AGEOD Forums

Playing the 1756 scenario as the French, and am doing very well.

The British have had 3 regular and 1 militia units sitting in Acadia with General Lawrence for over a year without attacking the city of St Jean nearby which has only 1 militia unit.

The British have also a strong army (6 units) in Fort Necessity for some time, but have made no attempt to attack or threaten Ft Duquesne. They have only made one raid on a nearby Indian village.

I am playing on second level of difficulty with extra AI thinking on. Can you tweak the AI to be a bit more aggressive, or at least have the AI send units out to scout nearby towns and forts to see what the garrison strength are, in order to make an better informed move/attack plan. Or will higher difficulty levels make the AI more aggressive?

Excellent game - the most fun I have had with a computer wargame since Panzer General II! Great support - thanks for the quick patches.

Altough of course this doesnt necessarily mean that the AI is doing it right, but my first game was doing the 1755 campaign as Brits, whereas my agressive approach, coupled with my lack of apprecation for weather and supply, made my whole war into one bloody disaster.

I think DGold is right. In fact the problem is a bit complex, but the result is has he said. Sometime the AI consider too much the overall strategic situation and keep too strong defences, even if local opportunities served on a silver plate are nearby. (take note that generally the AI in other games think opposite to that, by moving into a local trap without considering the overall strategic situation)

I know of this problem and I will work on that too.

Pocus wrote:I think DGold is right. In fact the problem is a bit complex, but the result is has he said. Sometime the AI consider too much the overall strategic situation and keep too strong defences, even if local opportunities served on a silver plate are nearby. (take note that generally the AI in other games think opposite to that, by moving into a local trap without considering the overall strategic situation)

I know of this problem and I will work on that too.

Thanks for the reply, Pocus. Glad to hear you will work on this issue.

Could not the AI be programmed to undertake local scouting missions with Indians or Militia units - to seek out easy local targets?

Also, the forces tied up in Acadia for a year (in my example) would have been much more useful either: sieging Louisbourg or helping to defend Albany against the French.

I do not share the last analysis: forces in Nova Scotia would take almost 6 months to reach New England by land, while leaving NS unprotected all the time (and Halifax is a key English strategic town)...
This would open the door for a French raid there...

So, comparing the time lost / assets at risk, the AI decision there is wise.

I think the AI is rather good.

My only suggestion, as I made in another thread here, is to tweak it so AI forces seek winter quarters sooner. I have this mental picture of AI soldiers with ice on their beards and covered with snow....and the AI general finally says, "You know, we should probably encamp somewhere...let's march all winter in a blizzard until we find a nice place."

Regards,
Feltan

Yes, this is all the more important...and in addition very realistic...Apart from Washington 1776's december campaign (Trenton & Princeton), there was almost no winter operations in those 18th Century wars...

Funny ...I think the AI is rather "Good"...... I'm playing Full Campgain FIW....getting ready to Assault Fort Oswego.... When a British Relief Force shows up leure: and Foils my ..feeble Militia/Indian Horde...
I was playing on the Normal mode........

I do agree with the taking "Winter Quarters Earlier"...I was entering Winter...thinking that my French men were safe...... until a Siege is setup on Fort Duquesne...in November.... We held...but those poor Brits...froze their "Bum's Off"......

PhilThib wrote:I do not share the last analysis: forces in Nova Scotia would take almost 6 months to reach New England by land, while leaving NS unprotected all the time (and Halifax is a key English strategic town)...
This would open the door for a French raid there...

So, comparing the time lost / assets at risk, the AI decision there is wise.

I meant to send them by sea, not land - much faster. Can the French fleet show up in this scenario to raid British ports? I haven't seen them yet.

Thanks.

D.J. Hawkman wrote:Funny ...I think the AI is rather "Good"...... I'm playing Full Campgain FIW....getting ready to Assault Fort Oswego.... When a British Relief Force shows up leure: and Foils my ..feeble Militia/Indian Horde...
I was playing on the Normal mode........

I do agree with the taking "Winter Quarters Earlier"...I was entering Winter...thinking that my French men were safe...... until a Siege is setup on Fort Duquesne...in November.... We held...but those poor Brits...froze their "Bum's Off"......

On my first US campaign the Brits got me down to only Pittsburgh as my only objective town due to a really stupid mistake on my part at the start, however I managed to come back and hold basically everything and lost by like 5 points on score. However the English seem quite easy against the AI even on the hard settings. My second try with the english by 1781 I had everything aside from the French Indies and the Spanish town captured.

This discussion is excellent and should lead to AI improvements. I am now playing at the hardest AI level with the "extra thinking time" option thrown in. It's the greatest, but I am holding my own and then some so far. Still, the AI is a worthy opponent, much more so than AIs you see thrown together haphazardly in other games.

As the old curmudgeon I am, I have one piece of advice to throw in from the "for what it's worth" department. Be careful when "tweaking" things on the basis of forum suggestions. I have seen much harm done to games by another publisher (which shall remain nameless, but its initials are Matrix Games) from hasty database changes that don't wind up fixing anything and break things that weren't broken before. Many of these changes were made in response to popular clamor for this, that, and the other.

It ruined things for me, and I have sworn off ever buying games from them again as a result. Designs that had some potential (though poorly developed) went completely awry in the rush to keep the masses happy. Remember that this is YOUR design, and it needs only be changed because YOU think it is necessary after being thoroughly persuaded of the necessity for the change.

Please. AGEOD has done marvelous work with this design by deciding on a specifically organized plan working toward a clearly defined objective.

With that, I crawl back under my rock, grumbling and mumbling as I go, and resume trying to save the colonies from British hegemony ...

pasternakski wrote: Be careful when "tweaking" things on the basis of forum suggestions. I have seen much harm done to games by another publisher (which shall remain nameless, but its initials are Matrix Games) from hasty database changes that don't wind up fixing anything and break things that weren't broken before. Many of these changes were made in response to popular clamor for this, that, and the other.

It ruined things for me, and I have sworn off ever buying games from them again as a result. Designs that had some potential (though poorly developed) went completely awry in the rush to keep the masses happy. Remember that this is YOUR design, and it needs only be changed because YOU think it is necessary after being thoroughly persuaded of the necessity for the change.

Please. AGEOD has done marvelous work with this design by deciding on a specifically organized plan working toward a clearly defined objective.

Amen brother! Amen...I can't really add any else except: ditto

[quote="Hell Patrol"]Amen brother! Amen...I can't really add any else except: ditto ]


Same Here!!!!!! Well said...........

It is Truely Refreshing to have such "Quick Responses" from the Dev Team!!!!

[quote="Hell Patrol"]Amen brother! Amen...I can't really add any else except: ditto ]

Amen! I couldn't agree more, unless it is my suggestion of course.

Regards,
Feltan

PhilThib wrote:Yes, this is all the more important...and in addition very realistic...Apart from Washington 1776's december campaign (Trenton & Princeton), there was almost no winter operations in those 18th Century wars...

Speaking of suggestions.....

You are correct about winter campaigns in the 18th Century. Sitting comfortably in a centrally heated and well insulated house with a well stocked refrigerator, we forget how close to nature these people lived. Winter for them was a time of hardship and privation.

I might suggest also that activation levels for leaders in frozen or snow areas be reduced. An offensive during these conditions should really be rare, and surprise to the defender!

Regards,
Feltan

'[FS wrote: Feltan']Speaking of suggestions.....

You are correct about winter campaigns in the 18th Century. Sitting comfortably in a centrally heated and well insulated house with a well stocked refrigerator, we forget how close to nature these people lived. Winter for them was a time of hardship and privation.

I might suggest also that activation levels for leaders in frozen or snow areas be reduced. An offensive during these conditions should really be rare, and surprise to the defender!

Regards,
Feltan

Excellent suggestion...

I would add:

If a leader is in a winter/frozen area, then it should increase the likelihood of being in a frozen state and once activated, does not suffer a check again until the next winter season. This way we aren't held down by a month but rather local weather conditions, but also allows for a washingtonian trenton attack once put in motion it won't be stopped by an arbitrary bad 'dice roll'...

About features, we either add the ones that are already planned in our 'to do' list, or the ones requested by people, if we agree with the asked feature.

As for winter quarter, its not just a question of activation, as an unactivated leader can still operate. Its more about the diminished interest of seeking an objective, if you have to travel thru blizzard Also note that supply train can somehow enable you to make an operation in winter, even if the pace of it will be slow. So in case of a particularly juicy target, not too far, even the blizzard wont stop the computer (in 1.02, still working on the new algorithm*).


*: no y in algorithm please

Hi.
Very nice game!

(take note that generally the AI in other games think opposite to that, by moving into a local trap without considering the overall strategic situation)

They sure do and I very glad that you try to do it otherwise!
Please keep to your original plan and don't make the AI overly aggresiv. I play
at normal AI aggressivnes(only my second campaign).Is there someone who has played with AI on the third and most aggressiv level?
Is there a big difference?

Pocus,

I understand that you are working on tweaking the AI. Here are more AI observations:

I just played and won my first game (526 vs. 266 VP) as the French in the 1757 scenario, with extra AI help and at the 2nd difficulty level.

During the last year or so of the game I was aware of 3 large British Armies doing very little:

In the Cape Breton area an army of 1 general, 8 inf reg, 1 art and 1 supply sat for at least 6 turns doing nothing. In the area just East was Louisbourg with only 3 reg, 1 art. Why did the British army not besiege Louisbourg? They had sea superiority as they had beaten the French fleet twice, so they could have blockaded the port.

In Acadia an army of 1 general, 5 reg, 1 art and 3 supply sat doing nothing for many turns while nearby the French town of St Jean had only 1 militia unit, but was never attacked. This army should have sent a scouting unit to St Jean to check on the French strength. The AI could then have made an informed decision to attack.

In Fort Cumberland an army of 2 generals, 8 inf and 2 supply moved one area towards Ft Duquesne and sat there for numerous turns, then moved back to Fort Cumberland. This army should have sent a scouting unit to Ft Duquesne (2 areas away) to check on the French strength - which was weaker than the British. The AI could then have made an informed decision whether to attack.

Waiting here for today's patch to start a new game.

All I can add to the above is that please while improving the AI, ensure that you dont make it overly agressive. I have been playing myself like that, and its absolutely suicidal.

hi gentlemen,

Yes thats the difficulty: the AI must be clever and take more opportunities, without being reckless. That asks for time and many tests to get the good recipes, but I'm sure that something great will emerge (and I like coding AI, its like trying to tame a young tiger ).

DGold: I would need your savegame, it can speed my process of identifying weaknesses in AI.

pasternakski wrote:
It ruined things for me, and I have sworn off ever buying games from them again as a result. Designs that had some potential (though poorly developed) went completely awry in the rush to keep the masses happy. Remember that this is YOUR design, and it needs only be changed because YOU think it is necessary after being thoroughly persuaded of the necessity for the change.

...

Exactly ! It's great to see veteran players have such a mature opinion.
As you said , Paternakski , "keeping the masses happy" at all costs is surely the best way to lose the "spirit of independence" , the one which leads to the best ideas in terms of gameplay or design.