How to improve the AI's?

[Darsnan]

So what would be the things you'd most like improved in the AI's?

To detail what I mean by each of the options above:

1. Use of planes: the AI could use these so much better than they do now. Tactical strikes, bombing missions against terrain improvements, suicide missions, attacking when damaged, attacking to overwhelm (i.e. when its probable that 4-5 planes will be destroyed, but that in the long run more than 5 defenders in a base will be destroyed), etc.

2. Use of choppers: pretty much ditto from above, as well as flying them deep into enemy territories on suicide missions against Formers, Crawlers, etc.

3. Use of Crawlers: if I could only take Archaic's brain and transpose it into the AI, how they would then use crawlers! Anyways, getting the AI's to use Crawlers more effectively, such as for heavy mineral cities, and for Super Science cities.

4. Forest-and-Forget/ Borehole strategy: Get those AI's to understand these winning concepts!

5. Naval unit use: The lessons of Operation Overlord were obviously lost on the AI's, so upgrade them from viking raiders/ pillagers into an effective triphibious assault force!

6. Focus/ Magnify AI's to attack one city/ area: all too often the AI's send units one, two, or three units at a time, only to be slaughtered over time by the hundreds by human players in carefully chosen defensive positions. But if the AI could collect a force, then launch a focalized assault, they could potentially overwhelm a human player's defensive position, or cause serious hardships/ challenges for the human player.

7. Prioritizing build queues correctly: AI's no longer building Hologram Theatres in cities that are under attack by enemy forces. AI's no longer building Tree Farms in cities that have no forest squares, etc...

8. Appropriate SE choices vs actual social setting: The AI should be able to understand that it should run FM and Wealth in peace, and Power while at war, and not the other way around....

9. Use of Carriers/ Cloudbases: The Carrier is the most powerful unit in the history of naval warfare, and Cloudbases, even though featured in the CBA SP Movie, didn't make th final cut in SMAC(X). So, simply put, teach the AI's to use these powerful units once they become available!

10. Anti-Aircraft/ Probe Cruisers/ other unique units: the AI's could be so much more difficult to defeat if they produced a few of these units.

11. AI understands and reacts to the terrain of Planet: if its 90% water, then go aquatic. If its 90 land, don't build battleships for 8 tile inland lakes. If its heavy fungus, tech beeline for worms/ Green SE, etc.

12. Concepts such as Super Science cities, Heavy Min cities: have the AI's identify likely candidates for Super Science cities (i.e. an "area" that is rich in energy) and build city enhancements in one city which will lead to a Super Science city, and identify candidate sites for high mineral cities for rush building SP's, units, etc.

13. Mimicking: the AI sees a human (or human players) aggragating units for an assault, and so does the same with its Best Weapon, Best Defender, Best Transport, Best etc for its own focalized attack. Also, if the AI sees human (or human players) grouping their SE choices for pro-peace, or pro-war, the AI mimics this as well (as a human player would if they had infiltration). If the AI sees a human's cities (or human players' cities) building either improvements or military units, it reacts accordingly.

14. AI's must negotiate for xenobananas! Well, duh, what with the market prices for xenobananas being at all-time highs!

15. Other: tell me what you think is important for an improved AI!


D

[Commy]

Have any of you ever played Shogun: Total War?

I have never seen better AI...

[Kataphraktoi]

wheres the option to say 'improve everything'?

9. Use of Carriers/ Cloudbases: The Carrier is the most powerful unit in the history of naval warfare, and Cloudbases, even though featured in the CBA SP Movie, didn't make th final cut in SMAC(X). So, simply put, teach the AI's to use these powerful units once they become available!

these units are useless in play though,the game simply isnt designed to make carrier combat feasible

Have any of you ever played Shogun: Total War?

I have never seen better AI...

is it as good as RTW or MTW? i havnt played STW but i was not impressed by the ai of the other total war games...

[Dis]

the biggest problem is keeping around too many outdated units.

[#endgame]

I voted the terraforming options: F&F/Bores, Crawlers, Unique units.

When I looked at the thread title, before I read who posted it, I was going to say "ask Darsnan, he'll know".

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by Commy
Have any of you ever played Shogun: Total War?

I have never seen better AI...

I like how the AI can see you line up your arqubuses in the front and decides to flank you from the side. And if you're on a hill raining arrows down at everyone, the AI will try and get to the same altitude as you.

Damn, even that one area where all there is, is one bridge to get to the enemy...and all he's doing is plugging you away with arrows, turning that bridge into a turkey shoot.

Gotta check to see if I still got that on my harddrive...

[Net Warrior]

Now that CMN's can give the AI Ghost Secret Project, I thought giving them all Command Nexus, CBA, & MCC would just about do the trick. Make 'em better at offence and not such pushovers on defence.

[Darsnan]

Originally posted by Net Warrior
Now that CMN's can give the AI Ghost Secret Project (i.e. give them the benefits of an SP without actually having to give them the real SP), I thought giving them all Command Nexus, CBA, & MCC would just about do the trick. Make 'em better at offence and not such pushovers on defence.

Very good thoughts, but unfortunately this is a case of "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink". Simply because you give AI's the ability, it doesn't necessarily mean they'll take advantage of it..... I've even given the alien AI's free nerve gas, and they still can't really take advantage of it the way they should (although it is interesting to see them getting the "+50% Nerve Gas Attack" when using a nuke! )

D

[Petek]

I voted for the better use of crawlers and the terraforming options. Another area for improvement would be "better use of probes", for example:

1. Defend border, port and sea bases with one or more probes.

2. Include several probes with forces that attack enemy bases. Use them for all the usual reasons (steal tech, soften defences) and also to defend captured bases from probe counterattack.

3. The AI doesn't seem to understand one standard probe tactic: When moving a probe team to an enemy base, stop one or more squares away (# of squares depends on the presence of roads, rivers, etc.). It appears that the AI always uses all its movement points and so will move the probe directly adjacent to the base, making the probe a dead duck.

[Commy]

Honestly, I think the issues about game-play, how crawlers should work, best SE and terraforming, all of that, needs to be fixed first, then recreate the AI to deal with those features...

If most of the "questionable" things in SMAC were fixed, it would be much easier to program an AI that understands it...

[Kirov]

Originally posted by Darsnan


Very good thoughts, but unfortunately this is a case of "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink". Simply because you give AI's the ability, it doesn't necessarily mean they'll take advantage of it.....

Which reminds me of a question: when you create a predesigned unit, namely Probe Team with 0 movement, would AIs build them to protect their bases?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Commy
Have any of you ever played Shogun: Total War?

I have never seen better AI...

I am not sure if we played the same game. My view is the computer players are stupid, both tactically and strategically.

Of course, having some sort of ultimate weapon that completely destroys the best plans doesn't help, either.

[Sikander]

A: I never had a problem against the AI in STW.

B: You can point an AI to victory, but you can't make them think. The game is simply too wickedly complex for the AI. Hell, we've spent several years deconstructing the game mechanics and potential tactics with large groups of intelligent people. What chance does the AI have when it is the same AI that shipped over 5 years ago?

There are two ways I can see to improve the AI. The easy way is to make this incredibly complicated game simpler (the Civ 3 approach). This has its limitations, but it could still be done much better than it was done in Civ 3 by having the human and the computer players play different games. The human would be playing a complex management game (as he does now) with a lot more nuance like personnel management, internal politics, local AI commanders rather than total tactical, strategic and political control etc. The AI would be there to do its best in more limited aspects of the game where the sheer number of factors can be significantly reduced in order to give its brute force approach a chance to pull a few surprises.

The alternative is an AI that improves over time, either alone or in conjunction with AI upgrades from the programmers. Perferably both. Every game could be uploaded to a server at Fireaxis for computer analysis. Fireaxians could troll the boards here and at CGN etc. for the latest tactics and could design countermeasures for their scripts. This of course would require an extensive investment over time for the company and probably some sort of fee for each iteration of the AI that is produced, but it also might be a blast.

[binTravkin]

I clicked all but the last two..

[Darsnan]

Originally posted by Kirov


Which reminds me of a question: when you create a predesigned unit, namely Probe Team with 0 movement, would AIs build them to protect their bases?

The AI's would build them, but the units would still have movement points - no one has discovered yet how to disable movement points for units so that they are static.

Originally posted by Sikander
The alternative is an AI that improves over time, either alone or in conjunction with AI upgrades from the programmers. Perferably both. Every game could be uploaded to a server at Fireaxis for computer analysis. Fireaxians could troll the boards here and at CGN etc. for the latest tactics and could design countermeasures for their scripts. This of course would require an extensive investment over time for the company and probably some sort of fee for each iteration of the AI that is produced, but it also might be a blast.

There are many significant variables involved in what you are describing, a few of which I'll list below:

1. MY in game: the MY is a variable and thus effects what viable tactics the AI should employ: a rush of infantry/ NL/ speeders will work exceptionally well before aircraft, OK after needlejets are employed, but would be massacred after choppers have entered the scene.

2. Each game is extremely individualistc in that it takes on the personality(s) of the individuals involved. Different players play the game differently, and so because of this one player may arrive at a point on a map at MY22XX, however how they arrived at that location can and probably will differ significantly from another player exposed to a similar environment. This then would make any "modelling" pretty much moot.

3. The physical makeup of Planet: 30% Ocean/ 50% Ocean/ or 70% Ocean? Combined with the shapes of the available landmasses. Combined with little rainfall/ moderate rainfall/ or heavy rainfall? Combined with little NL/ Average NL/ Heavy NL, combined with the mix of which human controlled Factions versus AI controlled Factions, etc.
All of these factors would also need to be taken into account as well, including initial placement of Factions upon landing on Planet. Very difficult to catalogue.

4. The learning curve of humans: human player x plays one way in a game. Player x matures over time. Player x encounters same circumstances in a new game. Player x employs new, learned strategies, against the AI.

5. AI/ Human relationships: can an AI comprehend the difference between a human desperate for an AI's support in a joint attack, versus a human's intent of committing an AI's forces to destruction, thus bleeding dry an AI's reserve in order for the human to attack it personally?

While ideally I understand the logic behind the argument, I can say empirically speaking that there are simply too many variables to ever see this idea through to fruition. It would take years to build the database described, and in the meantime the AI's continueally uploading the latest "best guess scenarios" would too often missfire, ending in ruined games for a lot of human players involved. And by the time the database would reach fruition (i.e. where the law of averages would really begin to take hold) the game would probably be on the way to becoming obsolete, if not already obsolete.


D