AI improvements

PC : Turn based WW2 goodness in the mold of Panzer General. This promises to be a true classic!

Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design

Post Reply
Molve
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:06 am

AI improvements

Post by Molve »

Hi,

I did a search but couldn't find a convenient place where AI improvements are discussed.

(I'm not looking for internal testing; merely a thread which lists the current AI issues as they are identified and hopefully corrected. This to help explain why the computer plays the way it does; to anticipate "exploits" etc)

Assuming this list doesn't already exist (for regular players like me; again, I'm not asking for internal developer discussion) let me start. Hopefully all of these bullet points are already on someone's bug list! :)

* Generally, AI uses a too-simplistic order of unit movement; first moving all its planes, then its tanks, then its infantry, then its artillery. This doesn't allow it to make proper use of combined arms.
* Most egregiously, AI doesn't use artillery to suppress targets BEFORE attacking them.
* In general, AI needs to
1) identify targets first; then for each target
2) make suppressing attacks (moving/using support units)
3) making actual attacks
4) repeat 2-4 for each next target
It would of course be good if the AI could identify chains of targets (i.e. "first I destroy the AT unit, then I can move up a tank to take out the arty behind it"); but this is more of a wish than an actual requirement at this stage. Just identifying targets FIRST, attacking them SECOND is definitely a good-enough improvement right now.

* better handling of prestige when it comes to purchasing units;
Especially the "attacking" AI is fond of spamming lots of weak useless units, presumably because it maximizes only on number of units added. It shouldn't be too difficult to allow the AI to actually *save up* some prestige (if it determines it wants a unit that costs more than the prestige awarded per turn).

* avoiding putting support units in harm's way:
* The AI currently seems to blissfully ignore fog of war, sending units to be ambushed and destroyed. This it does even for recon units(!). The quick fix is probably to never send units into FoW (assuming coding a "memory" of where enemy units "used to be" is too much work for too little gain); if Recon are moved right up to the "edge" of FoW, the AI actually uses such units ability to take stepped movement.
* NEVER move units in transports right up to the enemy. The worst case is when the (attacking) AI drives arty/flak right into a river hex, just to maintain contact with the front line. (No matter what unit you have, the death of said unit/lorry is almost assured). Do note that if the AI starts its turn with inf/tanks right up to the front, it doesn't do this (i.e. it doesn't actively replace front-line units with support units; it just don't see why maintaining the front with these units is a bad thing). This needs to be fixed - it's far too easy to exploit by withdrawing so you can kill enemy artillery before resuming your frontline.
* The AI is also too reckless with its airforce, moving fighters blindly (risking getting them shot down by appearing flak even if not ambushed)

* basic handling of airplane resupply
The current AI doesn't always move back airplanes when they run out of ammo.

* AI handling of
* paratroopers
* air/sea/train transports
Managing existing units inside transport is priority #1; actually deciding to load units onto transports is probably not crucial

* sea battles
It is too easy to pick off enemy naval units with your own, when you can attack from a distance (i.e. the enemy have no reason to move into "your part" of the ocean - c.f. the Partisan Uprising scenario where enemy naval units are only concerned about the land battle, blissfully ignoring that you're shooting them to pieces with your own navy). It would be preferable if naval attacks trigger a "I need to go and find the enemy fleet before bothering with anything else" flag.

Again, a point which may not need addressing right away. PC isn't about ships primarily. You could design the scenario so the AI retains a visual over all relevant parts of the ocean (either by hemming in the player's fleet, provide only coastal seas with Radar etc)
Do you have more bullet points?

Let's add them here, so we can tick them off as the team fixes them! :D
EuroBoss
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 12:29 pm

Post by EuroBoss »

Can we have this pretty please for the new AI?

Image

:)
Razz1
Panzer Corps Moderator
Panzer Corps Moderator
Posts: 3308
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:49 am
Location: USA

Post by Razz1 »

All of this has been documented in Beta.

Hopefully we will get some fixes in the first or second patch.
Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 8649
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Post by Kerensky »

Some of these issues can already be addressed, with more robust configuration of a map and the units within.
Some of these issues will be addressed in the upcoming patch.

Others, however, will have to wait. I think the short-coming a lot of players are coming across is they are expecting the AI to do a lot of tasks that it actually isn't ever called upon to do in the game.

In the campaign and existing scenarios, which the AI was more or less designed to be able to 'play' there are no significant airborne or naval operations. And for the record, the naval AI doesn't do so badly in the few scenarios with naval assets present. The British and Americans fleets are quite dangerous and a force to be reckoned with in Sea Lion and USA East Coast.

There are no airborne scenarios to speak of... why so create an AI that can handle a non-existent situation?
Because modders want it for custom content? Well if modders want airborne AI so badly, they can program their own AI for it. Once the main game catches up and expands into more diverse areas of combat, (units in air transport for example) of course the AI will be brought up to par to be able to handle those situations.

There are some current situations that could be improved to be sure, namely moving units in truck transport point blank to hostile units, but this is just one item on a very long list of improvements we hope to put forth as Panzer Corps continues development into the future. :)
Xerkis
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2314
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Northeast, USA

Post by Xerkis »

I more or less agree with the list Molve posted and with the replies.

But I wanted to remind us all of something again… This is Version 1.0 and not 9.6 (or something like that).
Absolutely we should keep track of these things and make the wish lists and must fix lists – just as long as we all remember that this is the initial release of a new game. It is under the direction of an awesome team and it can only go up from here.

Keep up the good work!
:D
Molve
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:06 am

Post by Molve »

As a reply to the previous posters, let me remind you I started this thread for those of us with no business looking at internal documents, as a checklist to "tick off" AI deficiencies as they're fixed, but also as a "gotcha" list so you know what to expect (and not to expect) from the AI.

It's not meant to replace test feedback (which I'm assuming takes place not on a public forum). It's not meant to constitute a "list of demands". Not fixing some of the issues is fine (which I myself brought up); this is merely about identifying and listing the AI shortcomings. Not fixing them - and not even discussing workarounds (since that takes place in the modding subforum).

The only aim is to create a comprehensive list that hopefully can work as an helpful reference for players interested in why the computer sometimes does ...unexpected... things! :)
Wings
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:18 am

Post by Wings »

Xerkis wrote:But I wanted to remind us all of something again… This is Version 1.0 and not 9.6 (or something like that).
There is nothing wrong with making such a list. In all fairness.... how do you plan to go from 1.0 to 9.6 if none of the players point out what could be improved? :)
Xerkis wrote:Keep up the good work!
I sense that you're just saying that because you feel like they're being attacked. Why should they feel attacked? I think they actually truly appreciate all the great input from their customers. I think that you put way too much "negative weight" on being critical. :wink:
Xerkis
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2314
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Northeast, USA

Post by Xerkis »

Wings wrote:
Xerkis wrote:But I wanted to remind us all of something again… This is Version 1.0 and not 9.6 (or something like that).
There is nothing wrong with making such a list. In all fairness.... how do you plan to go from 1.0 to 9.6 if none of the players point out what could be improved? :)
Exactly what I said – but you cut my quote off at that point.
Xerkis wrote: Absolutely we should keep track of these things and make the wish lists and must fix lists
Plus I have added many items to these lists throughout the forum myself – and stated that I agreed with most of the list that started this thread as well. So obviously I know you need to post these things to be able to improve the game. :wink:
Wings wrote:
Xerkis wrote:Keep up the good work!
I sense that you're just saying that because you feel like they're being attacked. Why should they feel attacked? I think they actually truly appreciate all the great input from their customers. I think that you put way too much "negative weight" on being critical. :wink:
… or maybe you’re just reading too much in to handing out a compliment now and again. :)

But you might be partly correct there. But again, you cut my quote off and overlooked what I wrote. Especially the first few words…
Xerkis wrote: just as long as we all remember that this is the initial release of a new game. It is under the direction of an awesome team and it can only go up from here.
Being a developer myself in the manufacturing world, I personally know what it’s like to put long hours in to a project. When it is released, you want and need to know where the bugs are and what can be improved, just like you said. After all, that’s your job. But every once in awhile in among the “critical” comments (as you put it) it is still a good thing to hear that you did a good job.
Anything wrong with doing that?
:D
Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Corps”