Kyrub, if you modify the AI so that it knows how to use gravship formers/supplies and aerial colonies properly, then I will be forever indebted to you!
I find the AI uses units extremely inefficiently in many situations, mostly because they are too cautious to attack and never (in my experience) attack with the hurry penalty.
I find that foe air power often comes in and kills some random units (police defenders, formers), then dies to air superiority counters.
...handling FM badly and having infinite pacifism drones), when there's a SMAX version I'll do some playtesting and see what else stands out. Using clean reactors and rehomeing to a punishment sphere/specialist base to avoid FM drones would be amazing if you could teach them it, but perhaps too complex.
(please: AVOID terraforming, social engineering and faction specific issues. I'll create special threads for them later.)
#1: Production issues, [and #10 Drone control issues falls here as I've seen]
#3 AI never attacking with hurry penalty
#6 Combat unit production priorities - 'copters. Speeders [still not working despite effort]
#8 Production changing [crippling]
#5 Using Clean Reactors properlyI am aboard with using more clean reactors. But pardon my cooler interest...
Suggested changes:
Upgrade all formers and defensive units to clean when possible.
Upgrade air/combat units to clean if at peace with nearby people and have low Support.
Upgrade all combat units to clean then rehome them all to punishment sphere base.
Probe defense. AI should station Probe Teams in perimeter basesYes. Sadly. there are huge technical issues.
2. Probe offense. When an AI Probe Team approaches a base, ... adjacent to the baseYes, I hate that behavior. I have to find it first, no idea about it yet. Then it will definitely move on the shortlist.
Thanks! ---- First note, I just added this line to my first post.Okay, I'll save details on those things for later :)
I am aboard with using more clean reactors. But pardon my cooler interest...If the AI has enough formers, they should have cleared fungus from their main base area by the time clean reactors come along, minimizing worm contact. If possible, perhaps create formers as non-clean then upgrade them to clean every decade or two, so all the ones in safe areas are clean but not much is wasted on making formers in dangerous places clean?
- AI formers have really low survival rate due to worms. AI cannot make formers hide, avoid.. it's sheeps and wolves. Try spectator game... I actually thought about adding trance / armored formers. (Mind you, low formers' survival could also be a factor against boreholes etc.)
- air units when at peace, hehe. AI tends to produce few air units at peace. And when it produces, it's usually one of the Hive/Miriam types, so war is just around the corner.Hm, well, surely they must have some air units left over after war sometimes? I guess aggressiveness so maybe not.
- I somehow dislike rehoming to PS. It seems an expoit, not a proper strategy.Agreed. However, it is effective, and would help the AI deal with market much better.
The 1 point that stands: the defenders should be clean (but: unless under death attack). Formers too, but I don't expect much of them. Maybe offense infantry units, as they are slow. - This can probably make the list, just. But don't expect miracles...Okay.
This discussion makes me wonder how the AI decides how, and when, to build a certain unit - and also when to design it. I always suspected there was some kind of formula balancing cost versus need versus potential benefit. If such a formula could be modified to consider all legal unit combinations during the design phase, it could help the AI immensely. Or, we as a community might even be able to substitute static rankings (in Build/Discover/Explore/Conquer) for every possible unit and accomplish the same thing.All legal unit combinations would be kinda insane, considering how many there are, and how a huge majority of them are strictly worse than others. And probe teams can target things in production. You probably got hit by that, or it finished and was immediately destroyed.
And yes, I realize that, especially since kyrub and yitzi are working with assembly code, either approach may be patently impossible. Just brainstorming here.
Meanwhile, here's an issue I noticed in a game over the weekend - I had a UN probe attack one of my bases and "destroy my Children's Creche". The funny thing is, that base didn't have a Children's Creche - it was building one.
All legal unit combinations would be kinda insane, considering how many there are, and how a huge majority of them are strictly worse than others.Absolutely true. But for modern systems, even the insanely high number of potential units would be easy to crunch through in a short period of time. And it would only need to be done once per new tech per faction.
@kraze: Sounds like the not attacking with hurry issue? Although maybe it applies to other units too, but I think speeders come out sometimes.I am with kraze. There is something wrong, the units hardly ever attack from inside the base.
Out of curiosity, what puts you off shortlisting getting the AI to offer tech trades more?Yep, I forgot to explain. My experience with MoM AI tells me: trading techs is an exploit. It is a feature with no downsides, in 98% of cases good for all the parties. The genuine question is not "whether" but "how often" should AI trade techs? Every turn, I say, it's that good. - But if I make them trade techs every turn, it will turn into a disaster for you. And you'll have very little room for trading yourself.
That could always be linked to the difficulty level - i.e. current trading practices at the lowest level but full-trading-every-turn behavior at Transcend.Out of curiosity, what puts you off shortlisting getting the AI to offer tech trades more?Yep, I forgot to explain. My experience with MoM AI tells me: trading techs is an exploit. It is a feature with no downsides, in 98% of cases good for all the parties. The genuine question is not "whether" but "how often" should AI trade techs? Every turn, I say, it's that good. - But if I make them trade techs every turn, it will turn into a disaster for you. And you'll have very little room for trading yourself.
...make the AI read the alpha.txt and do the math on terraforming and maximize intelligently...I agree, if this is not too much of a programming headache.
2. Lots of Pathetic Defending UnitsI am doubtful about this one. What is good for player, may not be very good for AI.
Suggest that if there's more than like, 3, to build new defenders and disband the old ones. Or send them out to the front.
Okay, got something for you. Worker placement. And perhaps a better solution than hardcoding forming stuff in, assuming the forming code was/is linked to the square preference code. Basically, I think the AI has too strong a preference for Nutrients, which means that even if they are forced to plant forests they may not use them, and forcing them to plant forests may remove their original flexibility (I think there was some old thread which had AI planting fungus with enough fungal bonuses?).
2) Is it possible for you to fix the base trade bug? Can we teach AI to assess the value of bases? Is this feature non-existent or just flawed?
aha! Could you post the current formula for energy and nuts? And would you like suggestions on what the new one should be? Because, I'd think making it MUCH more consistent, and primarily based on the stage of the game (min/nut focus very early, with energy being phased in as almost equal after not too long so long as AI uses energy decently) would be of great help. Did the original terraforming function rely on this/something like this when weighing up the value of improvements?Okay, got something for you. Worker placement. And perhaps a better solution than hardcoding forming stuff in, assuming the forming code was/is linked to the square preference code. Basically, I think the AI has too strong a preference for Nutrients, which means that even if they are forced to plant forests they may not use them, and forcing them to plant forests may remove their original flexibility (I think there was some old thread which had AI planting fungus with enough fungal bonuses?).
This seems more important than I thought. The problem lies in faction differences in treating worker placement, as the code shows. The value of nutrients/minerals/energy can be vastly different, depending on AI priorities. The most problematic is the treatment of minerals, where certain factions can see double value compared to others.
The formula uses as a factor:
Minerals value factor = (6 + ai_wealth + ai_fight + ai_power - ai_tech)
If you compare it with the list of classic SMAC factions, one faction has MVF = 9, while another three have MVF = 5. That's quite a gap in valoration and a sign of concern. The identities of the faction are telling as well: the former with the highest MVF is Hive, while the latters are University, Gaians and Peacemakers.
I am unfamiliar with SMAX factions, but if there is one with ai_tech=1 and ai_fight= -1 and ai_wealth and ai_power = 0, it will have MVF=4 and will probably fail to prioritize minerals, in a self-damaging way.
As far as movement is concerned:Even with collateral damage? I've found the AI moving in stack at chokepoints to be laughably easy to kill. I agree mostly with your other points though.
1) AI should create and move in stacks. This was finally solved in Civ4 (where AI has literally tens of units per stack) and I liked it, or at least it's the best approach you can give it. In SMAX, as in other Civ games, in 99% situations big stack = good stack. And too often you can win with just a handful of attackers against a cloud of undeveloped units, arranged and moving in no discernible pattern.
NUTRI VALUE
(4+ai_growth) * (modiNutriSqProd)
-----------------------------------------------------
[IdleWorkersLeft - Size/3 + nutriSurplus] - 1
MINERAL VALUE
(6+ai_wealth+ai_aggr+ai_power-ai_tech) * BaseSize * (modiMineSqProd)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mineralSurplus
ENERGY VALUE
(2*ai_tech + ai_wealth +1) * BaseSize * (modiEneSqProd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2* TotalEnergyProd
where
(modiNutriSqProd) =
a) 200% NutriSquare IF NutriProd + IdleWorkersLeft/2 >= NutriNeeded
b) 200% (NutriSquare+2) IF NutriProd + IdleWorkersLeft >= NutriNeeded
c) 400% (NutriSquare) IF NutriProd + IdleWorkersLeft < NutriNeeded
(modiMineSqProd) = 200% MineSquare
(modiEneSqProd) = 200% EneSquare
AND
IF (mineSquare) =0 AND massiveNutriSurplus (see a) above)
THEN double (modiMineSqProd)
AND
IF TotalNutriProd < BaseSize + NutriNeeded AND NutriSquare = 0
THEN (modiMineSqProd) and (modiEneSqProd) are halved
Voila. It's a bit simplified, negligeibly.stacks... that's unlikely, I am afraid.
air attacks on bases... hopefully, this should be possible.
Notes on diplomacy are interesting. AI works more with might ranks, than actual might assessment. It has some "humble pie" situations, but these are often bound to "being 7th in might". Maybe with faction elimination, this stops to work.
(I will make a thread on diplomacy)
Quote2) Is it possible for you to fix the base trade bug? Can we teach AI to assess the value of bases? Is this feature non-existent or just flawed?
Yes. In fact I did already.
Even with collateral damage? I've found the AI moving in stack at chokepoints to be laughably easy to kill. I agree mostly with your other points though.
I am unfamiliar with SMAX factions, but if there is one with ai_tech=1 and ai_fight= -1 and ai_wealth and ai_power = 0, it will have MVF=4 and will probably fail to prioritize minerals, in a self-damaging way.
I bet that's part of why some factions fall quite so spectacularly behind on research in the mid/late game when there's more choice of useful squares so more ability to neglect energy.
Even with AAA, the best counter to air is usually more air/anti air air units in my experience.
And Yitzi, the Cyborgs still desperately want all their multiplicative facilities running asap, so they want minerals almost as much as anyone else. I don't think there should be that much variation between factions resource priorities. They all want to grow small bases fast and get the facilities up fast, then mid-large bases which should have plenty of multiplying facilities to do with energy (network node, energy bank, hologram theater, later on Fusion Labs and Tree Farms) want to bring energy in (but still support their population and have a good amount of minerals, either for war or construction).
; Base FacilitiesThey were planning to make facilities free at certain techs. Perhaps there are still pointers to there, and those could be re-purposed as AI importance flags for facilities?
;
; Name, Cost, Maint, Preq, Free, Effect, (for SPs only) ai-fight, ai-mil, ai-tech, ai-infra, ai-colonize
;
; Name = Name of facility type
; Cost = Construction cost in minerals (x Minerals multiplier in RULES)
; Maint = Maintenance cost in energy per turn
; Preq = Technology prerequisite (see TECHNOLOGY)
; Free = No longer supported.
; Effect= Brief description of effect
....
Recycling Tanks, 4, 0, Biogen, EcoEng2, Bonus Resources
Perimeter Defense, 5, 0, DocLoy, Disable, Defense +100%
Interesting kryub, good to see base size is a significant factor in nutrient priority (small bases need much less nuts per extra worker, so having nuts to grow is great, but when a base is big already other resources are often much more valuable so long as you're keeping your population fed).
IF TotalNutriProd < BaseSize + NutriNeeded AND NutriSquare = 0IF TotalNutriProd < 2 + NutriNeeded AND NutriSquare = 0or more sophisiticated
IF TotalNutriProd < BaseSize/8 + 2 + NutriNeeded AND NutriSquare = 0
Back to the job itself:
In my opinion, the whole Energy equation is suspect. 2* TotalEnergyProd in the denominator seems harsh, compared to Minerals' 1*(mineralSurplus). Early in the game, the mineralSurplus may be = TotalEnergyProd. But later, when AI builds lots of units, it loses focus on energy. It should be the reverse, no? Earlier, produce massively, later, a bit more energy.
And: what if AI runs Free Market? Every square gets +1 energy, so far so good, but the denominator (TotalEnergy) increases dramatically, so suddenly the energy loses 1/3 to 1/2 of its value compared to nutrients and minerals. Not sure about it, though it may end up working right.
The trouble is, that the - (BaseSize/3) in NutriValue denominator, makes Nutrients popular for large bases. A 15 size base with +6 nutrients has the denominator = 1 for the last IdleWorker, so it's quite likely to push for extra nutrients, which seems like a sub-par decision. Compare it with EnergyValue, where the factor is * BaseSize / TotalEnergy, e.g. maybe something like * 15/22, rounded to * 3/4. So nutrients win, probably.
In my opinion, the whole Energy equation is suspect. 2* TotalEnergyProd in the denominator seems harsh, compared to Minerals' 1*(mineralSurplus). Early in the game, the mineralSurplus may be = TotalEnergyProd. But later, when AI builds lots of units, it loses focus on energy. It should be the reverse, no? Earlier, produce massively, later, a bit more energy.For what it's worth, I suspect this denominator is due to the standard exchange rate between minerals and energy (i.e. 2 energy = 1 mineral).
For what it's worth, I suspect this denominator is due to the standard exchange rate between minerals and energy (i.e. 2 energy = 1 mineral).
5. Next, if a Secret Project or defensive unit is being produced, maximize Minerals.This I find inspiring. - No 5. is already in the code, a base going for SP is hungry for minerals. I would love to add No 6., under defense the base will make minerals priority. It should be relatively easy as well.
6. Next, if the faction is in a Vendetta and producing a combat unit or defensive facility, maximize Minerals. Also prioritize Energy above Nutrients.
It would really help me if I had some saves just before the situations whereRats. I had both of these happen in a game a week ago but didn't think to save either one.
a) AI is about to attack with an aircraft and instead of the base, it attacks a former nearby
c) AI moves his probe team too close to the base and it spends all its movement instead of waiting
I'll play my next game in SMAC (maybe with total vision on) and watch out for those saves. Or would using scenario editor be unlikely to make situations unrealistic?No problem with scenario editor. The key thing is that the situation when AI should act differently, happens there, and repeatedly.
Also, about b, the AI does not generally move to contact then fail to attack. They tend to just not move into an attack unless they can attack their target without a hurry penalty.This explains why I have so many problems with tracking it. Next time, we need to be more specific. To move or to attack are quite different decisions.
And for d, there's a few common situations where attacking from base with a one attack unit is by far the best option (e.g. a Chaos Rover with no armor is sitting outside a base defended by only a plasma garrison. 1 weapon vs 1 armor is a lot better than 3 defense against 8 attack, even if the garrison had to take a 33% penalty or there's a Perimeter Defense (though not both).).If I understood well, the AI fails to attack even in clearer cases. For testing, these would be ideal. Further on the road, we may need what you just mentioned.
I'll play my next game in SMAC (maybe with total vision on) and watch out for those saves. Or would using scenario editor be unlikely to make situations unrealistic?No problem with scenario editor. The key thing is that the situation when AI should act differently, happens there, and repeatedly.
Sorry about that, will try to be more precise in future.QuoteAlso, about b, the AI does not generally move to contact then fail to attack. They tend to just not move into an attack unless they can attack their target without a hurry penalty.This explains why I have so many problems with tracking it. Next time, we need to be more specific. To move or to attack are quite different decisions.
Yes, you understand correctly. That was just a note that defenders with 1 attack may want to attack too, since you said only >1 attack.QuoteAnd for d, there's a few common situations where attacking from base with a one attack unit is by far the best option (e.g. a Chaos Rover with no armor is sitting outside a base defended by only a plasma garrison. 1 weapon vs 1 armor is a lot better than 3 defense against 8 attack, even if the garrison had to take a 33% penalty or there's a Perimeter Defense (though not both).).If I understood well, the AI fails to attack even in clearer cases. For testing, these would be ideal. Further on the road, we may need what you just mentioned.
a) AI is about to attack with an aircraft and instead of the base, it attacks a former nearby
(btw, I still need these saves with AI situations. The AI is creepily complicated, lot more than I thought and after dozens hours of work I am running out of patience. Fact is, without a bit of blind testing, 50 * (hit and miss), this will not get anywhere.)Hello, kyrub.
d) AI should attack from the base but does not (with a unit whose attack >1)Replicating this situation is a bit tricky. Most of the time AI will recognize the threat and act accordingly. However, sometimes it will assign units with a high attack power as defenders. Those units will not leave the base and will not attack. Please check the second base of the Peacekeepers. Their defences consist of 6-1-1 missile squad units. If you can hold off reinforcements from U.N. HQ, you will see that the AI will not attack with its 6-1-1 defenders, no matter how many are there.
Please note that all of my previously posted savegames are affected by a bug I had not previously encountered. Then again, I have never before used Yitzi's patch with the GOG version.
All attack against my (Consciousness) units are made with a strenght at 25% of what is should have been. It is similar to how Psi combat with the wild life works at the beginning of the game (all their attacks up until 2115 are made at -75% strenght), except it lasts the whole game and only against my units.
Could you please help me and reproduce them in SMAC? That would represent a big thing for me.I might be mistaken, but the behavior might differ between game versions. I might not be able to reproduce the exact same patterns.
I don't really see any way that that could be caused by what I did. However, have you tested whether it happens with Kyrub's patch but not mine? Also, what difficulty are you playing on in that game? (At low difficulties, you get a combat bonus.)I never said your patch was responsible for that. It might have been a one-time glitch, seeing as I have never encountered this before and can not reproduce it. And no, it is not a difficulty bonus, none of them grant -75% penalties to your enemies. I just mentioned it in case you wanted to take a look at those saves and see what caused it.
I never said your patch was responsible for that. It might have been a one-time glitch, seeing as I have never encountered this before and can not reproduce it. And no, it is not a difficulty bonus, none of them grant -75% penalties to your enemies. I just mentioned it in case you wanted to take a look at those saves and see what caused it.
If we leave AI alone, it will eventually build its own army and come knocking, and those new units apparently do not have any reservations against attacking scouts.
Seeing as AI might attack with 2-1-2 rovers, but refuses to do so with 24-12-2 ones, it seems that it assigns certain plans for its units and then proceeds to use them accordingly, never utilising them for any other purpose. The problem is, its plans make little sense.
There seems to be something affecting this type of tests with scenario editor. If the normally built AI units don't act like this, it's not probably a bug, no? Maybe the problem is that these scenario created units have not got the right unit plan, as you suggested. This messes AI up, obviously. I cannot blame it.The first logical step would be checking up which plan these units were assigned with. There are only a dozen of them, and I think we can exclude non-military ones. Whatever the plan seems to be, the units behave erratically. If it is Offencive/Combat, then why do they not attack bases? If it is Defensive, then what are they doing in my territory? If it is set to Reconnaisance, then why do Scout Patrols (that have the same plan assigned) function correctly?
Why do you think its plans make little sense? It is the mechanics AI uses, indeed.Because I have no idea what the AI was trying to do. It is hard to explain things when I myself do not understand them. :)
If it is set to Reconnaisance, then why do Scout Patrols (that have the same plan assigned) function correctly?What do you mean, correctly? Do Scout patrols ever attack? I cannot remind me of one such occurence.
It is only natural to see units with a correct plan attacking my bases, but that says nothing about the number of units that do not have the plan set correctly (and they exist, as indicated by 6-1-1 normally built 'defenders' from a previous SMAX save, which I haven't reproduced in SMAC yet).These are "emergency defenders", I think. Ai has such a routine inside and it seems very normal to me. It's quite obvious, when there are too few defenders, let others defend. These units, however, are not able to counter-attack. This, I hope, can be changed.
Well have a good look around and don't be afraid to speak up; we'll take good care of you.
Yeah; I get my kicks freaking people out with kind treatment...
Hey, BUncle, it's nice you've noticed me.
What can you do to help? Please wait a bit more, I am almost done.
At the moment I am consolidating what I've analyzed and putting it all in the patch. It looks good on paper, but let's wait and see how it works in game. 7 points from the original 10-point shortlist (see 1st page of the thread) have been adressed with two more issues pending to be finished. The only exception is, sadly, the smart probe movement, as I don't seem to find the way how to change it. Pity.
Looked from the other side, there seems to be massive room for improvement in all other areas. AI air attacks have received major boost, no more former targetting, AI should attack with hurry and it could/should even counter-attack from its bases. I have even found (to my surprise) a piece of code suggesting AI was taught to use "bomb and drop" technique - big thanks to the guy who mentioned it in the thread! AIs will trade technologies freely and build lot more of buildings. Again, let's see how it works.
I'll need help later, with testing and feedback. And more patience before the result is put into SMAX version.
When you have stuff, please let me know so that I can incorporate it into my patch as well.Feel free to do with it as you like, Yitzi. But this is just the AI stuff, no bugfixes. And I really cannot guarantee any results with so many changes your patch makes. The AIs usually looks very stupid with a lot of modding, they cannot cope with new rules, obviously.
Feel free to do with it as you like, Yitzi. But this is just the AI stuff, no bugfixes.
And I really cannot guarantee any results with so many changes your patch makes. The AIs usually looks very stupid with a lot of modding, they cannot cope with new rules, obviously.
As for stockpile energy bug, thanks for notice, I did not know. I'll look into it later, I certainly need to have a clean bug fix on the AI patch as well.
1. Production issues Far too many mins tied up with supporting useless/unwanted units
2. More combat units with mobility.
3. AI never attacking with hurry penalty
4. Production changing
5. Improve AI-AI trading of techs
6. Smarter air attacks
7. Better air defense
UNDER REVIEW
A. Smart probe attacks
B. Worker placement
C. Attack from base
I played around with your patch yesterday. I'm surprised at the AI's trading techs so nicely, I still can't come up with the tech lead after 100+ turns (although to be fair, I do everything to help the AI, giving them techs and contacts as they ask). Their SE choices also seem interesting - Demo/FM/Knowledge for Zak, nice. I'm still surprised why some AI is so eager to pick up Fundie (Deirdre) and/or Power (Lal).
Oh, I forgot - I saw a Miriam's supply crawler actually crawling 2 energy! Granted, it was their only crawler and I fail to see another one anywhere else, but still it is a massively huge deal for me. I felt like I saw a unicorn.Hehe, unicorn. Crawlers are actually part of some previous versions. Sadly, they are badly targetted... 2 energy is a great succes even in my book.
I played around with your patch yesterday. I'm surprised at the AI's trading techs so nicely, I still can't come up with the tech lead after 100+ turns (although to be fair, I do everything to help the AI, giving them techs and contacts as they ask). Their SE choices also seem interesting - Demo/FM/Knowledge for Zak, nice. I'm still surprised why some AI is so eager to pick up Fundie (Deirdre) and/or Power (Lal).
Oh, I forgot - I saw a Miriam's supply crawler actually crawling 2 energy! Granted, it was their only crawler and I fail to see another one anywhere else, but still it is a massively huge deal for me. I felt like I saw a unicorn. Thanks for that experience and keep up the work if you can. :)
I completed a game under 444(m).Thanks for the reports!
You couldn't program crawlers to stay one hex away from Fungus?
I imagine that could potentially drive them away from juicy tiles, besides a bulk of native life comes as worms disembarking from IoDs, you can't do much to stay away from them.That depends on map-size and land-to-sea ratio. The AI's crawlers are also more valuable, as the AI is less efficient in build-planning. Anything that might conserve them to begin with would be valuable. One can have more than one AI behavior tendency anyway, and switch between them. I.E. start off more conservatively.
I did notice several air attacks on the same location a few times. Can't confirm if it was on the same unit or another in a stack.Interesting, but next time the details would make the info useful. AIs typically gang an attack on a city, like, an air raid.
I understand now we should check out their battle movements more?Yes. I strictly tried to make AI less "cautious" when assessing its attacking options. It may be subtle, but should be visible. Like: an infantry unit moves along the road and actually attacks your 10-1-2 rover. Hopefully also: an infantry unit in a city attacks your stack of attackers and deals good damage to it, instead of sitting back doing nothing waiting to be slaughtered as a defender. Note: sometimes, the moves can be too risky, sub-optimal for the AI (because it is less cautious). I'd like to know if it feels like AI gained an edge, in general, or not. Or if it feels like nothing has changed.
In my [m] game Zak managed to get VW, which is not that bad. If they start to beeline to AI and cash crawlers by standard that would be a huge deal. But yeah, any use of crawlers, even suboptimum, is a massive change in my book.
You mention popboom as well - in order to do it effectively, the AI must do better terraforming.The terraforming has a lot of room for improvements. But if CV makes the AI peak already with this level of terraforming, I don't see why pop-booming could not be a big improvement now.
So how should we play [SMAC(n)] to test it in the most effective way? //paraphrased
Got in a small war in Deirdre. Yep, she did pull out her 5-1-1 unit to kill my recon, you can't safely stop 2 tiles from a base anymore.
The AI's research is more and more resembling something decent.I actually did not much here, on the contrary - besides clearing the useless stuff and recommanding former prereq. We may talk about beelining further, in another thread, I certainly need some input and opinions on some simple ways and possibilities to focus the AI. Deirdre is still too mad about any Ecology techs, as far as I remember.
I opened the editor to see tree farms and hybrid forests in Morgan's bases!There is a lot more here. For instance, building VW should now make AI hungry to build NNs all around his bases. AI is a bit more keen to protect its bases with PDs, it thinks the banks are pretty cool, aerospace complexes and other stuff.
What else? I see some forest, usually 1-tile, sometimes more, but it could be even more - I think it's tough to overdo foresting before advanced terraforming. Could you tell us something about it in the case of AI? Like, will AI replace its own improvement when a tech for something better comes?There are exceptions and I may look into them. It requires further study, but I know where to look (I saw the thing), so 50% is done already.
Is it possible at all to teach it to start with 'forest & forget', then gradually move to boreholes interspersed among condensors?This is the thing: I have done a lot of testing with boreholes only, made numerous hits and changes. And I cannot bring AI to do a lot of them, I see 4-5 every testgame, hmm. There is some mystery behind it.
There are some bases with high unit maintenance, but all in all I think the AI is less clogged with support.Yep, this should be. We will do more "clean reactors" next.
Crawlers - not more than 2 per faction, some have 0. Some crawl terraformed terrain, but in two cases it's an unterraformed rocky square mined for 1 mineral just outside the base radius. Any idea how this results from your changes?I have no input on where it crawls, 1 mineral variant is what I see a lot, sadly. I may think about formers "seeing" crawler terrain as desirable to improve. I may try to study crawler behaviour (too much time right now). I can certainly make AI churn crawlers like chickens.
Thanks for the experience and don't stop! I'll try to play more soon.;b;
I have this impression that the AI will never properly use infantry units - this really requires bringing some defence units, using terrain for bonuses, etc.There is absolutely nothing I can do about this. That is the architecture of the AI movement, too complex a change. The only proper way, to me, is to let AI do rovers in bigger quantities. Like 2 rovers per 1 infantry, that would seem about right, and probably dangerous. This is certainly doable, although it is hard to find the balance.
The same goes for artillery - although it sure has its uses, the AI fails to see and exploit any. In some extremely rare situations batteries can be mildly annoying at best. Is it possible to simply switch off certain types of units? How does the selection work?I agree, I hate AI artilleries and it builds them in wagons. There is a stupid switch in the code, when the AI makes *more* artilleries when it has a HP on its continent. The patch for this insanity is ready, we'll have a lot less of them. I thought about allowing only rover-batteries, as I find them more dangerous in the hands of AI, what do you think?
Although my start was tough and it took me some considerable time to make it to the top (2208), I feel that the AI underperformed in this game, mainly due the lack of bases.
Morgan built 2 (!), not for the lack of room.AI has problems with worms + Morgan lacks morale, to ammend for his faults.
Interesting stuff with Santiago - I killed her easily mainly because she got the Jungle and grew so quickly upwards that she was too busy building hospitals when I came to her. Again, I took some losses as she wisely used ECM garrison (do you have anything to do with it, kyrub?)Oh yes. Hospitals making Santiago vulnerable is not exactly good news, though. That is my work too.
I'm not sure if this is a bug, but I saw it for the first time - after I captured Sparta Command, it was in the production order before everything else, i.e. even before the Projects. Usually when you build a Project, it is your first construction that turn and you can safely take it into account one turn earlier. This time Sparta Command was ahead of the rest. I can't recall anything like that.Not sure, what you mean. Was kind of problem? I think I did nothing with this.
Oh, one more thing - what do you think and how viable are changes to probe teams? I don't mean any too smart moves, just basic stuff like probing from the maximum distance and above all, using infrantry chassis defenders (which stay in bases).This one is hard. I even thought about suggesting a Yitzi-like change of type: The encrypted defenders can defend against probes. That would work for the AI, but it is a mod, which I tend to avoid. - Otherwise, AIs don't see the infowar units as defenders or combattants and treat them separately. It is hard to explain there are two kinds of them, too many instances in the code. Not sure.
What is a HP?Human player.
The problem with rover batteries is their cost. And I think the AI will never handle the battery well in the offensive.It still has some limited use, as I have seen AIs destroy my sensors with help of arty a lot. Also, if possible, I try to conserve the diversity in AI units. It makes them less predictable and it keeps the game being fun. Surely, we could let AI build only rovers, but, ehm... it somehow does not seem right.
Santiago was actually doing quite fine, but she had the bad luck to end up close to my Miriam. Maybe if she had the time for air power... I think your AI can do much better on larger maps with delayed fight. Is it your impression as well?I certainly made the AI more "builder", so larger maps are the way to go. I play always on larger maps, maybe that's why? It could be done more carefully, I guess, make the map scale a factor, if necessary. But then I am pretty lazy, hmm.
The bug I mention is just a side note - Sparta Command is calculated before any Projects are built, which I noticed since it rioted with NN on the same turn I got VW. Probably nothing.If you could re-run that bit with the old exe and see what happens, I'd be a bit calmer. Every instability smells of data corruption, which is our arch-enemy.
SO - first lame question. What's the deal with you and your .exe mod? :D
maybe you could post here your patch with some over-the-top yet still sane values, just for a few of us to check it out? I have in mind much more best attack rovers, crawlers, formers (still far from enough) and heavy foresting.Kirov, I plan to try it anyway (rovers, crawlers, formers, more or less ICS), in the next patch, with the exception of the heavy foresting, as I don't see it as a solution. I can point you easily to the all-forest variant then. Don't expect any improvement in advanced terrraforming, though. - Next patch is near. I have got a small window to finish the first SE attempt, then we will see. Afterwards, there will be a serious lull in progress.
A mid-term report on a game with me playing as the Gaians. MY is now 2285 (I have 5 saves if you're interested in them, Kyrub). Settings were large map I think (maybe normal), predominant land, low erosion, rainy, and rampant native life. Oh, and unable to choose what to research.
Except for Morgan and the University, all factions made a fairly good to splendid effort at expansion, especially Miri who started a bit more isolated from the Monsoon area then Morgan but managed to colonize it completely.
War has been rampant between factions sofar, and perhaps as a result, not a single crawler was build by the AI. Both the Believers and Spartans went at length to get to their war target(s) over 20 tiles away with lots of fungus inbetween. Miri took a (recently settled) base of mine near my capital by surprise, and the follow up column of units was larger then I thought it would be, but less then 10 I think. I wonder how many she lost on the way to that base. Mostly infantry units though, and no artillery. Eventually I conquered all her Monsoon bases and depopulated them. By the end she had two bases left from which the nearby Hive took New Jerusalem (HQ). Also, by then air units came into play. Hive had declared war on me too, but didn't tried to use his needles over the small sea that separated the Monsoon area from his nearby snaky island area (more or less a phoney war). At some point he assembled quite a garrison on the closest harbor to Morgan (my pact partner), but after a few of my needles took out a couple foils he didn't pursue that way. He then took New Jerusalem where I sent a few assault infantry to, to take it after emptied by my needles. He then used his needles to devastating effect, forcing me to sent a second force which was at each stopping point covered by a tactical needle. Truce came shortly after I took New Jerusalem from him.
Santiago OTOH (which just declared war on me for the second time) has two land connections to me but fails to sent troops through the easiest one (massive land bridge). She builds alot more rovers (and uses them to some effect on my troops blocking one land approach), and regularly upgrades them on a nearby monolith to Sparta Command. She hasn't flight yet so nothing to tell there. She has nicely expanded lands.
Morgan was stumped for a long time (only 3 bases, perhaps because he had a long standing feud with Lal), but once we were committed on the Believers he managed to mind control the two nearest Believer bases and was keen to settle the colony pod I gifted him on the nearest available Monsoon area. He's starting to do fine now I think. Oh, and in the earlier game he infiltrated me. A "WTH" moment because why does the AI needs that? ;lol
Zakharov only founded 3 bases despite having plenty of space for more. Drone problems I think. Anyway, the surprise there is he got to orbital spaceflight and build two missiles and is in the progress of one planet buster. He won't be able to finish it though since he declared on me because due to my Power SE and my refusal to bribe him techs if he's not willing to trade Orbital Spaceflight. Also, he and Lal (his buddy) are sofar the only ones with missiles. I saw a couple bunkers on the edge of his bases field of view towards my border and enough sensor coverage to spot any unit I sent his way. Say 1 bunker and two sensors for each base. Too few units though to make a decent defense, about half on rovers and infantry. He build one or two chaos needles sofar. Haven't seen any other faction use bunkers, but the others (besides Morgan) don't have long shared borders with other factions.
Haven't kept an eye on Lal since he's pretty far south from me, but he's an on-an-off antagonist this game.
The thing that most disappointed me sofar in this game is that Santi doesn't build a naval force to harass me on our shared sea. At least 3 of her bases (including Sparta Command) are harbor bases on this sea, but not even a seaformer sofar.
Also, haven't spotted undefended bases in this game.
How did you get into this .exe modding project? Was there a learning curve?
He then used his needles to devastating effect, forcing me to sent a second force which was at each stopping point covered by a tactical needle.Tactical needle? What do you mean by that?
Santiago OTOH (which just declared war on me for the second time) has two land connections to me but fails to sent troops through the easiest one (massive land bridge).Valuable info, AI failings are almost always interesting. Do you have a save with the situation? (Fixing AI pathfinding is less probable, but one may always try, especially with a good save.)
Anyway, the surprise there is he got to orbital spaceflight and build two missiles and is in the progress of one planet buster.I think the ruthless tech exchanging plays here. He still had to offer something in return, though. Interesting.
Santi doesn't build a naval force to harass me on our shared sea. At least 3 of her bases (including Sparta Command) are harbor bases on this sea, but not even a seaformer sofar.Great, valuable info. I think I saw that too. - Thanks!
Tactical needle? What do you mean by that?
Valuable info, AI failings are almost always interesting. Do you have a save with the situation? (Fixing AI pathfinding is less probable, but one may always try, especially with a good save.)
I have attached all saves I made this game. Roughly the last century of gameplay. Don't know if they will be of use for you.
Anything to relate about (AI?) structure? A line or two of hard-tech talk won't hurt and might attract the tech hardcore... English for the rest of us is also good.Thanks, for the English part. Please correct whatever is necessary.
ai-fight, ai-power, ai-tech, ai-wealth, ai-growthFrom these numbers, ai-fight is by far the most influential [-1,0,1]. We could compare its meaning to the famous Builder/Hybrid/Warlord distinction from Vel's guide. A few number combinations give very feeble performances of the AI (Morgan, Zak, Santi), while another one (Hive) is really succesful (11010). Simple overwriting of all values to Hive's ones should result in slightly better performance.
My neighbour Lal definitely overdid probe teams (I have like 60 kills under my belt) and it's not the first time I see AI in your patch producing way too many spies.The overprobing is a side effect of strengthening the rovers. Funnily enough, AIs still don't build rovers but they produce more probes on rover chassis. The other factor may be the fact that the AIs use a lot of Fundamentalism, for now.
I got to the air power era, but can't say I noticed any groundbreaking changes - Lal went for my crawlers as usualThere are changes to air power, maybe your special style of OCC (sitting back?) made you less aware of them. I will look into ignoring crawlers again, I think I left that one out, since I avoid crawlers anyway. AAAs should be more frequent, this can be done, although I am always weighing between ECM, AAA or trance, and I simply cannot choose just one. That is bad design per definitionem.
how does it look and what do you think about teaching the AI proper landing techniques? The Hive did disembark some two of his units, but it was as relevant as it sounds. Is it possible to prepare at least a decent invasion and to force the HP to actually spare resources to patrol nearby waters? A must-do in multi-player, a complete waste of time in single.That is pretty hard (too hard I am afraid), but it would really improve the game, I agree. My idea was at least: to force AI to use heavy transports. That would get +50% invasion troops, still not much, but occasionnally they can pull a surprise. On the larger chassis, that could be a small invasion force already.
Cherry on top, I'm happy to share this image.Nice that you enjoy it. I am a borehole away from being happy as well.
Miriam hates Zak and vice versa even before the relevant SE is a factor, the same goes for Deedee with Morgan and Hive with Lal. I guess Santi hates everybody's guts equally. Can you confirm this info somehow?Sorry. My knowledge of AI-AI diplomacy is limited. There are several places in Diplo code where specific factions are treated differently, regardless of "ai constants", that I can confirm.
What's really annoying and has the potential to slow down my advances is AAA combined with A-Complexes. Works best with sensors under the base tile (I do take time to bombard these), but that's probably asking for too much.A-complexes, excellentd, we'll make them even more.
I'm not sure if I would recommend Trance as on par with AAA and ECM, though. The order I'd pick is AAA, ECM, then maybe some Trance.Naturally, that's what intended.
Sensors: In my opinion it is a design mistake (or possibly an unintentional mistake), that sensor array is not destroyed when city is built. I find the tactics annoying and never use it- though I understand that in MP everybody can use it. Still, does anyone in MP build sensors in other places that in a city square? (What kind of feature is this? It flattens the game.)
The Gaians did not do a hurried attack from base unless the base had a 1-2-1 defender. Three 5-1-1's in an otherwise empty base seemed happy to sit there. Could be a quirk -- need more data.Thanks a lot, Tarminyatur, for extensive testing. Great to see the systematic results. You don't need comparative testing on this.
I should do a similar test using the default terran.exe for comparison.
- AI defending roads and tubes at crucial points
- better and dangerous AI invasions
- AI defending against probes (what you suggest is easy on paper, but due to the architecture of AI movement, nearly impossible)
Oh, and not crawlers in war? Does this include the kind of war where you declare war on someone on another continent who you're not actually fighting? Because I think going into war-mode for this rather than just building normally would be a mistake.
Which is the hard part, teaching it to identify crucial points, or getting it to defend them?I cannot see either solved, probably bunker defending can be done, but that is not easy at all and it would need many well thought exceptions (when the chips are down, better defend your base). Getting AI to build less roads is at least thinkable (and desirable). Still, too little.
So there's no way to have it hold off on the invasion until it has an advantage?Oh there is. Just where the "there" is... If I knew the solution, if I saw the place with the decision, one bit of it, I wouldn't ask, be sure about it.
What is the architecture of AI movement?Infowar units are treated separately, there are too many instances. Defenders are totally separate again; I cannot easily explain the AI that this defender "cannot defend", in fact, so the base needs reinforcing. Every other unit other than defender moves out of base. There are emergency defenders, maybe I could try to squeeze probes inside that code, but then I'd lost emergency counter-attacking from the base, which I won't do.
Which is the hard part, teaching it to identify crucial points, or getting it to defend them?I cannot see either solved, probably bunker defending can be done, but that is not easy at all and it would need many well thought exceptions (when the chips are down, better defend your base). Getting AI to build less roads is at least thinkable (and desirable). Still, too little.
QuoteSo there's no way to have it hold off on the invasion until it has an advantage?Oh there is. Just where the "there" is... If I knew the solution, if I saw the place with the decision, one bit of it, I wouldn't ask, be sure about it.QuoteWhat is the architecture of AI movement?Infowar units are treated separately, there are too many instances. Defenders are totally separate again; I cannot easily explain the AI that this defender "cannot defend", in fact, so the base needs reinforcing. Every other unit other than defender moves out of base. There are emergency defenders, maybe I could try to squeeze probes inside that code, but then I'd lost emergency counter-attacking from the base, which I won't do.
This one would actually be really interesting, albeit potentially game breaking, which means it would fit better into a revamped Warfare mod rather than a general purpose mod. But it would be a good balance to the ubiquity of air combat.That was my thought. I understand it may be seen questionable.
I'd recommend something like a sliding target number of crawlers per base, so as the base gets bigger it wants more crawlers... Hopefully the whole move all the crawlers to SP base thing will mean crawlers are rearranged often enough to not stifle development too badly.Nice. First we see how current version works, ok? My experience tells me that to move step by step before making things complex, is better.
Do terraformers terraform outside city limits much?
Oh, and not crawlers in war? Does this include the kind of war where you declare war on someone on another continent who you're not actually fighting?Not exactly sure, but I think the continent flag must be set on "offense" or "defense". So probably not, must be tested though.
hm, stab in the dark/a bit off topic, but could you potentially create a custom unit (infantry probe) and force it to use the defender plan, plus code unit building priorities so the base always 'wants' at least one of them?QuoteWhat is the architecture of AI movement?Infowar units are treated separately, there are too many instances. Defenders are totally separate again; I cannot easily explain the AI that this defender "cannot defend", in fact, so the base needs reinforcing. Every other unit other than defender moves out of base. There are emergency defenders, maybe I could try to squeeze probes inside that code, but then I'd lost emergency counter-attacking from the base, which I won't do.
I don't say it is impossible, just the function is so complex that I have very little idea what to do. I still have no clue how to stop Infowar units from running close to other bases. Maybe, after that, I can stop some of them from running out of the base, if there are no probes inside. Maybe.
Good try, but Infowar unit clash is built... on unit plan. And AI needs to recognize it has base only with infowar defender left and therefore emergency (many instances). Still, I don't say it cannot be tested (can a unit in alpha.txt be specified as defender?). I have my doubts.Right.. that could get very messy then. Still, probably worth a test, see if the defending probe starts an infowar clash even if it's set as defender. No AC access until July, so someone else will have to play around with it.
[btw, we are cluttering this thread and we should not] [/move out]
If the infowar battle does not start when a probe goes into a base with a probe defender, perhaps that specific check is modifiable (from is there an infowar plan unit to is there a unit with probe module)?
QuoteIf the infowar battle does not start when a probe goes into a base with a probe defender, perhaps that specific check is modifiable (from is there an infowar plan unit to is there a unit with probe module)?
I like your thinking, ete. This could actually work (the other things won't, though). It is a fragile idea, we still don't know how AI will handle defensive probe, as there are many instances of check for def units, I am not even aware of them. But if the game does not immediately crash, one can solve side-effects later.
I'll stick for the moment with the idea I came upon while answering to Yitzi (as that seems less risky). If we can spot the right place, why not simply:
- check if Infowar unit, which is about to move, is in theplayer's base
- check if sum of Infowar units in the base without GoTo order > 1
- if not, stop movement (e.g. "defend")
- if yes, continue (issue GoTo order)
Description: New release of AI patch for SMAC - 17/5/2014
http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=260 (http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=260)
Features
AI Terraforming
- AI got a basic lesson in advanced terraforming (boreholes, condensers, less raising terrain)
- it builds no more bunkers
- it builds denser sensor array network
AI crawlers
- AI builds now tends to build crawlers earlier and slightly more of them
- AI crawls more intelligently its resources
AI Social Engineering
- the patch includes an emergency fix of the worst parts of social engineering code
- AI now understands that pacifist drones are a major problem
AI buidling units
- AI spreads quicklier on oceans
- Morgan has got new incentive to spread quickly
- AIs build less of probes, bar Miriam
- a lot more AAA defense
- AI now likes rovers and choppers