SE choices for AI - suggestions

[kyrub]

Since I am going away for a few weeks, I cooked a quick test build for SMAC AI (requires SMAC only for now, sorry). SMAC_444_l version in the Downloads.
The highlight is the correction of Support <=> Police mismatch in AI social engineering. You'll find the rest in the short notes to the patch.


It seems the patch is unavailable for download. Anybody? 

[Buster's Uncle]

I just approved the file. 

Nothing notifies us when a file's waiting for approval, so always a good thing to mention it in case I haven't checked Downloads since...

[Yitzi]

Since I am going away for a few weeks, I cooked a quick test build for SMAC AI (requires SMAC only for now, sorry). SMAC_444_l version in the Downloads.
The highlight is the correction of Support <=> Police mismatch in AI social engineering. You'll find the rest in the short notes to the patch.

Thanks.  When (if) you extend it to a SMAX patch, please build it off my latest version at the time, so our patches can be combined.

By the way: One of the things mentioned in your AI patch was beelining; will that make the AI play badly if various dependencies/tech-bonuses/etc. are moved around?  (i.e. will it make the AI beeline for things even if you change the tech tree so that there is no longer an advantage to such beelining?)  If so, that might need changing.

[Kilkakon]

I will admit that I would prefer if AIs stuck to their agenda, as otherwise their personalties tend to go a bit awry and in come cases they miss out on good synergy (in my game for example, most religious factions are immune to the penalties of their own faith, so makes sense for them to go with what they are good at)

[Kirov]

I can modify whatever I want as long as I find some space. People who are able to create DLL injections have no problems with space, sadly it's not my case - I am not a programmer, just a self learned  matemathician-amateur.

I can remove, move or replace a lot of AI SE choice. Don't worry. I cannot inflate the code with massive new tasks, basically, I have to work with the variables the AI already uses. Example: we have Nr_of_my_land_units_on_continent_X variable. We have Nr_of_my_naval_units as well. But we don't have Nr_of_my_air_units, so we cannot check that against running Free market - pity.

Is there a variable "number of pacifist drones in my bases"? Or just "number of drones in my bases"? This could be useful.

I have another question: it is known that in SMAC as in all other games I know, the AI "sees" the map. It doesn't need to explore, it knows if you have weak military without any espionage, etc. Is it possible for the AI to "forecast" things? It could be simple, like for example compare the total combat value of its and enemy's units to estimate chances. Or checking that 90% of improvements and all its bases are so high in elevation that it doesn't have to worry about sea-rising and is free to do eco-damage. Or will gain more than others under Global Trade Pact, so will vote YEA. Stuff like that could really affect SE choices.

If Nr of enemy probe teams on continent is more than X --> switch to Fundie
If Global Trade Pact yields more than X --> switch to FM.

In other words, it could be not related only to the general situation ("I'm a builder, I use Demo"), but also to more specific conditions ("sea rising takes place, I use Green").

Another thing: we're talking right now about what affects SE choices. What about stuff which results from SE? Are there conditions like "I use FM, so I rushbuy drone-related facs" "I use FM, so want to trade", "I use Green, I want to build Dream Twister"?

Yet another question: Are there conditions linked to specific techs? "I focus (Demo/FM/Wealth) on teching to D:AP, then I switch to my beloved Fundie and beat the living hell out of everyone".
There are several techs which the AI needs to research regardless how aggressive it is, before it kills its lab output with PS/Fundie/building just Laser Squads forever and ever.

The game has it already, when choosing stuff to build in a base, the surplus is taken in consideration! The game AI has a lot of things inside, in fact. It is really complex, most complex AI from all games I have ever seen, I suppose it's a heritage from civ2 game. Just not working very well. (That's not a bad thing, since it's easier for me to make existing structures smoother, than creating AI code from the scratch.) 

Who would think it's so complex! I wouldn't, for one.

I actually think that there may be bigger problem in the Morale decision. The way it is counted, +Morale becomes a holy grail, just as you noticed in your analysis. The AI spawns many units, the more unit it spawns, the more continent it settles, the bigger the desire for +Morale. On bigger map, it's worse. I believe we should tone it down.

Yes, focus on MORALE can go, it is neglectable compared to industrial output.

I can switch off this behaviour easily, if you wish. If I'm right, it works like this: Zak has knowledge set as his preferred agenda, so he programmatically avoid the other options. That's in the code.

Yes, I'm strongly in favour of this solution. No need to handicap AI in the way humans aren't. Besides, they still can't run their 'opposite' choices, I think it's in their respective faction files.

[Kirov]

Thanks.  When (if) you extend it to a SMAX patch, please build it off my latest version at the time, so our patches can be combined.

By the way: One of the things mentioned in your AI patch was beelining; will that make the AI play badly if various dependencies/tech-bonuses/etc. are moved around?  (i.e. will it make the AI beeline for things even if you change the tech tree so that there is no longer an advantage to such beelining?)  If so, that might need changing.

Please remember also to have a copy of kyrub's changes but without modifications to the game rules, tech tree, ecodamage, etc. MP players are quite conservative and although they're happy with bug fixes and AI improvements, they're are very reluctant to changes which force a shift in strategies.

[Lord Avalon]

Thanks.  When (if) you extend it to a SMAX patch, please build it off my latest version at the time, so our patches can be combined.

Hey, kyrub, Yitzi, thanks for your efforts.

Just a small suggestion:  when you release a new version, could you please go into properties\summary of your exe and add a comment on what version it is?  Thanks.

[Yitzi]

Please remember also to have a copy of kyrub's changes but without modifications to the game rules, tech tree, ecodamage, etc. MP players are quite conservative and although they're happy with bug fixes and AI improvements, they're are very reluctant to changes which force a shift in strategies.

All my changes except the clear bugfixes are set up so that you can use the default rules if you want*.

That said, I do want to make a mod that will force a shift in strategies, but that's going to be purely with alphax changes, so nobody has to play it.  But all my mods until "Alien Crossfire 1.5" will use the same tech tree, rules, etc.

*Well, actually this is not technically true; for instance, for purposes of convenience I plan to remove the "10Xdifference in chassis cost" term in the upgrade cost, but only because I can't think of any circumstance where it would actually be relevant.

Just a small suggestion:  when you release a new version, could you please go into properties\summary of your exe and add a comment on what version it is?  Thanks.

Each of my versions will contain a readme listing all the changes.

[Kirov]

All my changes except the clear bugfixes are set up so that you can use the default rules if you want*.

Oh, I see, that's cool. I thought that you're planning some really massive rework of eco-damage, etc. Is it possible to make that optional, just through the alphax? I thought you're changing the code.

*Well, actually this is not technically true; for instance, for purposes of convenience I plan to remove the "10Xdifference in chassis cost" term in the upgrade cost, but only because I can't think of any circumstance where it would actually be relevant.

What do you mean here? I don't know the formulas off the top of my head. Is it a big deal? It is a valid strategy to build 'shell' units (trained 1-1-chassis) and upgrade from there, some players will not want to part with it (or pay more)...

[Lord Avalon]

Just a small suggestion:  when you release a new version, could you please go into properties\summary of your exe and add a comment on what version it is?  Thanks.

Each of my versions will contain a readme listing all the changes.

I didn't mean list all the changes - just add "Yitzi patch v2" (or whatever it is) to the terranx.exe file.

[Yitzi]

Oh, I see, that's cool. I thought that you're planning some really massive rework of eco-damage, etc. Is it possible to make that optional, just through the alphax? I thought you're changing the code.

I changed the code (that part is done) to make it optional just through alphax.  i.e. before my patch it's not possible at all, with my patch it is possible but not mandatory (or you can do all sorts of other fun stuff.)

What do you mean here? I don't know the formulas off the top of my head. Is it a big deal?

It will make upgrades that change the chassis slightly cheaper.  As far as I know, there is no way to get such upgrades anyway.

It is a valid strategy to build 'shell' units (trained 1-1-chassis) and upgrade from there

I'd disagree, and consider that strategy to be horribly imbalancing (as it throws off the mineral/energy balance), but my patch will (as usual) make it possible to change the rules to scuttle that strategy, but anyone who wants to play with the current rules can.

I didn't mean list all the changes - just add "Yitzi patch v2" (or whatever it is) to the terranx.exe file.

Add it how?

[Lord Avalon]

Add it how?

Right click on the terran(x).exe file, go to Properties, go to the Summary tab, add comment.

[Kirov]

I'd disagree, and consider that strategy to be horribly imbalancing (as it throws off the mineral/energy balance), but my patch will (as usual) make it possible to change the rules to scuttle that strategy, but anyone who wants to play with the current rules can.

Yes, I agree with you, I've never liked this particular strategy, although I would use it every now and then. It's simply not the way the game is meant to be played. However, each such change would make a few MP players drop out and insist on playing the vanilla version. Also, it'd be hard to replace it with a new rule that doesn't have weird side effects. If you cut out upgrading 1-1-chassis, people would simply start to make 2-1-chassis types.

[Yitzi]

Yes, I agree with you, I've never liked this particular strategy, although I would use it every now and then. It's simply not the way the game is meant to be played. However, each such change would make a few MP players drop out and insist on playing the vanilla version.

I think that by targeting mainly the strategies that most people dislike (ICS, heavy energy focus, and air power will probably be the biggest targets) and those that clearly unbalance the game (e.g. those that make the race for midgame projects into purely a tech race, rather than a combination of techs and production), that should cut down on the dropouts.  And if you essentially get two different games, that's ok too.

Also, it'd be hard to replace it with a new rule that doesn't have weird side effects. If you cut out upgrading 1-1-chassis, people would simply start to make 2-1-chassis types.

That's why I wouldn't go that route, but instead change the upgrade cost to be more comparable to hurry costs.  That way, anyone who wants could upgrade, but it won't be a powerful strategy most of the time because you get more bang for your buck by just using minerals to build the desired unit normally.

[Kilkakon]

While this is tangenting a little bit, as a person who's made an epic mod that's largely ignored by everyone, I'd advise to keep it to "tweak" levels rather than new things entirely. Unless you get a lot of positive feedback of course.