Skynet AI

[z3n]

Not deliberately so but yes. The ai will perform more aggressively on hard difficulty and above especially the rebels.

[nadalio]

Hi Z3N,
What limitations and hardcoded limits have m2tw AI?
It's a General question because I'm not an expert, I mean something that could be changed via memory editing:
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...am-in-pictures

[z3n]

Everything of utmost importance is within the exe, there is probably nothing that can be changed by that.

[Jadli]

Greetings, great work here

Im kind of uneducated in the AI modding, so I wanted to ask about some things... Most mods I have seen seems to be running on Germanius ReallyBadAI in some way I was wondering, what are the main differences? (and perhaps differences to other AI mods as well, is there some thread where they are all compared? I am trying to find some ways how to improve AI in my mod, so Im wondering if I should replace Germanicus with something else ...

Also, in case I would replace Germanicus AI with yours, all all parts of Germanicus AI considered "battle scripts" , so I would have to erase it all?

And I assume that the usual help to AI via scritps, such as giving them money, armies and so on in depending on whether the faction is played by AI or human, how many regions left and so on is still well compatible with this?

[z3n]

Germanicus affects the battle AI however I never managed to understand what he was attempting to do with his code. It always confused me and I wasnt sure if it was worth the effect on stability. This is why I wrote my own battle scripts which I could better understand the purpose of, based on the battle scripts CA wrote for historical battles.


The usual help to the AI is non existent in this, as it only affects the core battle and campaign AI. DaC modified the usual help to be quite generous with my AI but EBII was much more conservative. You can go either route or a balance.

[Jadli]

Ah okay, thanks for quick answer. I will try Skynet and see how it goes then

So, just to be clear, in campaign_script I replace cca 15k of Germanicus code by your "add_into_campaign_script" which has cca 800 hundreds lines, right?

And also, rather wanted to be sure about fully understanding this
In ReadMe you say:
"The folder 'Battle Scripts' contains two variants of a battle script
1) A version specifically for mods based around the campaign(s)
2) A version for mods which are made around custom battles"

I assume you mean a division between campaigns AI (including campaign manual battles) and custom battles AI, and not between campaign AI and battle AI?


And I plan to slowly try to customize the AI for purposes of my (subúmod (for future versions), Unofficial Patch for The Elder Scrolls: Total War, if thats okay to you (of course, you will be credited). If I start running around and changing the codes related to AI a bit, the whole Skynet wouldnt "collapse", right?

Also, I see you have some more info on campaign_db than others, so I might later get back to you on what some of those lines mean, as some of them remain unclear to me a bit...

[z3n]

Writing from my phone so I will be short.


Yes to first question.

Second question, campaign ai is the descr_campaign_ai_db.

Last question thats fine.

[Jadli]

Thanks!

Some more general questions, what is (your) AI gonna do, if I place a lot of permanent forts with relatively strong garissons all around the map, but not in places the AI needs/uses, such as roads, crossings and so on, but instead I would like to put those usually always further into mountains, valleys and so on, simply the farthest from the "habitable" area? I mean would they waste time by trying to take it and so on, or would they not care?

And is there any way to tell AI to use use generals (named characters) more?

And I assume you could decrease movement of captains to 0 via descr_characters, and then only armies led by generals could move, would AI cope with that? Have anyone tried?

[z3n]

Permanent forts confuse the AI. Thats why we removed them within EBII.

AI using generals more, not really. That's why in later games in RTWII or warhammer series, they simply made all armies have generals by default with no captains at all.


AI wouldn't cope very well with your suggestion I think, but you could definitely try it and see what happens.

[Jadli]

Permanent forts confuse the AI. Thats why we removed them within EBII.

I suppose I should have specififed what kind of faction would hold the forts in my initial thoughts. Doing it with rebels indeed made AI attack it and so on...

But then I tried using another (freezed) faction for which I made sure they are always gonna be in good relations with AI, and it works. The AI absolutely doesnt care about it (tested for a lot of turns), neither does it seems to stack armies around or simply being affected by it anyhow. I assume if they were empty, they would care, but now they have no reason. To be clear, my intention is to have a lot of dungeons on the map, that the guild would task the player to take throughout the game, for special rewards and so on. I assume it gonna be the same.

AI using generals more, not really. That's why in later games in RTWII or warhammer series, they simply made all armies have generals by default with no captains at all.

AI wouldn't cope very well with your suggestion I think, but you could definitely try it and see what happens.

Yea that aint the way. I tried lowering it to 0. But the issue is garissoned units can never leave as they dont get MP bonus from generals.

Then I also tried making captain's MPs very small, like 8 times smaller than generals' MPs, but the AI absolutely didnt get that. They rather kept sending captain armies on 10 turns route to a next settlement, instead of leading it with a general. So yep, definitely not the way (though again didnt test this one on your AI yet)

[z3n]

But then I tried using another (freezed) faction for which I made sure they are always gonna be in good relations with AI, and it works. The AI absolutely doesnt care about it (tested for a lot of turns), neither does it seems to stack armies around or simply being affected by it anyhow. I assume if they were empty, they would care, but now they have no reason. To be clear, my intention is to have a lot of dungeons on the map, that the guild would task the player to take throughout the game, for special rewards and so on. I assume it gonna be the same.

Interesting find. Thanks for sharing.

Yea that aint the way. I tried lowering it to 0. But the issue is garissoned units can never leave as they dont get MP bonus from generals.

Then I also tried making captain's MPs very small, like 8 times smaller than generals' MPs, but the AI absolutely didnt get that. They rather kept sending captain armies on 10 turns route to a next settlement, instead of leading it with a general. So yep, definitely not the way (though again didnt test this one on your AI yet)

I don't believe it helps very much but I did try adding extra movement points to a family member rather than captain. Alternatively you could do an AI only trait for that, but it may irritate the player if they cant catch an army sometimes.

[Dekhatres]

Yes to first question.

i am playing without having added the extra stuff in campaign_script, am i missing important features ?

[z3n]

Not particularly, just enemy AI reacting to arrow fire while under defensive positions.

[Just let me post]

Hi, first of all - your battle AI is amazing, I find it much more dynamic than ReallyBadAI (and less crashy )
Secondly, I read the whole thread and I'm still confused about these things:

1) what's the difference between add_into_campaign_script.txt located in data/world and the one in Campaign Battle Script? Which one are we supposed to include?
edit: I suspect it's the data/world one, as it's newer and doesn't have EBII specific counters.

2) if I want the scripts to work in both my campaign AND custom battles, is it ok/necessary to use both methods?
Thanks in advance

[z3n]

Yep sorry, the campaign script is newer I should probably have updated or removed the custom battles one.


In general you'd only want to use one script, two scripts executing at once in a campaign might cause you problems eventually.

[Dominick]

This is an AI overhaul that aims to improve every aspect of the AI (campaign and battle) it possibly can, in a non mod specific way, using these principles. As long as you credit myself and EBII feel free to use and or modify it.

Download from dropbox.

Installation -
1. Read the README file carefully
2. Extract onto your desktop and copy/paste the files (or parts of teh file) you want in manually.

I've been playing a Denmark campaign in Retrofit Mod with Grand Units Add-on Mod coupled with your AI through the last year and a half, so I'd like to report a couple of things for future development.

Generally I'm quite impressed and happy with your campaign AI, however these are the things that I believe could be improved:
- Papacy AI is aggressive when following your installation instructions so it should be noted somewhere under which type it's advised to put it's campaign AI.
- AI attacks badly defended settlements and is ready for peace often before even losing a battle (maybe there are some factors I am not aware of why the AI acts in such a manner), and in many cases is ready to give up many of it's own settlements to just gain peace. This should be balanced.
- AI army enters Jihad and it doesn't attack the Jihad target when it arrives there, it just stands around the target. The same might be true for crusades, but I am not completely sure as I've captured the crusade target myself.

Keep up the good work, Skynet AI has the best CAI I had encountered thus far.

[Jadli]

BTW, a question or two

in your Skynet you set this line in descr_campaign_ai_db to be like this (while other mods dont have a zero value)

<invade_priority_fs_modifier float = "-250.0"/>
<invade_priority_gs_modifier float = "0.0"/>

If I understand function of this line correctly based on description ("modifies the final invade priority for new faction targets by += (global_standing * modifier) {makes factions more likely to start war with untrustworthy targets"), does it mean you basically disabled AI attacking someone based on global standing? (as multiplying any value by 0 you get 0)

Aslo regarding this line, I wanted to ask... In mods they dont have this set to zero, there is always "f", so its looks for example like this "-200.0f". What does the "f" do?

I think I understand how does work the factions standing and why did you set it to 0.5 (Based on your explanation in the other thread I think it means that if you have 0.5+ relations with someone, it becomes your trusted ally, right?), However I dont get the meaning of trusted_ally lines based on global standing:

<trusted_ally_gs_threshold float="-0.1"/>
<trusted_ally_target_gs_threshold float="-0.1"/>

It means that if a faction has -0,1 global standing, it becomes your trusted ally? Why should slightly (globally) untrustworthy factions be considered trusted allies?

[z3n]

Yes I didnt want global standing to matter as it should not as much as faction relations. The f is for the parser, I presume it refers to "float" which is a data type.

Those lines about global standing should be in the <min entry> from what I recall. It means they need a minimum global reputation of-0.1 which goes to the maximum possible global reputation value.

[Jadli]

Ah okay.

Well, those lines are at the beginning of the file alongside with fs thresholds and invade_modifiers, etc in the example provided by you in other thread, your Skynet files and every other mod I checked...

Neverthless, I have been asking these questions because after using Skynet in my mod, the factions doesnt seem to be doing much at all against each other, so trying to fix it. I have been running a bunch of tests of cca 35 turns (then I get some crash that I need to fix ). I have used all your files, while all other files affecting this should be fine, such as descr_faction_standing affecting faction standings between factions, or initial faction standings in descr_strat.

So in the tests I tried to change some of the values at the beginning of the document in various ways

(these lines I mean)

<trusted_ally_fs_threshold float = "0.5"/> 
    <trusted_ally_target_fs_threshold float = "0.5"/>
    <trusted_ally_target_human_fs_threshold float = "0.5"/>
    <trusted_ally_gs_threshold float="-0.1"/>
    <trusted_ally_target_gs_threshold float="-0.1"/>
    <trusted_ally_enemy_auto_war bool = "false"/>

    <use_cheat_overrides bool = "false"/>
<invade_priority_fs_modifier float = "-250.0"/>
<invade_priority_gs_modifier float = "0.0"/>
    <invade_priority_assistance_offset int = "750"/>
    <invade_priority_min int = "0"/>
    <invade_priority_max int = "1000"/>
    <merge_fort_priority_offset int = "-500"/>

but cant seem to get factions start wars against each other or make alliance much (there is pretty much zero new wars, and one or two alliances being made.. )... (testing on VH). While they do all normal stuff, obliterate AI and enter other AI factions' lands...

I also noticed, that in your descr_faction_standing_ai in the decision part

<decision_entry>
                <!--
                    invade immediate (is neighbour, bad standing, weak)
                -->
                <min_entry stance = "Neutral" target_human = "true" is_neighbour = "true"/>
                <max_entry stance = "Neutral" frontline_balance = "5.0" target_faction_standing = "0.1" num_enemies = "0"/>
                <faction_attitude at_war = "true" can_force_invade = "true" invade = "invade_immediate"/>
            </decision_entry>

which I figured could have been causing the issue, as in my mod every faction fights also one other evil faction (alongside the slaves. While most factions is being neutral towards each other) so I increased the num_enemies to 1 and 2, but it didnt seem to change the issue as well... Whil

So, what of your values would you recommend for me to change to simply get AI be more agressive/active?

[z3n]

I noticed the version in Skynet is about 4 months out of date from the latest (and last release).

Try this one out instead. I also updated the OP.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Xi1...ew?usp=sharing


However, if you look at that entry "target_human = "true"" could be removed, however they will be more aggressive toward neighbours while rebels still exist. Anyways, I believe (it's been 4 years roughly) we ran into a problem with the old version that you're describing before I fixed it.

I just never posted the updated version here. Whoops!