Terrain city bonus

[Gilgamensch]

How do you want to make the AI recognising groups?

Also if all units are the same distance how should the AI evaluate?

Let's make it easy, you attack with 36 warriors,
1 army (12 units), 2 armies with 6 each, and the rest in groups of 2.

And they are overall at the same distance. For the human, he could easily re-group the groups and attack with any stack. But how does the AI want to defend against it?

Again let's make it easy, the AI would have 10 cities, 2 in the middle and the rest on a circle around it. The human would attack with the above mentioned stacks from all directions, will the AI also use it's 'internal' defenders to distribute around, trying to equalize the forces?


Mentioning the 'bad' behaviour: Is it somewhere a place in SLIC, where you determine, which stacks the AI should use? Could it be done, depending on the oponents abilities?

All this would kind of include some cheating, but .........

Examples:

The enemy has produced bombers, therefore assign fighters as garrision.
The enemy is using stacks of tanks, so produce bomber-stacks to attack.
The enemy has canon (whatever long range), so include those as well into stacks.

Reason, why I mention it, I had it, we all had artillery and he was still using his old bombard (not sure about the name, playing the German version by now......). Not really useful.......

About the numbers and his behaviour:

In another thread something was mentioned about two values in one of the files, which gave 'priority' to either pillaging or conquering. Don't know if you read this one........

[MrBaggins]

Pictographic example.

Sea scale (to the left) is condensed.

Numbers on the island are 'free defenders'.

[MrBaggins]

example 2... notice the new disposition of the free defenders.

[MrBaggins]

example 3... notice that the attacked side is further favored, moreso where the larger threat is present.

[MrBaggins]

Groupings are done as follows:

The distance from each each unit 'threat' is measured from each of your cities.

This generates a 'virtual direction'.

Other units which are close to each other will have similar virtual directions... that is the percentage of distances that closely match will be large.

Units that match to a certain percentage are thus grouped, for purposes of threat determination.

[Gilgamensch]

For attacks coming from the same site, it would work (quite nicely), but what if you would have stacks coming from all directions? (espacially if you would have 3*6 attacking in your case from the east?)

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
*SNIP*
And they are overall at the same distance. For the human, he could easily re-group the groups and attack with any stack. But how does the AI want to defend against it?

'Regrouping' will ultimately mean that the grouped units are ultimately closer to one point, than another.

Initially, the AI will have a generalized sense of defensive concentration. The closer the threat gets, the more definite it is.

Again let's make it easy, the AI would have 10 cities, 2 in the middle and the rest on a circle around it. The human would attack with the above mentioned stacks from all directions, will the AI also use it's 'internal' defenders to distribute around, trying to equalize the forces?

Eventually, yes... the closer the threat the more exponentially threatening it is.

Mentioning the 'bad' behaviour: Is it somewhere a place in SLIC, where you determine, which stacks the AI should use? Could it be done, depending on the oponents abilities?

You can't describe the map, or individual threats to the strategic AI... You'd have to override the AI, using SLIC to a certain degree to achieve this.

All this would kind of include some cheating, but .........

Examples:

The enemy has produced bombers, therefore assign fighters as garrision.
The enemy is using stacks of tanks, so produce bomber-stacks to attack.
The enemy has canon (whatever long range), so include those as well into stacks.

Reason, why I mention it, I had it, we all had artillery and he was still using his old bombard (not sure about the name, playing the German version by now......). Not really useful.......

Easy to do... you can easily tell what is being produced by an enemy... so you could play a little 'paper-scissors-stone' game... matching the 'threat' with an appropriate defense.

The AI should be well supplied with appropriate tech: it gets automatic upgrades, and coupled with some knowledge dissemination, it should never be so far behind as to be antiquated.

Matching threat with specific defense does complicate things a little (how do you split up troops when you have 'imperfect' resources?)

About the numbers and his behaviour:

In another thread something was mentioned about two values in one of the files, which gave 'priority' to either pillaging or conquering. Don't know if you read this one........

Yes, I've read it... Its a little off-topic, but these do need to be at least looked at.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
For attacks coming from the same site, it would work (quite nicely), but what if you would have stacks coming from all directions? (espacially if you would have 3*6 attacking in your case from the east?)

If the threats proximities are the west and the east... then the defensive priorities are the west and the east. Closer proximity means a more exponentially 'valuable' threat... so both sides would be more 'threatened' than the center.

In your example, roughly 48 troops per coast would be matching up with the 18 attackers on each coast.

Not bad odds...

MrBaggins

[Tamerlin]

All the ideas exposed here are very interesting but I think the AI could be much more threatening if it could be taught to attack when it has an advantage. In my current SAP2 game my main opponent had three stacks of 10 to 12 units while my supply lines were thin. The AI could have launched a counterattack that would have inflicted me several bad blows. Instead of attacking these stacks have been used to pillage my TI which let me the time to strengthen my cities and finally attack the lingering stacks. Frankly, I don't know if I would have been able to recover should the AI had attacked when it was time to do so.

[mapfi]

Hey MrBaggins, this concept looks quite interesting. The whole thing should be worked out with Frenzy, producing a real complete overhaul of that script.

on a side note, I don't think we should give the AI knowledge of the enemies troups though.

[Gilgamensch]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
All the ideas exposed here are very interesting but I think the AI could be much more threatening if it could be taught to attack when it has an advantage. In my current SAP2 game my main opponent had three stacks of 10 to 12 units while my supply lines were thin. The AI could have launched a counterattack that would have inflicted me several bad blows. Instead of attacking these stacks have been used to pillage my TI which let me the time to strengthen my cities and finally attack the lingering stacks. Frankly, I don't know if I would have been able to recover should the AI had attacked when it was time to do so.

Tamerlin,

for your problem try to find the threat, which I mentioned above (sorry, can't remember the title). those values actually change a lot the AI's behaviour. Those values determines weather the AI will attack or just pillage. It was quite recent, so try a search with pillaging.

[MrBaggins]

I believe the issue with the non-aggressiveness lies in two areas:

1) There are many more 'targets' of opportunity to pillage or 'HARASS'.

2) The AI is unaware of ablative attacks...
I.E. a single massed assault may not work, but multiple attacks could 'solve' the problem. All 'Free-Attackers' should be organized for efficiency, and then, if viable, attack.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by mapfi
Hey MrBaggins, this concept looks quite interesting. The whole thing should be worked out with Frenzy, producing a real complete overhaul of that script.

The Frenzy code has a disadvantage as diplomacy becomes almost useless. It is extremely difficult to reach an agreement with the AI civs and they don't bother to respect it.

...on a side note, I don't think we should give the AI knowledge of the enemies troups though.

I agree with you, this is typically the kind of cheat that can detract me from a game because it considerably reduces the strategical depht of a game (IMHO the Civ3 AI behavior is ridiculous). How can you build a strategy when you don't know the rules your opponent must respect? Though this is certainly coming from the fact I am playing tabletop wargames and boardgames I really don't like this.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
Tamerlin,

for your problem try to find the threat, which I mentioned above (sorry, can't remember the title). those values actually change a lot the AI's behaviour. Those values determines weather the AI will attack or just pillage. It was quite recent, so try a search with pillaging.

I have already altered the datas following Dale's advices (I suppose this is the thread you are talking about though I can't remember the name), the AI is more prone to attack with my settings but it can still be improved. The problem is I don't like to tinker with the settings by myself as I don't really know what I am doing. I am new to modding and I don't have any knowledge of programming languages.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
2) The AI is unaware of ablative attacks...
I.E. a single massed assault may not work, but multiple attacks could 'solve' the problem. All 'Free-Attackers' should be organized for efficiency, and then, if viable, attack.

This is one of the main problem, the AI would have taken over several of my cities without any problem if it had been able to use such a tactic.