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

[Germanicu5]

ReallyBadAI Battle System for Stainless Steel and Battle AI Scripts

This mod is the most unique and comprehensive modification of battle AI ever committed, squeezing out as
much as possible from game engine and supporting it with exclusively developed, manually scripted AI behavior, forging an unforgettable experience.

ReallyBadAI v5.7 All Inclusive 17-10-2012, download here
Settlement Tweaks 28-02-2011, download: HERE
Installation: Unpack files to your main SS directory (default: C:\Program Files\SEGA\Medieval II Total War\mods\SS6.3\), run SS_setup.exe and tick ReallyBadAI. Update: Use SS_setup.exe, untick ReallyBadAI, then install and tick it again (or just install, untick, tick).
Campaign restart recommended, not absolutely necessary though.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Use:Scripts start automatically with campaign.
Custom Battle- scripts start automatically via advisor.

Everything tested using well-established methodology, which ensures no imaginary functions are advertised. No empty promises, this is the real deal.

Current features show after clicking download link

Main features: - most aggressive outflanking around - much better formations - very efficient skirmishing - cavalry avoiding spears - corrected pathfinding - limited possibility of exploit use Fully exclusive scripted features (not present in any other AI mods): - reworked sieging and intelligent settlement bombardment - brand new defensive sally-out behavior, very active and smart - AI deploying stakes - AI protecting its general when attacking a settlement - elephant-based units properly attacking settlements - player sallying out can actually end up being assaulted - AI’s reinforcements speeding to help the main army - fixed cases of passive AI behavior when attacking in all battles For the best results install desired ReallyBadAI and BattleAISwitcher.

Current features show after clicking download link

Battle AI Switcher is featured in SS Features: Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  - new formations - 4 different settlement capture schemes - switches between set number of AIs giving a good variety of AI behaviours - switches between different defensive AI formations Current AI setup: standard, cautious, aggresive Changelist: Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  v2.0: -reworked mechanics, now running via show_me - always savegame-compatible - scripts can be skipped if any errors occur v1.37-38: improved scripts v1.36 list of changes: - new settlement assault formations - major siege revamp - AI more aggressive in open battles - fixed numerous bugs v0.88 list of changes: - better missile troops management - improved formation cohesion previous changes: - new siege stage progression requirements - improved AI movement during crossing battles - siege with multiple armies adjusted - aggressive outflanking - missile units concentrate fire on melee units more often - reduced passive behaviour of supporting AI armies - specifically adjusted for huge unit size - ladders/siege towers throughput revamped to suit huge unit size - outflanking improvements benefiting huge unit size previous changes: - increased unit cohesion when maneuvering - short-ranged missile units performance improved - siege adjustments, particularly siege defense - corrected missile troops firing positions - different threat assessment scheme - skirmish distances and reaction times: adjusted and tested - engage distances adjusted for better battle performance - encouraged outflanking: makes better use of cavalry, reduces chances of AI charging pikes and allows deep operation (achieved by changing a couple of loosely connected settings) - battle-analyser adjustments Manual Mod Integration Instructions 1. Download ReallyBadAI and find a set of files in InstDir\g5\Manual_Integration\ . 2. Import combat balancing settings that are mod-specific (found in your mod's battle_config.xml): Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  <combat-balancing> <missile-target-accuracy> <infantry>x.x</infantry> <cavalry>x.x</cavalry> <elephants>x.x</elephants> </missile-target-accuracy> <melee-hit-rate>x.x</melee-hit-rate> </combat-balancing> 3. Check if your EDU uses skirmish class, try not to use it for units other than gunmen\javelins\crossbowmen, guild's missile bonuses don't apply to them (still it's very useful for units that need a direct line of sight to shoot). 4. Change formation of units based on elephant mount to horde - if it's not widely used it'll work, it's important that infantry doesn't use the formation (or very rarely), you can decrease elephants' formation spacing by ~30%. 5. You need to give all foot missile units with range exceeding 160m "extreme_range" attribute (not mandatory for quick individual integrations). 6. If your mod doesn't use mod-specific advice files and texts, you can copy advice files without problems, but if it does, then you'll need to import some values manually - entries from export_descr_advice.txt, export_descr_advice_enums.txt and export_advice.txt (all including variations of G5Script entries), you'll need to delete advice-related .bin file found in your mod's data/text directory too (and please delete the *.bin file supplied with ReallyBadAI). Keeping Vanilla advice isn't advised and will lead to battle CTDs, so in 90% of cases your best shot is just overwriting old advice files with the ones I supplied. 7. Copy-paste contents of ReallyBadAI_Scripts_v5.txt to your campaign_script.txt, preferably just above "wait_monitors" line. A note to mod creators - DO NOT cut out any lines (neither these around "G5 BAI Stuff", nor "Additional Scripts"). 8. All files I didn't mention should be copied following normal routine. 9. The folder in which you need to copy the AI files is your mod's main directory (something like Medieval II Total War\mods\YourModName\). Standalone AI Stakes Deployment script v0.37 HERE (timer-based version v0.3* HERE): *I left it because it's more suited for mods with missile units engaging far from AI's formation Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  - executed over multiple battles and turns - AI deploys stakes during defensive battles provided that it's not succesfully ambushed (incl crossing battles, sally-out batles and sieges too)* - deployment based on player unit's distance from AI general Installation: Copy the code to your campaign script file anywhere between "script" and "wait_monitors+end_script" lines, preferably to the bottom of the file. Needs campaign restart. Known limitations: stakes not deployed on roads If anyone thinks it's interesting and would like to integrate it with a campaign, just ask. Ofc no limits on private use. -experimental ReallyBadAI Routing script available on 3rd page Stainless Steel version with integrated scripts below:

[Germanicu5]

Here's some useful info I learned while programming AI and decided to share.
Files we'd want to edit are battle_config.xml and config_ai_battle.xml, the biggest problem is that we won't get any error reports if we do something wrong.

Basic XML knowledge lets us determine that a parser ( so game core in this case) doesn't read values it's not programmed to find.

1. I'll start with some basic actions letting us determine how the game core processes config_ai_battle.xml and battle_config.xml files.
a) leaving both files blank - AI works as in vanilla
b) deleting all instances of the files and deleting all *.pack files while we had unpacked the game before - AI still works
This tells us how parsing works - there's a backup mechanism replacing missing/incorrect information from AI files.

2. Now let's try to expand this knowledge - let's set these values in skirmish/infantry section of battle_config.xml to 0 like that :
<min-range>0</min-range>
<min-stopping-range>0</min-stopping-range>
and delete the whole cavalry section (from <cavalry> to </cavalry>).
It results in foot units not skirmishing at all and it doesn't influence cavalry's skirmishing (skirmishing in this context means shooting projectiles and then withdrawing at given range).
The conclusion is quite clear - game core replaces missing lines with default values, which makes deleting whole sections (or even single lines) and replacing them with custom code irrational.
This test also works very well with engage-dist setings in config_ai_battle.xml.

3.Composing a new section of settings used in other parts of XML file doesn't mean the code is correct, not mentioning using totally new settings - it all needs methodical testing using extreme values to see any difference. At this point I strongly doubt adding any revolutionary code is possible at all, but we can add new settings or copy some sections to other parts of AI files and they may work provided that they're parsed properly.

Here's some seemingly correct code I developed (none of my tests proved it worked, layout is incorrect, but it's about the idea):
<outflanking-support>
<minimum-units>1.0</minimum-units>
<max-units>2.0</max-units>
<neighbour-contribution>0</neighbour-contribution>
<unit-suitability>
<cavalry>0</cavalry>
<melee>8</melee>
<spearmen>9</spearmen>
<phalanx>9</phalanx>
<missile>0</missile-infantry>
<artillery>0</artillery>
</unit-suitability>
</outflanking-support>
Or this code, doesn't work as well:
<deployment>
<settlements>
<sally-out>
<attacker-bias>3.0</attacker-bias> or <defender-bias>3.0</defender-bias>
</sally-out>
</settlements>


The conclusion is relatively simple: don't expect miracles, make one change at a time and use extreme values to test if there are any effects.

[Caesar Clivus]

That's a very interesting post there Germanicus. I guess it makes sense that the game would replace missing settings with default vanilla ones. Although it'd be great if there was a way of turning that off so when you make a change to the AI, you can see exactly what has been affected by the change and what has defaulted to vanilla behaviour.

[xeryx]

I think you have a long ways to go... Many hundreds maybe even thousands more hours of testing and coding before you truly understand. Definitely, before you can run around an make the statements you are making.

Trust me on this! WE TESTED... OMG it feels like I am talking to a certain someone again. Please read the Modding Guideline rules, posted above.

[Point Blank]

Here we go again. Xeryx, sorry but many of your added tags/values are not parsed by the game core and have no effect, its as simple as that. XML tags will only have an effect if there is code specifically written to handle them, otherwise they will just be read by the XML parser but will have no effect in-game. You can't just go making tags up and expect them to work.

Any new tag needs testing, one at a time, first by establishing a basline result, then by adding the tag into the AI, best with some extreme value, re-testing and observing any differences. No difference = no effect/tag not recognised.

This isn't 'flaming or disparaging another's work', its presenting a clear and reasoned case, backed up by empirical evidence, that some of this work does not function as intended.

[Germanicu5]

@CC
I wish there was an easy way to do that...

@Xeryx
It's not about "truly understanding", plain understanding is enough. In another thread I presented decent feedback and methodology ( http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=253172 ), so if we want to discuss that, the other thread is more suitable.
I take full responsibility for what I wrote and I'll be glad if recognized forum members test AI along the way I suggested. My whole activity is focused on facts and it doesn't constitute attack of any kind, I admired your idea of rewriting AI, tried to do it myself, but I ended up having lots of useless code myself.

Regards

[Gorrrrrn]

Pleased to see a thread about this.

I was testing 1100AD with 0.7 version of this with savage CAI just to see if there's much difference. (not with RR/RC, but otherwise vanilla RC4)

Noticed: when attacking open field battle AI kept extra units back (ie it matched my front line and kept reserves which it fed in when each front line routed.)
Which is good, unless the human has a back-line of missile troops who can happily shoot at the AI reserves.

Don't know if you can test for it but is there a way to get the AI back-line to outflank the human front line and attack the back-line if it's being fired at?

AI cavalry was keen to attack my missiles lined up in front of my spears and pikes. So I withdrew them as the cavalry approached, most escaped, but the cavalry got snared in the pikes (although on another occasion it pulled up just in time and retired.)

In siege attack AI keeps back the GB, however it places it too close to the gate towers/walls so they get shot to pieces before entering combat. Might be better to commit them if possible before they get destroyed - but not too quickly. (Or withdraw them out of range, but then they can't give morale boost to melele units.)

Is there a way to get artillery to withdraw once it has used up its ammunition if the rest of the army has been defeated - better to fight another day than sit and wait to be killed?

[Germanicu5]

@Rozanov
I'm still focusing on sieges, but I'll try to have a look at open battles code again.

ad. keeping units back - no other AI solves this problem, at some point I found a radical setting that was limiting that behaviour, but that's a double-edged sword and I've still got lots of new code lying around on my HD and in my head. I noticed general unit tends to attack when it's being fired at, but that's about it...
Edit: as I said, some radical settings work, I may post a separate modified version later on.

ad cav vs pikes/spears - the main issue here is pathfinding, if there would be A* mechanism, this game would be so much better. Often cavalry will "think" they're charging some unit at the back while they "forget" the unit in front.

ad. general in sieges - it's a tough one, I'm not sure there's a good solution to that, I know some code that would help in theory, but I'm nearly sure it won't. Although I'm pretty convinced a workaround including AI formations could ba applied though, but there may be side effects to that.

ad. artillery - hmm, afaik there's no code including "run like little children and scream when ur out of ammo"

Regards

[wolfslayer]

Both BAI files reload and any changes initiate everytime you restart a custom battle or start any battlemap battle..

Run battles in windowed mode (I have different shortcuts set up to run mods/vanilla in windowed/fullscreen/no sound, etc) or tab out of full screen and you can save changes to your 2 BAI files and observe the changes immediately in a custom battle by replaying it without exiting, a big time saver.

I traced the BAI file priority from /mod > vanilla > pack0 > medieval1.x/kingdoms1.5.exe (1.5 is the only standalone kingdoms.exe independent of medieval2.exe).

The BAI will run with default values from within the exe if it needs to (confirmed also by moving the xmls and pack0), so testing will have to presume the AI will always choose default if the xmls have incorrect or unusable entries.

It doesn't take an exceedingly long time to test BAI changes/modifications, as long as you setup your game properly before beginning testing.

[Point Blank]

Both BAI files reload and any changes initiate everytime you restart a custom battle or start any battlemap battle...

Really? That's cool, I thought they were only cached at game start.

In that case, what I'd like to do is have about 10 different battle_config and config_ai_battle files done, each of which varies somewhat from the other, and then have a background script kicked off when SS starts that runs a timer, and every 5 minutes (or whatever) randomly selects one of those battleAI file sets and copies them into the SS6 data folder.

What that means is that the player could never predict the battle behaviour of the AI, because the AI would be using different BAI scripts every time. Some of the elements that could be changed for each file are the different force ratios that cause the AI to attack or defend, engage and assault distances, outflank values, settlement defense strategy etc. Thus the player could be facing a reckless general who just charges his whole force, or one who emphasises outflanking, or a defensive general who only hold his ground, or one who fanatically defends the walls in a siege, or who prefers to defend from the town square, etc.

In some ways it would allow the creation of superior battle AI files, because each file set could be tailored to a particular tactical emphasis, rather than now where one set of BAI files must work well for all situations.

I think this would add some good unpredictability to the tactical game.

Wolfslayer do you know if the same thing applies to the descr_formations_ai file?

[Germanicu5]

@Wolfslayer
Thanks for the info, sounds logical... although reloading battle AI files feedback is not correct (EDIT: It is correct, but doesn't work for battle_config.xml for some reason). Try the skirmish distances test, repeating the battle doesn't work, exiting to menu and loading last battle doesn't work as well, kingdoms.exe needs to be executed in order to load the new values.

Edit: Just in case... I tested campaign now, same turn battles changes don't work, changing values in one turn and assaulting enemy in another is identical - values used by the game stay the same.

@PB Martin Luther king said "I have a dream" years ago, at least his dream got fulfilled, unlike our dreams of extraordinary AI . At least AI is equal for everyone - equally dumb .

"Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"

William Butler Yeats

Regards

[Gorrrrrn]

Have DL'd the SS radical version to see how that plays.

Had a quick look at the .xml code -can't say that much of it makes a lot of sense at first glance.
(that;s just me not undertanding it.)

If anyone wants to do some comparative testing I suggest we decide on a few agreed custom battle scenarios.

Would need to include crossing, town siege, 3-tier castle siege, open field and difficult terrain scenarios.

(Either vh or med difficulty as I expect those are the most likely options people play.)

Both with RR/RC and without.
(with v.72 rad or not rad as desired.)

Full (20 unit) and part (say 10 unit) armies. Probably easier to try just 1v1 at this stage.

(Human and AI play both sides, x3 each if you can manage it.)

---------------

On a different angle should we be looking at the battle formations as well as part of this, they determine how the AI and human armies are laid out.

(for example it would be nice to have marching columns have proper light cavalry screens and heavy infantry on the inside, rather than single file.)

[Germanicu5]

@Rozanov
A quick thought for start, 1vs1 unit testing doesn't work properly for testing AI behaviour, coz this one unit turns into general and is too tempted to go into melee if it's a skirmishing unit. So if I want to test something like skirmish cav reaction etc. I use 1 additional foot unit on each side, these 2 units fight while you chase after skirmish cav with my heavy cav or the other way round.
I most often use such testing setup for open battles (just enough units to see proper maneuvering or lack of it, I put my troops in a "horseshoe" formation most of time, due to harder implementation of outflanking):
Map - grass plain (flat); Difficulty - VH
No cav
AI - 3+3+2 heavy melee infantry (foot men at arms plus order foot soldiers, one unit is a general) + 3 halberd men at arms + 1-2 missile units
Human - 4 pikemen, 2 urban spear militia or such, foot men at arms as general 1-2 missile units
Cav
AI - 3+3 heavy melee inf (one is a general) 3 halberd men at arms 2 heavy cav 1-2 missile units (or you can just add a proper bodyguard to that)
Human - 4 pike, 2 spear, heavy cav, 1-2 missile units

[MiiKLL]

It is a proven thing that the AI can be influenced and improved. Examples of this abound...Darth's...Lusted's...Condo's...GrandViz's...GrandDukeVytas's...Taiji...Xeryx's and Germanicu5's current attempts.
I know this because...I have played every one of these extensively. Each one is able to make the BAI play and perform better by trying NEW and DIFFERENT approaches. It saddens me that some wish to expend sooo much energy on disproving others modders work. It would be nice when people take the time to critique, if they would also give some examples of items that they have found to work, whether those findings come from their own work or from their testing of others work.

The " I have a Dream... " from the speech by MLK is quite appropriate here, I have a dream too....that everyone who is attempting to improve the playibilty of this game would set aside their egos and try to work together instead of against each other.



PS...sorry for posting the same thing in two different threads.

[Germanicu5]

@MiiKll
Now I gotta post twice too ;P... If I got to conclusion AI code couldn't be improved I wouldn't be developing my own.

It all started with me disproving my own custom skirmishing code, then I looked how others did it and found your acknowledged AI, I came to conclusion some of that code looked disputable. Then I started thinking of other reliable testing methods while developing my own AI, I created or transferred countless lines of NEW and DIFFERENT code - but it turned out their functionality was close to "0", so I abandoned most of them.

So after that I was mostly sure of what wasn't possible, I shared this knowledge when starting my new AI thread. If I happen to discover anything I can prove without doubt, (I still have lots of untested code) I'll share that too.

I suggested in another thread XBAI skirmishing code wasn't working, but I got rather ignored. I don't think it's good for the community if we focus on adjusting unprovable code instead of finding resourceful ways of improving AI while accepting we can't rewrite the code from scratch. I wouldn't be worried if you had some additional lines of seemingly helpful code, but skirmish and engage distance settings in XBAI make the core revert to some "default" values, so instead of something new we end up with active prehistorical settings.

The main post here is so long and I took so much effort, because I care about correctness of my statements, particularly given the short time I've officially been around.

Regards

[Taiji]

Nice work and well presented, Germanicu5.

DLV+BB's BAI would not be as good as it is now if it weren't for your well thought out criticism.

You're an asset to the community, keep it up! +rep

[ginger_hammer]

I'm playing with your version of AI in the latest RR/RC and am enjoying it as playing against a cavalry heavy moors they handle it very well (picking on my weak points) and had my derrier handed to me on my last battle, nicely done!

[ShadowBane]

Checking it as we speak.
Meanwhile i can prove right the theory of cavalry do not pull back in time, Pathfinding is an issue but it seems that the cavalry's choice always to attack archers and infantry should be worked on aswell:
is there any way to make them retreat if unit type of spearmen is in their radius or anything?

A human player will pull back and try to flank at a far point other units, to make the spearmen warry or scramble. Aswell he may take a group of infantry \ missile cavalry to kill those spearmen.
So that's another thing (if possible) to be working on: some "behaviour" or priority. it's obvoius to us we wont front-charge a spearmen, but the question is if it's nearly possible to add \ modify valus \ battle behaviour for units of type X to attack\retreat unit Y.
?

[Germanicu5]

@ginger_hammer
I'm glad you're enjoying the AI so far.

@ShadowBane
There's no trigger that would make cavalry withdraw when engaged by a specific unit type, there are some other indirect settings that could influence that a bit, but I'm really sceptical about obtaining perfect results.
I dropped modifying sieges for now (still I've had pretty decent results with changes I've made so far) and I'll be looking into improving open battles again, so please be patient .

[wolfslayer]

Wolfslayer do you know if the same thing applies to the descr_formations_ai file?

No, descr_formations_ai.txt is parsed once at game start and kept in memory. The two BAI files (config_ai*/ battle_config*) are reloaded every battlemap start/replay.