get their maps. I've always thought it was too easy for a human player to get maps from an AI, even in previous civ-type games. Now there's only a 1% chance you'll get it.

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

BTW, how on earth did ya change the title to DEITY? I WANT IT!

------------------
Author of Diplomod. The mod to fix diplomacy.

Rommell to a sub-commander outside Tobruk: "Those Australians are in there somewhere. But where? Let's advance and wait till they shoot, then shoot back."

[Alpha Wolf]

Anyone else still looking at improving the AI without SLIC? I've gotten a much smarter AI without using SLIC to this point but there are still some quirky things it does that confuse me. In particular how does it set its strategies. If we can control the intelligence of strategy picking by the AI, the game actually does seem to work. I have the AI using diplomacy fairly well. I've seen countless wars between the civs where cities change hands repeatedly. I've even been attacked by large multiple stacks. But I have also seen a civ that is losing a war with another civ, not move the over 70 units that it has just sitting around. I also had a stack worn down by multiple stacks, then just when i was surrounded and too weak to survive another attack, it offers a cease fire. Talk about no killer instinct.

I'd like to have a place where people could list specific changes to files and their specific results, much like the post about increasing time in the const.txt. You definitely see better decisions by the AI later in the game, but not too much difference early.

Decreased unit costs has a HUGE impact on the AI's ability to wage war. Before reducing costs (25-33%), i rarely saw AI stacks of more than 6. Now I see stacks of 10-12 running all over the place. Since the AI uses the matching criteria to determine whether to attack, the smaller stacks rarely had the firepower necessary to attack entrenched armies. With the larger stacks, they attack more frequently and entrench alot less which also promotes more combat. But again, if you run around with 12-unit stacks, they probably dont have a mixure of units that will make them strong enough to attack you.

I also increased movement factors slightly. The AI tends to think only about this specific turn. The farther it can move in that turn, the more options it will consider.

Always, i hope ya'll get the gist of what I'm asking, so if you have a specific change, plus post it under this thread.

------------------
History is written by the victor.

[Kull]

As you guys pursue your various mods, keep in mind that the ultimate potential of CTP2 is still totally unknown. Those of us who poke around in the bowels of the ancient civ2 engine are still finding new ways to tweak the game. As an example, recent discoveries include:

1) Barbarian Wrath: A setting which creates Barbarian Hordes of between 80 and 100 units.
2) Amphibious units: A setting which allows units to travel on both land and sea.
3) Giga-maps: Maps 3 times larger than the supposed "upper limit".
4) Simultaneous Multiplayer: A setting which transforms Civ2 from turn-based to simultaneous move.
5) Life after Death: Events which allow two units to engage in combat, at the end of which neither unit is dead.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Think big, think different, but above all never say never!

Note to John Barbarossa: Praising Einstein is OK, but one doesn't have to denigrate the work of Archimedes in the process.

[hexagonian]

Generally, I'm not in favor of reducing the cost of a unit, because what you are doing then is also benefitting the player, allowing him to build more military himself.

But with the production adjustment in the diffDB file, that helps the AI have a bonus of whatever you want. Certainly not the ideal, but workable, and it was a good workaround.

As for unit selection, there are line of type in the strategies.txt file that breaks out the percentage of what the AI will build, so maybe tweaking those in conjuction with some creative relabeling of unit designations (calling a Knight a defensive instead of an attack or flanker unit in the units.txt file) will cause the AI to build more of them. You can also designate a higher level of devoted production for support costs in that file, allowing the AI to field an even bigger army without disbanding older troops, and raise the level of what the AI will tolerate for being in an 'At War' status. But these have to be balanced with the AI needing to maintain a growing infrastructure so it also does not find itself losing the tech war in the long term.

The one thing I would like to see fixed is the purely defensive stacking of the AI, especailly when faced with enemy units. I've seen 30-40 units parked outside of a city that I was attacking, and I was able to whittle down those forces without being counterattacked, before tackling the city. The AI had me seriously outgunned in numbers and could of taken out my stack if it employed a 1-2 punch, but it didn't do so. So I attacked, pulled back a bit and kept sending a steady stream of reinforcements.

And does anyone know what the Power Points line for each unit refer to in the Units.txt file? I do not have a clue on that one.

[Dale]

Don't worry, I'm an Aussie. We always think bigger than we should.

All I need now is an idea for the AI. Anyone? Anyone?

------------------
Author of Diplomod. The mod to fix diplomacy.

Rommell to a sub-commander outside Tobruk: "Those Australians are in there somewhere. But where? Let's advance and wait till they shoot, then shoot back."

[OmniGod]

v3.2 fixed that problem Saddam...

[Alpha Wolf]

I agree with all your points. At first I also bulked at lowered costs, but modifying the diffdb alone didnt give make the AI much better. Dont forget, as shipped the harder levels mean the AI simply starts far ahead, at which point the diffdb would handicap it since it was way ahead. I originally figured the barbarians would be my greatest threat and tweaked the risks file so that they are "modern"(BARBARIAN_RANK_MAX 2), numerous (MAX_HUT_BARBARIANS 6 and MAX_SPONTANEOUS_BARBARIANS 4), and frequent (BARBARIAN_HUT_CHANCE 0.5 and BARBARIAN_CHANCE 0.25). I found that unless i had 4 or 5 units defending a city by turn 20, the barbarians would wipe me out very quickly. By not starting the AI so far ahead, they arent handicapped and they greatly outproduce me. Since the barbarians prefer attacking the human player, my super aggressive barbarians keep me from steamrolling over the AIs as I'm constantly replacing lost garrison and scouting units. Every game i lose at least one major city to the barbarians and the civs collectively lose at least 3 or 4. i also think this is more realistic as barbarians were as much a historical threat as any nations. So altho it would at first seem that lowered costs benefit the human, with the other changes, it has actually made for a very competitive and enjoyable game. its not usually until at least 1500ad that I take the lead. I'm in the process of determining why the AI civs consistently seem to fall behind at that point. My guess is that I've not tweaked the advance build lists properly and they are researching something that hangs them up. Every game at least one civ and in many cases, most of the civs will get to gunpowder before me, but then i get to tanks first and then its over. I've also tweaked the unit types but be careful because you get some really screwy battle lines if you arent careful, like machine gunners in front of archers, ships in front of land units during a land battle, civilians in front line, etc. I've upped all the military support percentages (strategies.txt) to at least 35% and you are very correct that that is a necessity, but it seems to come into play only as the support costs get higher as the AI is far below the shipped percentages early in the game.

Ultimately it comes down to playing style. I'm a controlled expansionist meaning i dont go out to conquer the world from day 1. I build some scouts, a garrison, then start on buildings. I build settlers (which are still expensive) when I find strategic or highly productive locations and I only use force when my borders need additional room or I've been attacked or encroached upon. I figure the results have spoken for themselves as I'm usually on the defensive until at least 500bc and usually much later. The AIs will beat me to about 75% - 80% of the wonders and feats. i've been down to my last city as late as 200ad (didnt take the lead in that game until 1970s). had multi-ship ai navies attack me and been invaded (8 units, 2 of which were settlers) via naval transport. I've seen civs fight long pitched wars among themselves (in one case the barbarians finished off the one civs last 2 cities, hows that for realistic!). All this without any SLIC coding.

Even with these results, the AI still does whacky things and there are too many flags in too many files for me to figure out what each one does on its own so I'm hoping that others will lend their knowledge

------------------
History is written by the victor.

[hexagonian]

Currently I'm testing the early game setup situations in my mod. Some interesting things occuring regarding Barbs...

I've bumped up the Barb setting in the risk file at about the same level as what you have, though I do not have the goody hut chance set so high, and also bumping up the setting to make them a problem for longer in the game

What I've found to happen is that in just about every test I've run, the Barbs manage to take out a civ early. Then they continually crank out military from their cities they have captured. If the Barb civ is far away from me, then they become a thorn in the AI's side. From a personal preference, I would rather have the original civ in place and the Barbs be an ongoing irritant, but not to the point of having the Barbs overrrun everyone.

On the flipside, I like the fact that I continually have to keep my cities well-defended, as they are constantly popping up. And when they attack a city, even if they lose, they often reduce the pop of that city, setting me back a bit.

What I may do is push back the starting time for barbs from the default setting of 20, allowing the AI civs a chance to establish themselves. Any opinions on this?

A question - how much percentage-wise did you reduce the cost of units? In my setup, I went in the opposite direction for units cost, bumping them up a small amount. (but this is because of the AI boost in DiffDB and the fact that in my early game, there are only military and settlers to build on the tougher levels, as improvements are pushed back) I may have to reverse that trend.

Swiching AI build priorities in the AdvanceList.txt file should help - you may have to determine just what is effective for the AI to build though (and once again, this is a subjective matter), and that may mean having it build something first that goes against its personality. (Having a economic personality go for military advances first, and bump up the production support tolerance levels too)

Could you email me your risks.txt file and your diffDB.txt file to look at?

email address: hexagonia@yahoo.com

[Alpha Wolf]

I'll post the files up to my "website" late tonight when I get home from work. (about 9pm CST). There are numerous changes. Most are marked by "## JAW" but sometimes I make fast changes, or what-if changes that work and those arent always labeled.

I had the same problem at first, with the barbs wiping out entire civs. I at first simply bumped up the garrison sizes but found that the civs werent building any garrisons at all. I found a build queue list (cant remember the exact name off the top of my head) that controls which build list the AIs use. I moved the garrison list to the top of every list and since then the civs arent losing as many cities. The barbs will still wear down some garrisons, and if that city is building a wonder, the civ wont be replacing the lost units. Almost every city I see now that is taken by the barbarians is either very young and hadnt had a chance to build its garrison, or is building a wonder. And since the barabarians are equal to the toughest units currently available (not realistic but i wanted the extra challenge on the impossible level), it forces me to keep my garrisons at modern levels. No more holding my capital with a hoplite when its in the 1900s. Theres another flag in the risk file that tells how close the barbarians can appear near a city. I made it 7 so that any nation with a solid border wont have to worry about its interior cities being under constant attack. Since the AI seems to ignore the minsettledistance flag frequently, they tend to have overlapped cities thus a solid borders and only their outer cities tend to be subject to attack as the game progresses. I also start the AI civs with 3 settlers which helps them build a border faster, and gives them a small starting advantage since I almost always start with 2. I too had contemplated delaying the arrival of the barbarians, but the other changes seem to have balanced everything. My last game I saw 4 cities fall to the barbarians (not the actual cities but I saw parts of red borders on the small map). Every city was "liberated" by 500bc, altho not always by its founder. I was annoyed because I couldnt get to any of them and really needed the settlers that the disbanded cities would have provided. Unfortunately, I've received info that the barbarians are programmed to act like a civ if they capture a city, which is exactly what I see them do too often, instead of becoming the unit producing centers that I had envisioned. I'm assuming the barbarians are using the default strategy so I'll see how changing that will affect them and if it has negative effects on the actual civs.

I reduced most ancient unit costs between 25-33%, and the cost of civilians i think about 10% (I'll post my newest units file too). I'm trying to reevaluate the entire cost/support/attack/defense structure to make it correspond more to reality. I'm starting with a roman cohort (1/10 of a legion) as 500 men, and a roman cavalry was about 250. From that, I'm making most foot units 500 and mounted units 250. Then I try to figure out how many boats would be needed to transport x number of units. Based on these things is how I'm trying to determine costs. Its far from completed so I came up with some basic guesses just so I have something in case my new cost structure turns out to be totally whacked. Eventually, when these units are created, the appropriate number of people will be deducted from that city's population, or added if disbanded within a city.

My guess for my advance screw up is that I have some prequisite(s) after the the wanted advance, so that the AIs are bypassing certain advances which leaves them with only the more expensive ones to research thus dragging down their tech advancment rate. With so many advance lists, i figured i'd mess up a few.

With every strategy's support rate set at least to 35%, the AIs have plenty of room to build large armies. I did increase the benefit of bazaars/brokerages/banks to compensate ( i thought the %'s too low regardless).


------------------
History is written by the victor.

[Alpha Wolf]

risks, diffdb, and units files have been posted on my ftp site.

------------------
History is written by the victor.

[hexagonian]

Was just there, and I am glad to see that I was on the right track on a lot of what I was trying to do. I added your Barb changes to my setup, and will give it a test run tomorrow.

Spent most of the evening resetting ranged attacks as it seems that a unit has to have a minimum of 15 for a ranged attack. When adding my early units, I started out with values of 5. Playtesting revealed those units with range sitting on the front lines, when they should of been raining death from the rear...

What is the significance of the following lines in DiffDB.txt?

AI_INTELLIGENCE_FACTOR 25
AI_GANG_UP_FACTOR 25

[hexagonian]

Alpha,

The Garrison switch was the key I needed. Thanks, it is now working fine. I dropped the cost of the earliest 2 units, and it looks like the AI is holding its own at this point in time. And the Barbs really put a crimp on what you can do against the AI civs, as you cannot go right out and build cities/conquer other civs too easily at the same time.