Enhanced AI and Officers

Advanced Tactics is a versatile turn-based strategy system that gives gamers the chance to wage almost any battle in any time period. The initial release focuses on World War II and includes a number of historical scenarios as well as a full editor! This forum supports both the original Advanced Tactics and the new and improved Advanced Tactics: Gold Edition.

Moderator: Vic

ghoward
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 8:32 pm

RE: Enhanced AI (Maritime)

Post by ghoward »

Hi Lancer
I started a random game using the 8 apr version of ERM_EAI_NATO_v214 (Webizen's nato version of your mod). He has upgraded now it to your apr 10 release. I spent a long time generating a map that I think is about perfect for your maritime work, and I saved it as a scenario before I started playing. Can I now edit that scenario to link in your (well, Webizen's) newer (apr 10) of the masterfile so I can use the same map and starting positions, or is there more to it?
lancer
Posts: 2963
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:56 am

RE: Enhanced AI (Maritime)

Post by lancer »

Hi Barerabbit,

Mmmm. Don't think that this is doable. It's a one and a half hour job for me to upgrade a masterfile and, even knowing what I do now, I still find ways to mess it up.

You could stick with your map along with the april 8 version of the masterfile if you aren't fussed about the latest tweaks to the Officers (they work fine without them) and the new feature above. As the additional feature serves to ramp up the difficulty even further I'd give yourself a 'training' game with the original masterfile and your favourite map (has it got both Oil and Raw on your home island?) before stepping up.

The difficulty is on a slow burner in that it ratchets up as the game progresses. Assuming you've selected the 'Iron Man' option if you can make it to turn 150 with the standard AI you've done well. If you're still standing by turn 200 then give yourself a medal.

This will vary depending on your specific start options and the map your are playing on (number of AI ports) but, in general, you're mentioned in dispatches at t100, given a promotion at t150 and will have strange women throwing themselves at you in a frenzy of hero worship at t200.

Have fun.

Cheers,
Lancer
ghoward
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 8:32 pm

RE: Enhanced AI (Maritime)

Post by ghoward »

Hi Webizen
With nERM_EAI_Officer_214.at2 (dated 10 APR) as masterfile, which I assume to be your "NATOized" version of Lancers masterfile ERM_EAI_Officer_214.at2 (dated 10 APR), I am getting a consistent Error in Check Command, Event 272, Lines 188 and 191. I am not getting this error with Lancers non "NATOized" masterfile, but It doesn't look to ne like it really has anything to do with the nato stuff. Your masterfile nERM_EAI_Officers_v214.at2 (dated 8 APR) worked like a charm. I have made the permanent change to nato graphics on my system (so I get nato with either masterfile) and that may be the basis of the problem if you can't duplicate it.
User avatar
Tac2i
Posts: 2078
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:57 pm
Location: WV USA

RE: Enhanced AI (Maritime)

Post by Tac2i »

I'll give it a look this evening. When does this happen? Loading? While playing?

Anyone else seeing this? It ran ok on my test.
ORIGINAL: barerabbit

Hi Webizen
With nERM_EAI_Officer_214.at2 (dated 10 APR) as masterfile, which I assume to be your "NATOized" version of Lancers masterfile ERM_EAI_Officer_214.at2 (dated 10 APR), I am getting a consistent Error in Check Command, Event 272, Lines 188 and 191. I am not getting this error with Lancers non "NATOized" masterfile, but It doesn't look to ne like it really has anything to do with the nato stuff. Your masterfile nERM_EAI_Officers_v214.at2 (dated 8 APR) worked like a charm. I have made the permanent change to nato graphics on my system (so I get nato with either masterfile) and that may be the basis of the problem if you can't duplicate it.
Tac2i (formerly webizen)
ghoward
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 8:32 pm

RE: Enhanced AI (Maritime)

Post by ghoward »

ORIGINAL: Webizen

I'll give it a look this evening. When does this happen? Loading? While playing?

Anyone else seeing this? It ran ok on my test.
ORIGINAL: barerabbit

Hi Webizen
With nERM_EAI_Officer_214.at2 (dated 10 APR) as masterfile, which I assume to be your "NATOized" version of Lancers masterfile ERM_EAI_Officer_214.at2 (dated 10 APR), I am getting a consistent Error in Check Command, Event 272, Lines 188 and 191. I am not getting this error with Lancers non "NATOized" masterfile, but It doesn't look to ne like it really has anything to do with the nato stuff. Your masterfile nERM_EAI_Officers_v214.at2 (dated 8 APR) worked like a charm. I have made the permanent change to nato graphics on my system (so I get nato with either masterfile) and that may be the basis of the problem if you can't duplicate it.
I had a SCENARIO (not a save) that I created from a random that used the apr 8 nERM_EAI_Officers_v214.at as master. Today I downloaded the apr 10 bundle and disconnected the apr 8 master and connected the apr 10 master to the scenario, saving it under a new name. When I ran the lobotomized scenario, I got these errors for the first time(1 set for each AI player, I think) during the AI turn. It didn't appear to do any harm, and the new apr 10 changes were working, as far as I could tell. Now here is the funny thing. I started a new random game using nERM_EAI_Officer_214.at2 (nato,dated 10 APR), the one I had connected to the older scenario, and got the same errors. A new random created with ERM_EAI_Officer_214.at2 (non nato,dated 10 APR) worked fine, until I tried to connect that masterfile to the older scenario also without luck. After that the issue appeared with new randoms created with apr 10 non nato as well as the nato version. Reinstalling from the atzip to overwrite the files did not resolve the issue with randoms for either masterfile. So what it means is that trying to connect a master to a scenario it was not origanally created with it corrupts something associated with the masterfile that isn't corrected by reinstalling fron the atzip (Lancer warned my not to try it, but I couldn't help myself). It also means I did it, and you shouldn't waste your evening on it. If I have to reload everything, it is no big deal, but I am really curious about what got corrupted. Thanks to both of you for the mod.

If you want to look at this, I just ran about 20 scenarios and got this problem with xx-large and oceania or better. With more land or less water I didn't see the symptom. Try xx-large,6player, oceania,map loop, 1town, use resourses, full range climate, in extra- small, norm, norm, limit roads, and natural coastlines. at start use no fog, hide realtime, ERM, EAI. look for Error in Check command in event #272, line 188 in round events before player #1 (human) comes up. I now think this has nothing to do with connecting these masterfiles, but rather something with large amounts of water and the apr 10 relese changes.
User avatar
Tac2i
Posts: 2078
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:57 pm
Location: WV USA

RE: Enhanced AI (Maritime)

Post by Tac2i »

Ok, thanks barerabbit for that info. I did publish a minor refresh today unrelated to your issue. Basically just some text changes within the officers module. I think I'm done until Matrix or Lancer releases another update to ATG.
Tac2i (formerly webizen)
ghoward
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 8:32 pm

RE: Enhanced AI (Maritime)

Post by ghoward »

Thanks for your help. I was able to duplicate the error on a second computer, so it has nothing to do with either the NATO stuff, or disconnecting masterfiles. I think Lancer will be able to duplicate it as well, so I imagine it will get fixed next time around.
User avatar
Tac2i
Posts: 2078
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:57 pm
Location: WV USA

RE: Enhanced AI (Maritime)

Post by Tac2i »

Re event #272: I'm not a coder but after looking at that event in the editor, it seems to deal with map size and amount of ocean.
Tac2i (formerly webizen)
lancer
Posts: 2963
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:56 am

RE: Enhanced AI (Maritime)

Post by lancer »

Hi Barerabbit,

I went back and read the rest of your post and I can indeed duplicate the error using the settings you mention.

Leave it with me and I'll investigate.

Cheers,
Lancer
lancer
Posts: 2963
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:56 am

RE: Enhanced AI (Maritime)

Post by lancer »

Hi Barerabbit,

Found the problem. I've made a logic error with my calculations for XXL and XXXL maps that generate coordinates outside of the map range.

I didn't bother to do any tests with maps that size as I didn't think anybody used them. Which is probably why I'm not running Microsoft.

Anyway, thanks for finding the bug. Easily fixed but I won't put out a new version of the masterfile (it's a big job) until I've got something new to throw into the pot. Give it a week or two.

In the meantime avoid playing those big *ssed maps. XL and smaller are fine.

Cheers,
Lancer

ghoward
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 8:32 pm

RE: Enhanced AI (Maritime)

Post by ghoward »

Thanks alot and take your time. Right now I have a game going with the apr8 release and an xx map. I expect to be at it for quite some time.
ghoward
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 8:32 pm

RE: Enhanced AI (Maritime)

Post by ghoward »

Thanks a lot and take your time. Right now I have a game going with the Apr08 release and an XXL map. I expect to be at it for quite some time.

OOPS
User avatar
Tac2i
Posts: 2078
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:57 pm
Location: WV USA

RE: Enhanced AI (Maritime)

Post by Tac2i »

Feedback:

1) I think the partisans ability to destroy completely a factory, airfield, port, etc. is a bit too much. Damage it yes, wipe it out completely no.

2) 100 rifles to protect your factory, airfield, port, etc from any chance of being destroyed also seems a bit much to me. Perhaps that should be set at 50 or 75 at most.

3) Just curious but on a standard random game on an X-Large map a save game file is 600KB. The same map size with your mod a save game file is 2.4MB. Why the large difference?
Tac2i (formerly webizen)
lancer
Posts: 2963
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:56 am

RE: Enhanced AI (Maritime)

Post by lancer »

Hi Webizen,
1) I think the partisans ability to destroy completely a factory, airfield, port, etc. is a bit too much. Damage it yes, wipe it out completely no.

As this feature is a touch controversial it deserves a detailed answer. I'm sure others are interested in this as well so I'll put up a separate info post shortly.
2) 100 rifles to protect your factory, airfield, port, etc from any chance of being destroyed also seems a bit much to me. Perhaps that should be set at 50 or 75 at most.

As above
3) Just curious but on a standard random game on an X-Large map a save game file is 600KB. The same map size with your mod a save game file is 2.4MB. Why the large difference?

The mod keeps track of a lot of data. It keeps files on all manner of stuff in order that it can do things like create a transport network and change into it's Clark Kent AI multicoloured tights and cape.

Thanks for the feedback.

Cheers,
Lancer
User avatar
Jafele
Posts: 776
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:27 am
Location: Seville (Spain)
Contact:

RE: Enhanced AI (Maritime)

Post by Jafele »

In my opinion the number of rifles proctecting factories and partisans need a proportion depending on population size. A small country doesn´t need so many rifles and damage caused by partisans won´t be the same than in a big country with tons of trains.
Las batallas contra las mujeres son las únicas que se ganan huyendo.

NAPOLEÓN BONAPARTE


Cuando el necio oye la verdad se carcajea, porque si no lo hiciera la verdad no sería la verdad.

LAO TSE
lancer
Posts: 2963
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:56 am

RE: Enhanced AI (Maritime)

Post by lancer »

Sabotage or how to love the The Big Bang!


At a certain point into the game you'll receive a message regarding Partisans and Saboteurs. Like thus.


Image


It is as it says. From here on in there will be intermittent attempts to blow your facilities (ports, shipyards and airbases, not just factories) to kingdom come. (This has nothing to do with the occasional partisan attempt against your trains and rolling stock as that's a seperate part of the mod)

To avoid this you need to have a garrison in place (in the same hex) of, ideally, 100 riflemen. Anything less and you run a proportional risk of having your facility destroyed. Eg. if you had only 70 rifleman then you would have a 30% chance of destruction.

How often are these attempts made? Not often. In fact the base chance is deliberately set at a point where, by the time it arrives, you'll have probably forgotten about it and will have unguarded facilities. The frequency increases once you start capturing cities with Foreign People in them. Now while you may be a culturally aware warmonger of a sensitive disposition all those foreigners that are swarming around the streets of your recently conquered city don't much like you.

There is a random roll each turn to see if the event activates (eg. saboteurs and partisans sneak out of the woods). The threshold is set at a very low point adjusted upwards +1% for every foreign city you have captured and +4% for every foreign capital (they really don't like you). As you conquer more land you can expect a higher frequency (it's capped at a reasonable level to prevent silly behaviour).

If an event activates then each of your relevant facilities are checked in turn. A random 1d100 roll is made vs. the size of the garrison as mentioned above. With a 100 rifleman garrison you are bulletproof, anything less and you are running a risk. There's a report that tells you all the details.

So that's the game mechanic. Why is it there and why is it designed that way?


Designer Notes

Historically any military conflict that has involved one side invading another's homeland has resulted in significant numbers of the invaders troops being tied down protecting infrastructure. The Roman Empire, the Union invading the South during the ACW and the Germans in Russia are all good examples.

My aim was to provide some means of reflecting the difficulty of holding conquered ground. I played around with randomly generating actual partisan units or destroying sections of a player's rail network. Both of these approaches served to provide a good simulation but they weren't much fun game wise. 'Whack a Mole' comes to mind.

The advantage of the system as it is currently designed is that it involves minimal micromanagement while doing a reasonable job of representing the need for standing garrisons to protect your infrastructure.

Where it falls apart a little bit is where a player thinks that this is a lot of armed soldiers to protect a factory. Jeez, the tractor factory down the road is watched over by a night guard and a dog.


Image


However the individual factory or shipyard, etc. that they are protecting isn't just that single facility. It is a whole range of related industrial, military facilities and associated transport links. The soldiers aren't down the road at the tractor factory standing shoulder to shoulder with guns pointing outwards. They are scattered over different parts of town and in the nearby countryside protecting bridges, rail interchanges and stuff like power grids.

Why the 100 soldiers? I needed an arbitary number of men and decided on this number of riflemen. They're the grunts that do the hard yards including standing in the rain at midnight down at Charlies Rubber Gasket Making plant, without which your Tank factory will grind to a halt.

One hundred turned out to be a good number because it translated to an equivalent random 1d100 roll. I originally scaled it with map sizes but found that this wasn't necessary as the system turned out to be 'self levelling'. For example on a small map you are going to build a lot fewer facilities than on a much larger one but the proportion of soldiers needed as garrisons is roughly the same as on the larger one.

Believe it or not I did some calculations on this. Works out close enough.

Then there is the question of whether, if the bad guys manage to sneak in and plant the bombs, what effect should there be? Orginally the facilities were only damaged. Didn't work. You hardly noticed it. Why bother?

It wasn't meaningful. It didn't hurt. Same with the garrison size. Under one hundred men and it was just a nuisance. With one hundred and, potentially destroyed facilities, it matters. It requires you to make trade-off decisions. Start building lots of facilities willy nilly and you'll soon run short of manpower. Ignore garrisons and you'll run out of facilities.

In the end all of the above turned out to be secondary to the most important consideration of all. The AI. The standard ATG AI builds heaps of factories. Don't tell anyone but they are mostly decoration. Nor has the AI got much of a clue about what to do with them.

Try turning off the Fog of war and watching what happens at an artillery factory. Endless streams of units (provided it's not an 'AI ghost factory') consisting of nothing but artillery units. Usually mixed artillery units. Heading off to the frontline to get slaughtered.

Compare this to a player building an artillery factory. He will produce whatever is required to carry out his goals and will ensure that artillery SFT's are well protected and provided with adequate transport when and if required. I'm being a bit harsh on the AI here as it's not quite that bad but in terms of factory utilisation it is where the little boat was. Behind.

Basically factories are a huge free kick to the player. In any game if you can manage to fend off the AI's initial swarm tactics you'll soon find yourself ramping up your industrial capacity in line with your resource base. The Enhanced Resource option aims to slow you down here but you'll still be able to enventually build so many factories that you'll one day be fielding an overwhelming force.

You're not beating the AI through superior tactics and strategy (you might but they aren't usually the key deciders), you are overwhelming them with your industrial might.

It's even worse than this because all those spawned AI factories that you capture only serve to accelerate the process.

The sabotage game mechanic covers all the bases mentioned above but it's overiding purpose is to put a limit on the number of factories and facilities that the player can build (or capture). Without this the AI, not matter how enhanced, hasn't got a hope.

Personally I also like the fact that facilities have become more important and more of a nuanced decision. Before I just built heaps of them whenever I could. Building facilities are now no longer a no-brainer decision.


Image


I'm open to alternative views and suggestions but, 'cause I made the mod, I get to have a lot of votes on the matter and may take a fair bit of persuading.


Cheers,

Lancer






User avatar
Jafele
Posts: 776
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:27 am
Location: Seville (Spain)
Contact:

RE: Enhanced AI (Maritime)

Post by Jafele »

Ok Lancer see your point, it is reasonable [;)] that big countries have many factories/ports so it will require more rifles to protect them.
Las batallas contra las mujeres son las únicas que se ganan huyendo.

NAPOLEÓN BONAPARTE


Cuando el necio oye la verdad se carcajea, porque si no lo hiciera la verdad no sería la verdad.

LAO TSE
User avatar
Tac2i
Posts: 2078
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:57 pm
Location: WV USA

RE: Enhanced AI (Maritime)

Post by Tac2i »

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I can live with it though I still think it a bit much that if the Partisans and Saboteurs are successful, your facility is completely raised to the ground. You will have to spend another 80PPs plus whatever raw it takes to rebuild it from scratch. Needless to say I immediately began to garrison my facilities with the required 100 rifles to ensure there was no chance of its destruction. Going forward I now make sure I have the garrison in place before I build a facility. Tip: I set these garrison units to 50% supply so as to save a little on my supply expenditure.

A side effect of this feature is, unless you are prepared to immediately garrison it, a captured enemy facility is almost guaranteed to be blown up the following turn: a scorched earth policy I suppose. Given the propensity of the AI to over build factories, that is probably a good thing.

Good mod! Looking forward to the land version of the Enhanced AI Mod.
Tac2i (formerly webizen)
ghoward
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 8:32 pm

RE: Enhanced AI (Maritime)

Post by ghoward »

I think that airbases play a fundamentally different role that factories shipyards and arguably, ports. Because of the limit on air stacking points, you need to constantly construct more as you advance and most of them (even the ones in the rear) are likely to contain high value assets. I think their base price reflects an acknowledgment of this. They do not represent sprawling complexes, and do not contribute to overwhelming the AI industrially and will require an enormous number of rifles frozen near the front lines to garrison. Perhaps they should be treated more like fortifications than the 3 classes of production complexes.

On another note, Do the rifles need to be named "Garrison" (like POOL)? Do they need they be in a single unit? Do we care about their state of readiness? Yes, I am thinking about cheating them on supply as any good warmonger would.
User avatar
Tac2i
Posts: 2078
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:57 pm
Location: WV USA

RE: Enhanced AI (Maritime)

Post by Tac2i »

@barerabbit: Good point re airfields.

The rifle "garrison" unit does not need to be a single unit nor does it have to be renamed to 'garrison.' Based on my experience, it can perform its function set at 50% supply.
Tac2i (formerly webizen)
Post Reply

Return to “Advanced Tactics Series”