does the AI launch amphibious attacks?

Show us how intelligent you are by discussing the AI in this forum.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

dust off
General
Posts: 1182
Joined: Sep 23 2003
Location: UK

does the AI launch amphibious attacks?

Post by dust off »

Wondering whether it's worth leaving any more than enough units to cover south America if there is no possibility of the AI using transports to invade?
Bateman1982
Lieutenant
Posts: 63
Joined: Jan 05 2006

Post by Bateman1982 »

I'd be interested to know this as well.
I cant say Ive ever been involved in a war which would need an amphibious invasion so i can't answer.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22072
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

no, it does not.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
margab
Captain
Posts: 110
Joined: May 08 2005
Location: St. Louis, MO (nationality--Turkey)

Post by margab »

Yeah this has been mentioned in other AI posts, I also haven't seen the AI make airborne assaults. People have claimed that this has been done by the AI, but since I haven't seen it yet (because the AI doesn't use airplanes to project airpower into other peoples territories) I'm rather doubtfull about that. I think developers are discussing whether to improve the AI in such a way that it can accomplish these, but I don't think there is a consensus on whether it can be done.
"Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?"-Juvenal
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22072
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

Heck, there isn't even a consensus if it should be done...

At least when we're talking about Amph. assaults. George, Legend and I have had a number of discussions. George is convinced that AAs are never successful in game. That they are expensive, bloody, and nothing more than a distraction. He has tried to do it in a number of our games (Usually when he's in Florida or Kentucky on the US map and Legend is in California) and each time his invasion fleet has landed, taken a few cities and industries, but been wiped off the coast within 14 game days. And his fleet that got them there often don't make it home.

We also did a controlled test on the Europe map where Legend and I took France and Germany against George as the UK. The purpose of the game was for us to get across the english channel. It worked, but was extremely tough and George still claims we only managed because he missed guarding one of his ports. (of course, that is mine and Legend's entire arguement why it's sometimes worth trying...)

Last week's dev test game we were once again on the Europe map, this time I was Benelux and George was Spain. After he conquered Portugal, France (AI) declared war on him. Since I had high belli and was allied to France, I got into the action also. Later in the battle when he had most of his forces along the Pirennes, I managed to land on the northern cost. He claims it was only a distraction but I was satisfied with the results.

We're still debating a number of issues;
- under what circumstances should the AI performe a landing?
- what type of forces should it land with?
- how many landing ships should it use?
- what is "acceptable losses" for the action?
- How much air cover should it send?

and there are many more questions that come up. Like many things in the program, looking at this area tends to tangent quickly into other areas of how the AI uses its forces. Feel free to toss in your suggestions...
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Bateman1982
Lieutenant
Posts: 63
Joined: Jan 05 2006

Post by Bateman1982 »

So what does the AI currently attempt to do when at war with an island nation e.g. Germany declares war on UK in the Europe scenario.

Will any action ever occur, or will the AI's tendency to keep planes within its borders mean a lack of airstrikes, while the no amphib invasion means no ground engagements.

Will it send its navy to patrol / bombard the UK's coast?

I know this is a feature under development, but doesn't this currently mean that as the UK you can declare war on most of Europe while knowing your homeland is always completely safe? i.e. you can pick and choose where to invade without bothering to leave any defensive troops behind
User avatar
George Geczy
General
Posts: 2688
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: BattleGoat Studios
Contact:

Post by George Geczy »

doesn't this currently mean that as the UK you can declare war on most of Europe while knowing your homeland is always completely safe?
There's no hiding the fact that this is true. Though you can't win the game by hiding in the UK alone - as the aggressor you'll need to land in Europe, move through and attack etc.

There will be times when borders are touching (ie France/UK) where you might end up with naval and air border skirmishes, but in general there will be no major cross-ocean assaults by the AI in the current version.

As Chris points out, we're looking at a number of possibilities. A true 'D-Day' style assault is a huge, 'commit everything' sort of undertaking that only a superior power can launch. While it's true that the AI should do this when it is in the position to do so, the alternate view is that by the time the AI is so superior as to allow this (ie, Allies in 1944 WWII), the Human player would have seen the writing on the wall and likely given up.

The alternate is the hit-damage-and run assault, which is like what Chris described above in a recent game. I've also done this for destabilization and 'fun to do' reasons. Militarily they are usually failures (far more lost resources in land and naval units than what you managed to disrupt/destroy). Sometimes they have useful side-effects (force player to keep more units at home, in their rear areas, etc.)

Of course there are, in fact, two arguments why the AI should try such tactics, even if they are not "militarily sound" - the destabilize/force home defense argument above, and the second is that it makes the games more interesting for the human players.

-- George.
Draken
General
Posts: 1168
Joined: Jul 14 2004
Human: Yes
Location: Space Coast, FL

Post by Draken »

George Geczy wrote: The alternate is the hit-damage-and run assault, which is like what Chris described above in a recent game. I've also done this for destabilization and 'fun to do' reasons. Militarily they are usually failures (far more lost resources in land and naval units than what you managed to disrupt/destroy). Sometimes they have useful side-effects (force player to keep more units at home, in their rear areas, etc.)
Commando Raids WWII gave the UK a moral boosting and force Hitler to divert forces and resources from the East front to the west and create the Atlantic Wall ... Sometimes success is not measured in numbers of kills or on the kills/losses ratio.

Right now, in SR2010 a human player (playing in SP) can send all of its military asssets to the front lines whitout any fear of attacks and/or rebelions in its rearguard. And that combined with the in-deep defensive strategy of the AI usually gives the player local numeric superiority (except, perharps when the front lines are near the AI Capital or military base) so not even the high number of units that AI regions have are enough to really challenge the player... At least in my experience in scenario games with complete victory conditions... Most of my game would have been very different if the AI had threatened my coasts....

I have an ongoing game as South Africa in which I have conquered about 2/3 of the continent... All my forces are on the front lines. I have no reserves down south so if a single AI transport outflank my naval forces on the front an goes undetected to near Pretoria and lands some units there it could cause me serious troubles (specialy if the AI learn to demolish upgrades) before I can get there with my forces...

Of course, same goes for airborne raids... I know that there has being a couple of reports of AI airbones attacks but I've never seen one!
red
General
Posts: 1092
Joined: Feb 14 2004
Location: New York

Post by red »

I have two points:

If the AI is unable to conquer the territory of another region, I think diplomacy should eventually treat such regions differently. For example, the AI should then avoid war in favor of embargoes etc. and, if it does go to war, go into a mode where it prioritizes bomber and missile operations and other indirect measures.

I think the AI should conduct operations against undefended coast, if only because, as Draken mentioned, the threat of such action will distract significant amounts of the player's forces. But, when I see a single suicidal unit that I was too busy managing two-thousand other units to notice go running around conquering huge areas that I just spent hours building up, I tend to get annoyed. So if you do allow raids, I hope they're reasonable military affairs rather than truly annoying things where the AI exploits its attention and micromanaging advantages.
margab
Captain
Posts: 110
Joined: May 08 2005
Location: St. Louis, MO (nationality--Turkey)

Post by margab »

red wrote:....the AI exploits its attention and micromanaging advantages.
I wish it could exploit...
"Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?"-Juvenal
BigStone
General
Posts: 1390
Joined: Dec 22 2004
Location: Holland

Post by BigStone »

red wrote: But, when I see a single suicidal unit that I was too busy managing two-thousand other units to notice go running around conquering huge areas that I just spent hours building up, I tend to get annoyed.
Hmm.. in fact i like this...It's for me a reason to set up patrol/defence units in conquered regions...
NO MORE NOISY FISH [unless they are green & furiously]
I HAVE STILL A FISH IN MY EAR
User avatar
George Geczy
General
Posts: 2688
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: BattleGoat Studios
Contact:

Post by George Geczy »

I tend to agree that the 'suicide run' of a single unit is a bit cheap and not really a good approach to try; except maybe as a 'commando raid' sort of thing (ie, airdrop on a specific target, such as a nuclear plant or large factory, etc).

There is also a related suggestion we have on our wishlist of a special notification (ie, a voice alert) when a naval landing or air drop is made onto your territory, to help avoid the 'can't watch everywhere' exploit.

And Draken is right, the hit-and-run raids do have strong secondary benefits - divert defense forces and morale boosts, etc. In WWII both the Dieppe landing and the Doolittle air raid (among others) were militarily worthless, but they had exactly those effects. This is something we need to look at adding.

-- George.
Draken
General
Posts: 1168
Joined: Jul 14 2004
Human: Yes
Location: Space Coast, FL

Post by Draken »

George Geczy wrote:There is also a related suggestion we have on our wishlist of a special notification (ie, a voice alert) when a naval landing or air drop is made onto your territory, to help avoid the 'can't watch everywhere' exploit.
That's a good idea!

I don't like suicide attacks... The AI should have a goal for the raid and plans to retrieve the unit(s) after the mission is accomplish or it became too risky to carry on. I know that, from a programming point of view, this must not be easy to do and peharps imposible in the current engine so I would be happy, even if I don't like them, with suicide attacks...

You know, last night taking a look at the map on my Africa game zooming out at max, an image came to me: WW I front lines ....
BigStone
General
Posts: 1390
Joined: Dec 22 2004
Location: Holland

Post by BigStone »

Draken wrote:
George Geczy wrote:There is also a related suggestion we have on our wishlist of a special notification (ie, a voice alert) when a naval landing or air drop is made onto your territory, to help avoid the 'can't watch everywhere' exploit.
That's a good idea!
Thats SOUNDS horrible......

(sorry couldn't resist... :oops: )
NO MORE NOISY FISH [unless they are green & furiously]
I HAVE STILL A FISH IN MY EAR
Eric Larsen
Colonel
Posts: 350
Joined: Oct 25 2005
Location: Salinas, CA

Surprise has value

Post by Eric Larsen »

I think the AI's should be able to do amphib and airborne assaults. Why the heck have the AI's build aircraft carriers if they don't put planes on them to protect transports? The AI's need to learn how to do naval and airborne ops. Humans should not be allowed to totally disregard border security because they know AI's won't do amphib or airborne assaults. Especially in the World scenario where one has to cross the seas to get at other continents.

I'd like to see the face of any human player who has just had his pants pulled down by an AI that did a smart amphib or airborne assault and takes his capital. Mainly it would be to get the AI to do that in areas that are lightly defended, and that means better AI recon like making satellites. As long as the AI's are blind they can't make a good assault, but if they can see areas weakly defended then they might just have a chance at pulling these types of ops off.

If it's in the game then the AI's should do them. Plus it's a waste if they never fly their planes to make attacks in enemy territory. They also need to learn the joys of missiles and be taught to make smart missile attacks, like attacking military goods factories.
Thanks,

Eric Larsen
Post Reply

Return to “AI - Artificial Intelligence”