Co-operative Campaign AI Project

[Banzai!]

There are a lot of submods out there for Stainless Steel. New units, AORs are all good but the essential game mechanics is what keeps us playing a campaign.

This means

• ECONOMY
• TRAITS
• AI

ECONOMY
Economy is currently being worked on in St Naffatun's excellent trade mod.

TRAITS
Traits, likewise, by Byg.

AI
However all of M2TW's ai virtuosos, Darth, Lusted, xeryx and nickman77 are on hiatus.
Yet there is a big capability gap in the Stainless Steel campaign ai.

For instance I have noticed:

• Mongols do nothing (do not achieve their historical empire or anything even close to that)
• England gets wiped out and Ireland and Scotland run around beating up France and HRE.
• Nobody declares war on me. Hurry up and declare war on me.
• AI doesn't garrison settlements.

COOPERATIVE CAMPAIGN AI PROJECT
I propose we all collectively brainstorm about creating an improved campaign AI. I (or any volunteers? anyone?) will attempt to put these ideas into the game.

Lusted's AI will be used as the base. (is xeryx, others better?)

For instance we could brainstorm by making posts:

• describing how our campaign is going.
• describing what we don't like and do like about ai performance in our campaign.
• describing what we want the campaign ai to be like.

This first post will be updated with experimental campaign AIs developed in response to these ideas.

I am posting this in the main forum so we get max idea posts in this brainstorming thread.

[Grandmaster Ryu]

* Mongols do nothing (do not achieve their historical empire or anything even close to that)
* England gets wiped out and Ireland and Scotland run around beating up France and HRE.
* Nobody declares war on me. Hurry up and declare war on me.
* AI doesn't garrison settlements.


Mongol Improvement Project?
Common sense? xD
Stop being goodie two-shoes
Garrison script

________________________

On a serious note, a main thing that has to do with this is the Victory conditions - I suppose the Mongol's don't have any great ones for them to try and forfil. Also England has to try keep Caen which they shouldn't have too - considering it was given back to the French. This is why they get nerfed -

Garrison script should help though - although I don't use it personally

[Caesar Clivus]

Brainstorming is all well and good, but is there anyone here with AI programming experience?

[Banzai!]

Brainstorming is all well and good, but is there anyone here with AI programming experience?

Look at descr_campaign_ai_db.xml. It's quite simple to write a command,

if ai in this situation
react this way

We need brainstorming to create a cohesive and well rounded ai based on everyone's experiences.

[Caesar Clivus]

Look at descr_campaign_ai_db.xml. It's quite simple to write a command,

if ai in this situation
react this way

It's not quite as simple as that though. Changing one thing can affect other things which affect even more things.

[Warspite_TW]

True. It will not be an easy task.

[Gigantus]

Brainstorming is all well and good, but is there anyone here with AI programming experience?

I didn't go through the whole thread, but has anyone contacted Xeryx? He wrote a damn good AI for Pro Deo et Rege (PDeR).
His forum

[Quark]

gigantus
He tried to do an Ai for SS, but could not get it to work the way he wanted, so would not release such, hence we had a week or so in the beta to try and create such. Obviously at that time we thought Lusted had retired, but he popped back for a bit, and now once a gain lanquishes away in RL , so somebody dedicated to developing/updating an Ai made sense.

So in the end it looks like its up to the SS fans to get off there backsides and do it themselves , hence the reason why Banzai and I are attempting such (although with different bases). We proparly should start from scratch, but then we have to do the whole learning process of understanding the mysteries of CA logic , rather than follow in the footsteps of the masters before us.

Banzai
Do you want to talk settlement mechanics and dfs values? I am wondering if production_base is the potential pool of units that is available (including fleets), if thats the case it should have a large effect at the beginning, but less so with time, as really only the frontline base should be considered.

I going to rewrite the economic model script today/tomorrow as the Ai ends up with no enough cash at present.

What are your thoughts on
Active rebels
Last Man Standing: eg if Ai has 1 settlement left should it get a bonus
Altered starts: eg give France less at the start, but give the french Ai a boost if turns <6 so the Ai expands well, but players have a harder time (script cash)

To get the Ai to be a challenge I think we need to look at all the things which effect it, which also means we need a mapper - volunteer wanted.

btw I am going to base my research on a pure SS 6.1 folder (updated traits as soring out Ai rebellions as well, and may need a warmonger trait for Ai) so no new EDB, models, stats etc, as thats got to be the starting point. Files that should be looked at
descr_campaign_ai_db.xml
descr_campaign_db.xml
descr_faction_standing.txt
descr_settlement_mechanics.xml
descr_pathfinding.txt
campaign_script.txt
descr_strat.txt

probarly then EDB and cultures (I think there really should be a pagan culture in SS, but I am trawling through that in a seperate folder)

Edit: what should be the test level for the Ai. As there is no good saying - look it works on very hard, if it does not on other levels. One easy solution would be to have a default_Medium, default_Hard, default_VeryHard profile set, where you just ramp up the invade decisions and swap which is used on startup.

[Byg]

There are a lot of submods out there for Stainless Steel. New units, AORs are all good but the essential game mechanics is what keeps us playing a campaign.

AI
However all of M2TW's ai virtuosos, Darth, Lusted, xeryx and nickman77 are on hiatus.
Yet there is a big capability gap in the Stainless Steel campaign ai.

For instance I have noticed:

• Mongols do nothing (do not achieve their historical empire or anything even close to that)
• England gets wiped out and Ireland and Scotland run around beating up France and HRE.
• Nobody declares war on me. Hurry up and declare war on me.
• AI doesn't garrison settlements.

COOPERATIVE CAMPAIGN AI PROJECT
I propose we all collectively brainstorm about creating an improved campaign AI. I (or any volunteers? anyone?) will attempt to put these ideas into the game.

Lusted's AI will be used as the base. (is xeryx, others better?)

For instance we could brainstorm by making posts:

• describing how our campaign is going.
• describing what we don't like and do like about ai performance in our campaign.
• describing what we want the campaign ai to be like.

This first post will be updated with experimental campaign AIs developed in response to these ideas.

I am posting this in the main forum so we get max idea posts in this brainstorming thread.

Bloody hell! I had exactly the same idea at the weekend, to gather all sorts of people together to do a new ai. I already have a list of things I wanted. I need some tough ai enhancement to go with the new bgrIV before I release it. I'll dig the list out later.


EDIT:

Here's my list so far, based on my playing or modding total war most days since RTW came out.

AI Proposal

1) AI must regard human controlled factions as the most powerful and dangerous.

Reasoning: because they are, regardless of their size.

2) AI must be able to act without honor towards the human player if it is in the interests of the AI. It is almost always in the interests of the AI.

Reasoning: because that is how we can act towards the AI.

3) AI should only assist the human player when a shared enemy is actually of a greater threat to the AI than to the human.

Reasoning: a human player is all too capable of exploiting AI help, but need not bother to assist in return.

4) AI should always demand significant tribute/gifts from a human player in exchange for allying him. The AI attitude towards the human should constantly be drifting towards unfriendliness. It should take a lot of money or significant battle assistance just to maintain a fair relationship with an ally.

Reasoning: The easiest way for a human to conquer the AI is to ally, wait for it to fight someone else then crush its empty settlements, often many in a single turn. The AI needs to be more savvy in this regard.

5) The AI should get and give other AI factions automatic permission to cross each others lands, but not allow a human to do it without damaging relations.

Reasoning: A human player can exploit this AI weakness, but it does not apply to a human. WE can attack across neutral or allied territory with impunity, but the AI can do nothing back.

[St Naffatun]

Sounds good, there's certain sub-mods that are so good they are practically compulsory now - so everyone else has to make sure their new changes don't conflict other sub-mods, or better yet get included in an harmonious tested release.

As a gamer there's nothing you hate more than fiddling around copying folders and files all over the place (even though it's free work, agreeing to easy installation and use is implicit in anything that uses the word "release" imo free or not).

The stuff I'm working on will be split up into neat little packages (I think WRL has already isolated JUST the trade and tax income changes). Right now I'm playing it and including anything that improves the campaign gameplay.

[Thorn]

Just a few thoughts..

1) AI must regard human controlled factions as the most powerful and dangerous.

Reasoning: because they are, regardless of their size.

AI should try to react to his neigbourgs movements, no predefined, or unrealistic values to force "unreasonable" actions

2) AI must be able to act without honor towards the human player if it is in the interests of the AI. It is almost always in the interests of the AI.

Reasoning: because that is how we can act towards the AI.

3) AI should only assist the human player when a shared enemy is actually of a greater threat to the AI than to the human.

Reasoning: a human player is all too capable of exploiting AI help, but need not bother to assist in return.

AI should take the best decision (or at least one of the best available with the current AI rules) at each stage

4) AI should always demand significant tribute/gifts from a human player in exchange for allying him. The AI attitude towards the human should constantly be drifting towards unfriendliness. It should take a lot of money or significant battle assistance just to maintain a fair relationship with an ally.

Reasoning: The easiest way for a human to conquer the AI is to ally, wait for it to fight someone else then crush its empty settlements, often many in a single turn. The AI needs to be more savvy in this regard.

Diplomacy rules need to be redone for most of its options, not only AI-Human.. AI-AI relations arent working on vanilla

5) The AI should get and give other AI factions automatic permission to cross each others lands, but not allow a human to do it without damaging relations.

Reasoning: A human player can exploit this AI weakness, but it does not apply to a human. WE can attack across neutral or allied territory with impunity, but the AI can do nothing back.

The AI has nothing to do with that.. you need to make those actions valuable to the AI to be taken into account when chosing decisions..


Why? an AI must "think", if not, dont call it AI, forcing the AI rules to go one way wont make it better, just more "agressive" against humans

[Canterbury]

Have to agree with Byg on this. Don't know nothing about AI programming but I've been playing TW long enough to understand that anything other an AI with a profound suspicion of the player is an AI doomed to lose. Quark's argument that you have to create an AI for all styles rather misses the point that 95% of us are genocidal maniacs. Ideally it would all be based on player behaviour, but given the limitations of the AI, that's not practical. Maybe this thread should be renamed the "So You Think You're A World Conqueror? Ha! Try This!" AI mod. Just a thought.

Idea's. Don't know if any of these are possible.

*Whenever the player crosses a neutrals territory there should be an instant declaration of war by the neutral on the player. No warnings. Doesn't matter how good the relationship is. And the player will be counted as the aggressor diplomatically.

*Whenever the player crosses an allied territory without having military access it should kill the alliance. Doesn't matter how good the relationship is. Marriage included. Another move on what is now neutral territory will therefore create a war with the former ally. The player will again be counted as the aggressor.

*Local anti-player alliances. The player should always start the game with his immediate targets in a plausible alliance, eg if England then Scotland and Ireland in an alliance, if France then HRE and England, with full military access. These deals should be unbreakable. An attack on one should therefore be an attack on both.

*Whenever another faction is at war with the player for whatever reason the faction should get massive bonuses for peace deals with any one else it is fighting. Also, it should never be attacked by another faction once it is at war with the player. It also should get massive bonuses for making alliances with other factions. Having the Pope play peacemaker should be much less important than having the operation of the balance of power. Maybe "Balance of Power" AI mod would be a better idea for a name.

*Massive penalties on the player for exterminating settlements, for breaking alliances, for attacking allies, for attacking any faction outside a prescribed list, ie anyone other than its natural enemies, for failing to ransom hostages [particularly generals, even more so for royals]. This should operate not just for future deals but for current as well, meaning an end to trade deals, alliances etc. Particularly the former. A large scale loss of trade deals will cripple the player. Can merchants be expelled from foreign lands? Maybe an inquisitor is spawned who then targets all player merchants with guaranteed success.

The thing about all these suggestions is that they are realistic. The player gets an extremely easy time in the AI, except of course at VH where the reactions of the AI are totally unrelated to player behaviour. It would be good if the player was really made to feel the full consequences of his actions.

[romantiq77]

I gotta say Canterbury.. I like your ideas...

[Byg]

Have to agree with Byg on this. Don't know nothing about AI programming but I've been playing TW long enough to understand that anything other an AI with a profound suspicion of the player is an AI doomed to lose. Quark's argument that you have to create an AI for all styles rather misses the point that 95% of us are genocidal maniacs. Ideally it would all be based on player behaviour, but given the limitations of the AI, that's not practical. Maybe this thread should be renamed the "So You Think You're A World Conqueror? Ha! Try This!" AI mod. Just a thought.

Idea's. Don't know if any of these are possible.

*Whenever the player crosses a neutrals territory there should be an instant declaration of war by the neutral on the player. No warnings. Doesn't matter how good the relationship is. And the player will be counted as the aggressor diplomatically.

*Whenever the player crosses an allied territory without having military access it should kill the alliance. Doesn't matter how good the relationship is. Marriage included. Another move on what is now neutral territory will therefore create a war with the former ally. The player will again be counted as the aggressor.

I suggested these things to Lusted a few months ago, I can't remember his answer, but if it wasn't possible using campaign ai it could be done in a script.

EDIT : this is what he said "Can't make crossing of neutral territory mean war, nor would i want to as campaign map pathfinding often has AI go over other nations provinces to invade another province..."

However, using a script would not need the CAI file and we wouldn't impose this on the AI. Human could have exemption on crusade, which would work because he can't stop to attack non crusade targets on crusade or he loses units.

*Local anti-player alliances. The player should always start the game with his immediate targets in a plausible alliance, eg if England then Scotland and Ireland in an alliance, if France then HRE and England, with full military access. These deals should be unbreakable. An attack on one should therefore be an attack on both.

*Whenever another faction is at war with the player for whatever reason the faction should get massive bonuses for peace deals with any one else it is fighting. Also, it should never be attacked by another faction once it is at war with the player. It also should get massive bonuses for making alliances with other factions. Having the Pope play peacemaker should be much less important than having the operation of the balance of power. Maybe "Balance of Power" AI mod would be a better idea for a name.

*Massive penalties on the player for exterminating settlements, for breaking alliances, for attacking allies, for attacking any faction outside a prescribed list, ie anyone other than its natural enemies, for failing to ransom hostages [particularly generals, even more so for royals]. This should operate not just for future deals but for current as well, meaning an end to trade deals, alliances etc. Particularly the former. A large scale loss of trade deals will cripple the player. Can merchants be expelled from foreign lands? Maybe an inquisitor is spawned who then targets all player merchants with guaranteed success.

Sounds reasonable. Nerazzurri and I wrote a script for penalising the player for extermination, and more so for sacking, but had to drop it due to turn delay, however, we intended to do a lot with it. So, it could be done.

A lot of us will be leaving the medieval series when the new game comes out in 6 months or so I expect, but it would be nice if this game could give us a few months of extreme challenge if these things could be done in time.

[Byg]

Why? an AI must "think", if not, dont call it AI, forcing the AI rules to go one way wont make it better, just more "agressive" against humans

Overall my suggestion prevents forcing the AI. The current situation is that the AI is forced to do various things that a human player is NOT forced to do. That is why the AI dies so easily.

Imagine you are in a hotseat game, you, another human and an AI player. Which one will you know is the most serious threat? I am saying the AI needs to know this too or we will always have weak opposition when we play.

[repman]

@Canterbury
Very good Ideas...most of them can be and will be realized in DLV

example:
- Dark Ages: during pest times the AI is confused and hyperaggressive towards the player
- Player Civil War : at the worst moment external AI's get hyperaggressive towards the player
- Different AI profiles dependent on player actions, events, factionleadertraits,.....

repman

[Byg]

There is of course a third way, not that I am suggesting it and do not know if it is possible still, but you could apply the same restrictions to the player as the AI has.

Anyone remember Rome Total War? You could not attack other roman factions in the early period of the game because they were allies and the game would not let you do it. If the Ai cannot attack us for whatever reason then to be fair the game should physically stop us too, not just punish us for doing it after the event. At least that was fair.

[St Naffatun]

Overall my suggestion prevents forcing the AI. The current situation is that the AI is forced to do various things that a human player is NOT forced to do. That is why the AI dies so easily.

Imagine you are in a hotseat game, you, another human and an AI player. Which one will you know is the most serious threat? I am saying the AI needs to know this too or we will always have weak opposition when we play.

Byg proceed - most objections are not based on actualy playing but are completely theoretical. I'm starting to realise people make statements based on nothing but preconceptions.

Ignore them, that's the beauty of modding you are not being paid therefore do have to to pander to limited individuals. Just make what you know is best. The best AI combines the traditional decision-based-on-tendencies with certain hard and fast subroutines.

[Stinkfloyd]

I've used both Lusted's AI and Xeyryx's AI and I find that Xeryx's is a little bit better. But I have had an idea for a while now but I am not sure how to implement it. It involves the garrisoning of AI factions. I know there is an AI status called AI defend (could have wrong name) but it basically has the AI garrison their cities and not attack at all. If the AI when not at war can have the defend status and then change that when they enter into a war in order to be more aggressive then they would garrison their cities better unless they were at war.

[Gorrrrrn]

I notice that nikolai1962 has had another re-think on campaign AI re maps:

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpo...4&postcount=56

very interesting thread:
http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=82397

also other threads:
http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=83709

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=95416

and CavalryCmdr's essay:
http://rtw.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/f...t&f=9,6718,,10

sadly most of the threads some time ago.