edwinp Posted December 1, 2002 Share Posted December 1, 2002 I've played the game for several months and noticed that the Allied AI always follows the same strategy. They always invade France at the same place. They never invade Italy. They never threaten two invasions - Italy and France at the same time. They never threaten to liberate Yugoslavia. They can always be suckered into a series of devasting air attack off the coast of Norway, that destroys the British navy. If the Italians take the turkish straits the Russians do not reinforce the south front until the Italians have landed, or move through Turkey to invade/threaten the German allies from Istanbul. I would find it more of a challenge, in single player, if the AI would vary its strategy from game to game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 1, 2002 Share Posted December 1, 2002 That's been mentioned in other forums, a randomizing factor or something. Like the reckless mode in HICOM [a similar dos game]. The problem with Hicom's random mode was it's lack of logic. As the Axis I was about to capture London and the reckless AI sent an expedition (with Britain's only armored unit)from Liverpool to land near Bergen* (which I still held) and launch an offensive in Norway! I hope we don't get something like that in this game. *Originally listed as Brest, which, as we suspected, is located someplace other than Norway. Credit an assist to Flash Gordon for noticing this mistake and landing his rocketship long enough to point it out -- in his own subtle manner. Thanks Flash! [ December 02, 2002, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinp Posted December 1, 2002 Author Share Posted December 1, 2002 Actually I was thinking of an Allied AI that looked at the number of Axis units in each country/ocean to decide upon a strategy. Example - If no Axis units in Italy/Libya then send invasion force to this area. If Axis units sundenly appeared then redirect invasion to Libya/Yugoslavia or to reinforce Turkey. The allied invasion force would 50% be concentrated on one front or 50% would threaten several Italian cities at once. To futher quantify - Perhaps 40% target southern front with a 70% Invade Italy, 30% liberate Yugoslave/Albania, and 75% send 1 transport to invade each unoccupied Libyan city - which the Axis can not operationaly reinforce. If Axis naval units in this area send Allied surface ships to escort invasion fleet. Example - If 1 axis unit in norway, send 1 allied transport to threaten each city. Currently, allied AI threatens only 1 city and transports turn around if single Axis unit is positioned midway between both cities. Example - If Allies Occupy 1 city in Norway then % to reinforce to liberate other mines/city in Norway Or as for the Soviet Naval AI Strategy 70% Support Russian Land Forces - as it currently does. 30% Join Allied Naval Forces in Atlantic if no Axis Naval Units in Baltic. This would give the allied Naval AI enough strength to crush any Axis fleets in the Atlantic/Med Oceans, thus facilitaing land invasions over a wider front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Gordon Posted December 1, 2002 Share Posted December 1, 2002 Originally posted by JerseyJohn: The problem with Hicom's random mode was it's lack of logic. As the Axis I was about to capture London and the reckless AI sent an expedition (with Britain's only armored unit)from Liverpool to land near Brest (which I still held) and launch an offensive in Norway!Well, it looks as if the random mode certainly lived up to its name! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted December 1, 2002 Share Posted December 1, 2002 A similar complaint can be made about the Axis AI. No Sealion before Barbarossa. Norway occassionally, Sweden rarely if at all. Ditto for Spain and Turkey. Italy attacks Greece through the mountains rather than a 1-turn seaborne invasion with air support. Rommel to North Africa? Nope. The AI patterns for both sides need some more development work, which won't happen until SC2. One of my concerns about possibly changing the current game scale/scope is that all the AI patterns and politics would have to be recoded and playtested. It's easier to build upon what already works fairly well. Enlarge the map, add more AI patterns to cover most strategies (even the risky ones), make politics a full spectrum affair, and tweak the game mechanics to create more realism and accuracy. That's more important than experimenting with additional detail and complexity, at least for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikster khan Posted December 2, 2002 Share Posted December 2, 2002 "A similar complaint can be made about the Axis AI. No Sealion before Barbarossa. Norway occassionally, Sweden rarely if at all. Ditto for Spain and Turkey. Italy attacks Greece through the mountains rather than a 1-turn seaborne invasion with air support. Rommel to North Africa? Nope." - Bill Macon And frequently won't take Denmark either. I also would like to see more development in this area. The AI seems unadventurous. Cheers, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 2, 2002 Share Posted December 2, 2002 Originally posted by Flash Gordon: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JerseyJohn: The problem with Hicom's random mode was it's lack of logic. As the Axis I was about to capture London and the reckless AI sent an expedition (with Britain's only armored unit)from Liverpool to land near Brest (which I still held) and launch an offensive in Norway!Well, it looks as if the random mode certainly lived up to its name!</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts