Page 4 of 46 FirstFirst 123456789101112131429 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 912

Thread: ReallyBadAI Battle System +Hardcore + Settlements v5.7 >Oct 17< ###quality taken to next level###

  1. #61
    Germanicu5's Avatar Will buy spare time...
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Not Zee Germany
    Posts
    2,119

    Default Re: ReallyBadAI - Stainless Steel, RR/RC battle AI development and discussion

    @Stitch_BR
    At this point there are no difficulty-based differences in the AI, I recommend VH due to morale bonus for AI. Unit sizes don't influence AI behaviour directly, there could be some minor differences connected to choosing smaller/bigger unit size (siege/crossing battles and possibly pathfinding).

    @Rozanov
    I could start with blaming hardcoded features, but I'll see what can be done. In theory unit engage distances are so big, there shouldn't be any issue connected to that or proceeding to another battle stage.
    1. and 2. Hmm... very odd, no idea on 2nd issue at all.
    3. not directly influenced by AI, probably the game engine "thought" your unit was already outside
    4. same here, AI somehow calculated this route was optimal, probably changing pathfinding settings won't influence that
    5. more hmms... I noticed some units were stuck for a wile when routing and entering a road leading to the plaza and I found no obvious setting influencing that.

    Thanks for reporting the issues. I won't be able to test it till wednesday, I'm posting an old version of config_ai_battle.xml. If you want to speed things up, you can run some tests to see if these issues exist while using the file, it'll be appreciated too.

    Regards
    I have no memory of this place.

  2. #62
    Gorrrrrn's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    here
    Posts
    5,546

    Default Re: ReallyBadAI - Stainless Steel, RR/RC battle AI development and discussion

    G5

    May well be game engine rather than anything you've done!

    will see if the file you posted makes any difference - though i don't know how I'll be able to replicate the conditions.

    will let you know in due course of any differences i notice. I'm using large size units - I suspect that there are issues with larger units with pathfinding.

    For example you can get a unit with a lot of men to sit between the towers (on the wall above the gateway) of a gateway properly. The unit has to fit the wall to be moved there.
    I also notice more smearing of units around buildings inside settlements with larger units.

  3. #63
    /|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10,770

    Default Re: ReallyBadAI - Stainless Steel, RR/RC battle AI development and discussion

    Point 1 has been solved with DLV (judging by the lack of occurance) although I'm not sure how I did it. When trying to fix it I imagined a lot of different settings could cause it and adjusted many without testing, something I did made it go away... sorry but I don't know what. Possibly point 2 is covered by the same solution. It seems less likely but 4 and 5 could also be related, but I still notice routing AI units getting stuck in settlements currently in DLV.

    I think point 3 is solved by setting a larger radius for manning the defence type in descr_walls.txt. As a point of interest in the same file, I have raised the hit points of settlement walls and gates to allow the AI more time to respond to breaches.

  4. #64

    Default Re: ReallyBadAI - Stainless Steel, RR/RC battle AI development and discussion

    Hi Germanicu5,

    Very nice to see that there are still people who are improving the M2 AI!
    PB recommended me to look at this thread and after I have read it, I must say this looks very promising. Keep up the good work!
    I will keep an eye on this.

    Also, I'm really happy that finally someone found a way to let the AI use stakes. This is awesome and could make some battles so much better!
    May I ask if I could use this "stakes script" for TATW? Credits would go to you, of course.

    EDIT: does this stakes script also work in custom battles?
    Last edited by King Kong; May 04, 2009 at 12:45 PM.

    Winner of 'Favorite M2TW Mod' and 'Favorite M2TW Modder' Award 2007 & 2008

  5. #65
    Germanicu5's Avatar Will buy spare time...
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Not Zee Germany
    Posts
    2,119

    Default Re: ReallyBadAI - Stainless Steel, RR/RC battle AI development and discussion

    @Taiji
    Thx for your suggestions, I'm pretty sure some of that "dodgy" behaviour can be improved too (although most of it never happened to me). Ad. point 3, you're right about editing descr_walls.txt. I rather think the head of the unit left the settlement and that's why the issue occured, manning distance seems to be decently configured in RR/RC, I'll look into that again.

    @KK
    Hey,
    thanks for kind words, doing my best since I decided to join the community after many years of being a passive mod user.

    Obviously you can use stakes script for TATW, I'll be glad to see it incorporated there. I'm not sure which version to recommend though, I know the current AI your team is using and I expressed doubts about its vital settings before - I think the current settings of XBAI will work better with the basic timer-based version, you can test it with the enemy-distance setting too - I agree on modifying of timer and this setting (I_UnitEnemyUnitInRadius General2 110) to fit your mod. If you'd like some more info or "hand tailored" version, please contact me via PM.

    I'll post custom battles version of the script on Wednesday if everything goes ok (it just needs a minor adjustment), I'm still away from MTW-capable computer atm.

    Regards
    Last edited by Germanicu5; May 04, 2009 at 03:47 PM.
    I have no memory of this place.

  6. #66

    Default Re: ReallyBadAI - Stainless Steel, RR/RC battle AI development and discussion

    No offense to xeryx but this AI blows his out of the water, he works hard on his without a doubt, but he's trying to change things that are hardcoded (I glanced at his AI file and it is way longer than it should be, almost half of it doesn't work). So congratulations, you officially have the best AI for M2TW (in my book at least).


  7. #67

    Default Re: ReallyBadAI - Stainless Steel, RR/RC battle AI development and discussion

    I agree - also I'm using this for TATW and its working great in that mod too

  8. #68
    Gorrrrrn's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    here
    Posts
    5,546

    Default Re: ReallyBadAI - Stainless Steel, RR/RC battle AI development and discussion

    Played a couple of custom battles with the older config_ai_battle from post #61

    and didn't have any issues with gateways this time.

    only the vanilla issue of routing units getting stuck IN walls and on walls with ladders.

    Nothing that couldn't be resolved in game though.

    (On VH you're wasting your time attacking a full-stack army in a citadel with a similar army, heavy infantry get beaten by archers on walls
    and everything runs away at the slightest excuse.) useful for testing though.

  9. #69
    Germanicu5's Avatar Will buy spare time...
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Not Zee Germany
    Posts
    2,119

    Default Re: ReallyBadAI - Stainless Steel, RR/RC battle AI development and discussion

    @Rozanov
    Huge unit size too? If so, there's a setting or two I could blame (actually one in particular). Thx for testing. The file I'm posting should fix the issue (at least settings I changed looked like most likely culprits), I'm still unable to test that though.

    Regards
    I have no memory of this place.

  10. #70
    Gorrrrrn's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    here
    Posts
    5,546

    Default Re: ReallyBadAI - Stainless Steel, RR/RC battle AI development and discussion

    G5

    many thanks

    will get back to you when I get a chance to test - not too much work involved with citadel battles when defending anyway.

  11. #71
    /|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10,770

    Default Re: ReallyBadAI - Stainless Steel, RR/RC battle AI development and discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Rozanov View Post
    (On VH you're wasting your time attacking a full-stack army in a citadel with a similar army, heavy infantry get beaten by archers on walls
    and everything runs away at the slightest excuse.)
    Sounds like not enough dudes climbing a ladder at once, used to have the same issue in DLV.

  12. #72
    Germanicu5's Avatar Will buy spare time...
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Not Zee Germany
    Posts
    2,119

    Default Re: ReallyBadAI - Stainless Steel, RR/RC battle AI development and discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Taiji View Post
    Sounds like not enough dudes climbing a ladder at once, used to have the same issue in DLV.
    At this point it's a feature, as requested by majority of RR/RC users, easily editable though, I may post an alternative version if people wish so.

    Regards
    I have no memory of this place.

  13. #73

    Default Re: ReallyBadAI - Stainless Steel, RR/RC battle AI development and discussion

    Hey Germanicu5,
    thanks for kind words, doing my best since I decided to join the community after many years of being a passive mod user.

    Obviously you can use stakes script for TATW, I'll be glad to see it incorporated there. I'm not sure which version to recommend though, I know the current AI your team is using and I expressed doubts about its vital settings before - I think the current settings of XBAI will work better with the basic timer-based version, you can test it with the enemy-distance setting too - I agree on modifying of timer and this setting (I_UnitEnemyUnitInRadius General2 110) to fit your mod. If you'd like some more info or "hand tailored" version, please contact me via PM.
    Thanks a lot!!
    So, am I right to assume that with the current XBAI, the stakes script with the 60 seconds thing would be best to use?

    I'll post custom battles version of the script on Wednesday if everything goes ok (it just needs a minor adjustment), I'm still away from MTW-capable computer atm.
    That would be awesome! Thanks for all your great work!

    Winner of 'Favorite M2TW Mod' and 'Favorite M2TW Modder' Award 2007 & 2008

  14. #74
    Gorrrrrn's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    here
    Posts
    5,546

    Default Re: ReallyBadAI - Stainless Steel, RR/RC battle AI development and discussion

    Problem with heavy infantry vs archers on walls almost entirely a morale problem.

    Had a spear unit defending a curved wall. Spearmen under the tower so AI could deploy full unit unopposed.
    Several units climbed tower, all ran away on contact with spears.
    (there was fire from inner wall towers and muskets (1 or 2 firing))
    Spearmen lost 1 man in entire battle.

    (that was with human defending on medium difficulty.)

    Had a couple of instances where AI attacking walls with unit with ladders - I didn't even realise they were there.
    Units didn't engage any defenders, the towers were sufficient to rout them. (these on middle tier walls.)

    As attacker I find it impossible to breach the middle walls, units break too easily and once routed they are practically useless on the battle field even if they regroup.

    (Is there a morale penalty once units enter a castle?)

    Tested the revised config_ai_battle and it works fine.
    (ie no gateway issues)
    only the usual vanilla routing men stuck in/on walls with ladders.

  15. #75
    Germanicu5's Avatar Will buy spare time...
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Not Zee Germany
    Posts
    2,119

    Default Re: ReallyBadAI - Stainless Steel, RR/RC battle AI development and discussion

    @KK
    If missile units operate far from AI troop line, the timer version is better (although if player changes approach vector, stakes can be a bit misplaced, timer works great with sally-out or crossing battles though). I'll install TATW tonight and see myself anyway. I already feel like I'm missing a mainstream event.
    As for custom battles version of the script, implementing it is more problematic than I thought. I'll try more before I make some definite statements.

    @Rozanov
    I wasn't a great fan of lowering morale in the latest RR/RC release, maybe PB considers reverting the changes after he reads your suggestions. My intention with sieges was to force human player to send two units or more at once to climb a ladder/tower and to make them less efficient, actually the idea was to limit their use and make player employ some artillery or a ram. Ladders are built to easily to be considered "proper" siege equipment. Actually increasing ladder throughput won't change much, as units rout on contact anyway.
    Thanks for checking the AI file, I'll update main post later.

    Regards

    An update to timer-based version (not recomended for my AI) below.
    New version available via 1st post.
    Last edited by Germanicu5; May 08, 2009 at 08:53 PM.
    I have no memory of this place.

  16. #76
    Gorrrrrn's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    here
    Posts
    5,546

    Default Re: ReallyBadAI - Stainless Steel, RR/RC battle AI development and discussion

    G5

    (not playing with RR/RC just SS6.2 rc4 WITH 1100ad mod.)

    but buffing morale (if only for professional troops) would make for better battles - no fun if the enemy runs away all the time.

  17. #77
    Germanicu5's Avatar Will buy spare time...
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Not Zee Germany
    Posts
    2,119

    Default Re: ReallyBadAI - Stainless Steel, RR/RC battle AI development and discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Rozanov View Post
    G5

    (not playing with RR/RC just SS6.2 rc4 WITH 1100ad mod.)

    but buffing morale (if only for professional troops) would make for better battles - no fun if the enemy runs away all the time.
    I talked to PB, he said morale in a campaign, when generals are in use (and I remember AI units get additional exp on training too) should be fine and that he only lowered it for some low-lvl militias etc.

    Btw, I'm into TATW a bit now, so I'll have some additional work.

    Waiting to see some more opinions on ladder settings.

    Regards
    I have no memory of this place.

  18. #78
    Germanicu5's Avatar Will buy spare time...
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Not Zee Germany
    Posts
    2,119

    Default Re: ReallyBadAI - Stainless Steel, RR/RC battle AI development and discussion

    Timer-based Stakes Script bugfix update, please redownload the script if you're using v0.12 release.Stakes deployment as such wasn't influenced.

    Battle AI Switcher released, see 1st post for details.

    Regards
    Last edited by Germanicu5; May 10, 2009 at 01:59 PM.
    I have no memory of this place.

  19. #79
    Germanicu5's Avatar Will buy spare time...
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Not Zee Germany
    Posts
    2,119

    Default Re: ReallyBadAI - Stainless Steel, RR/RC Battle AI/Battle Switcher/Scripts development and discussion

    A total of 4 sets of different AIs available for RR/RC now. They combine previous 2 sets with a new battle formation used instead of classical ai_triple_misiles_in_front, troops are more condensed in this version. I also renamed Batte Switcher version number to avoid confusion with ReallyBadAI+Stakes.
    First post updated.
    More changes coming when I have some spare time.

    Regards
    I have no memory of this place.

  20. #80
    Germanicu5's Avatar Will buy spare time...
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Not Zee Germany
    Posts
    2,119

    Default Re: ReallyBadAI v*.78 - Stainless Steel, RR/RC Battle AI/Battle Switcher/Scripts development and discussion

    First post updated with the newest AI and Stakes Script Bugfix v0.21 release. There was a typo causing possibility of one unit deploying stakes after it stops instead of instant deployment, nothing serious.

    Regards
    I have no memory of this place.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •