AI Query re: Grand Strategy Game

Vease101 · Post by **Vease101** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:49 pm

I have only played the vanilla version of CEAW to get to grips with the game mechanics and I was wondering if in the Grand Strategy version the AI plays differently or has been adjusted to take account of the gameplay differences?

As pointed out in a few posts the Axis AI in the vanilla game seems to have a simplistic 'take the USSR out of the game at all costs' mentality, even to the point of being unconcerned about Allied forces entering the Reich from the West..I don't know if this is different in the GS game?

massina_nz · Post by **massina_nz** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:04 pm

This is hearsay, but Borger [Staffenberg on the forums] , the main GS developer, AFAIK, has said that no changes have been made to the AI in the GS Mod.

BuddyGrant · Post by **BuddyGrant** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:39 pm

FWIW my understanding on this question is the same as massina's (above post).

That being said, the games AI will be different in the GS mod than in the vanilla game, because the games AI bases it's decisions partially on the number and placement of units, and the GS mod changes the number and placement of units on the map.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:43 pm

GS is not intended to be played against the AI. We have not changed the AI code except to avoid crashes. The AI is too inferior to a human player in such a complex game as GS so we decided to invest our time to increase functionality for the human players instead of trying to fix a weak AI.

We're fully aware of how poorly the AI plays, but it's quite a big task to optimize the AI for GS. It would require more time that we can spare.

Vease101 · Post by **Vease101** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:31 pm

Stauffenberg wrote:GS is not intended to be played against the AI. We have not changed the AI code except to avoid crashes. The AI is too inferior to a human player in such a complex game as GS so we decided to invest our time to increase functionality for the human players instead of trying to fix a weak AI.

We're fully aware of how poorly the AI plays, but it's quite a big task to optimize the AI for GS. It would require more time that we can spare.

Ok, but how about optimising the AI for the vanilla game? I appreciate that 'strategy' for the AI either has to be scripted or made purely reactive, based on what the human player does, but giving it some initiative to try different tactics in different games would make things more interesting. Of course, the human player is always at an advantage because we 'know' in general terms how a full campaign plays out and that no matter what happens, the initiative will shift to the Allies sooner or later (even in Supermax's dominating performance as the Axis v Panzergeneral, he has had to switch to a defensive posture in 1944)..the AI appears not to realise this and therefore doesn't make provision for switching from offence to defence as the Axis.

I think if the AI is given limited sets of intermediate objectives to reach at various stages of the campaign, rather than the overarchng 'win a strategic victory by May 1945' it would probably play a tougher game..just my 2 cents..

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:41 pm

We don't play the vanilla game.

Joke aside. We're perfectionists and if we decided to make the AI better then we would have to work for many months before getting so far so we have an AI we can be proud of. Even with such an AI the best players like Supermax and Joe will easily beat it. That's the unfortunate truth. I think the AI works as an introduction to the game so you can learn the game mechanisms before you play others.