Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[axiomsofdominion]

Paradox AI is terrible, but it is enough to make the games fun and runnable. I reckon anything decent would take too much CPU to be fun with current computers. If I have to wait 10 minutes for a turn to process and there is nothing to do during those 10 minutes I aint playing your game.

As for the AI options in shadow empire, back when there were only 2 options, both of them had the issue with the AI. I think the third option was added as a compromise between those two, so I reckon even the level 250 AI would have this issue. I tested with the level 100 AI and it had the issue, though the game was at least playable with acceptable turn times.

A proper turn based AI could handle something like EU4 pretty easily. Could it be 10 times as good? We'll well soon find out.

[E. Albright]

New beta patch. Haven't tried it yet, but...

-AI work done on quality of tactical level movements.
-AI work done on reducing the tendency of giving ground in general.
-AI work done of making super aggressive regimes less likely to completely overextend
-AI work done on making the AI more likely to invest more in its current military than in its future military (by economic expansion) if threatened a lot.
-AI work done on making the AI wait a bit longer before constructing bigger units instead of more units.
-AI work done on reducing buying of Flak gun units/replacements at some points. And in general stop buying (much) replacements of troops we have less need of.
-AI stops playing some (often) stupid Stratagems on its OHQs
-AI improved OOB raising order (less chance to stay stuck in infantry formations only)
-AI improvements to moving to correct part of a frontArea
-AI improvements with entrenchment
-AI improvements with encircled troops

[EuchreJack]

So...I decided to test the new AI with an aggressive ideology on a small moon.

Cue my only two AI nations are Republics, and Friendly to boot.  I can probably just get them to sign a Victory Pact...

Nope.  One of them went Cold.  The two AI nations were at war, so I jumped on the Cold One with great relations.
...I'm probably going to call this one a loss.

[Mkok]

So... is the AI decent now? 

[EuchreJack]

Dunno, maybe I just suck.

[Il Palazzo]

Well, did you suck this much before?

[E. Albright]

Tech 4, Hard, Slow AI: took me 17 turns to conquer the (fanatic) minor AI that started next to me. Wanna say I was actually at war for half that. It was a lot harder to pin them down and surround them, though when I finally managed to push past their front lines to the zone city there was a lot lighter defense present than what I've grown used to. Flanks were being harassed by Sentinels, which probably had a pretty serious impact on how I could bring force to bear. There were ups and downs, and overall it felt more dynamic, and less inevitable. They managed to cut off and destroy one group of event-spawned rebels, and nearly cut off two more units.

Now, having said all that, from time to time in the past I'd get good fights out of minor regimes, and I've yet to see a major, but so far this feels different...

[Il Palazzo]

I agree that there's some vague feeling of being different. Maybe a bit more proactive in mounting assaults? Not sure if it's not just what I want to see.
Though so far I can still gradually push the frontline with little actual combat, just by repositioning.


Q: anyone understands what the 'retreat at x% losses' in certain posture means, exactly? I can't figure out if it's a buff or debuff. Like, is it lose the percentage as extra casualties if retreating, or maybe reduce losses to the percentage when retreating?

[Knave]

I always thought  'retreat at x% losses' was just an indication of how many losses a unit was willing to endure before having to disengage. All out assault would probably have a much higher % than postures that were leaning towards skirmishing?

[E. Albright]

Generally postures with retreat % are less likely to engage in a(n orderly) retreat, but a few also make it more likely (as Knave pointed out, for skirmishing, or just straight-up for disengaging if attacked). Basically they're letting you fine-tune the command's casualty tolerance - the listed percentage is how many subunits need to have died or panic-retreated before the whole unit falls back. I'm not sure what the default retreat % is - the manual doesn't say. The relevant discussion is around page 295.

(Postures wouldn't directly prevent panic retreats - the best you could hope for there is ones that raise morale.)

[Edit: Checking in a game, Recon in Force sets orderly retreat to 20% and Hold the Line is 80%, so the default is probably... 40-60%? I'd assume 50%]

[Karlito]

I agree that there's some vague feeling of being different. Maybe a bit more proactive in mounting assaults? Not sure if it's not just what I want to see.
Though so far I can still gradually push the frontline with little actual combat, just by repositioning.


Q: anyone understands what the 'retreat at x% losses' in certain posture means, exactly? I can't figure out if it's a buff or debuff. Like, is it lose the percentage as extra casualties if retreating, or maybe reduce losses to the percentage when retreating?

In Vic's other wargame titles, this number is something you could just set- and whether you want it low or high depends on the circumstances. Usually when you order an assault on a fortified position, you'd rather have your units accept a high number of casualties to take the objective, but when defending, you might want them to give ground rather than their lives (but maybe if you're defending a river crossing or a critical city you'd rather the opposite).

[Il Palazzo]

Thanks, peeps. I get it now.

[EuchreJack]

I'm gonna hope/guess that the Commander chooses the percentage.  People's Tactics had that as a trait of the Commander.

For fun, Here is a link to my game

[Radsoc]

Picked it up some time ago, but finally got around to playing it as part of reducing the backlog. The game is like a mix of Warlords 2, Revolution under Siege and Conquest of Elysium. The progression is superb. AI is not bad. It tries to hit at logistics and does outflank, surround units in reckless advances. AI time can be increased too, and the turn time is pretty long on standard even on 5950X.

However, I don't see AI helicopters or planes (yet).

[axiomsofdominion]

Picked it up some time ago, but finally got around to playing it as part of reducing the backlog. The game is like a mix of Warlords 2, Revolution under Siege and Conquest of Elysium. The progression is superb. AI is not bad. It tries to hit at logistics and does outflank, surround units in reckless advances. AI time can be increased too, and the turn time is pretty long on standard even on 5950X.

However, I don't see AI helicopters or planes (yet).

How long would you say is a long turn time? A minute for the computer? Longer? Shorter?