AI Deployment of forces

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

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
tonystowe
Colonel
Posts: 462
Joined: Apr 10 2006
Location: Tennessee

AI Deployment of forces

Post by tonystowe »

This has been discussed on many occasions however I want to make this statement: The deployment of 100% of the AI's forces seems ridiculous especially when the region doesn't have the economy to support such a large, massive military. The deployment of 90% of those forces around the capitol in stacks of seven, 360 degrees appears to be lacking considerably.


I want to also mention that when two AI countries (eventually turning into many against the one) are at war their border skirmishes are pointless and nothing more than attrition. My example is from the African Campaign where Morrocco and Libya war at war and eventually everyone but I had declared war against Libya. In the ensuing extended war neither side was making any real gains yet neither would declare a cease fire. It also seemed silly that Madagascar, who didn't have a chance to attack Libya, would declare war against Libya when it would have sufficed for it to simply boycott all import/export activity and keep itself economically growing. Both Libya and Morrocco had large militaries however neither would deploy enough to make any real gains. Another problem was that Morrocco would not take the initiative and at least capture/destroy the oil fields close to its border.

Another point of contention was that I had earlier established a LOS treaty with Morrocco. Little did I know this was going to subject me to the mindless noises of their war! BG: Please allow the LOS treaty to only be LOS - discontinue the sounds of their ongoing, mindless battles. In the LOS treaty I was shocked to see that I had 100% accountability of Morrocco's forces. This should be removed from the game unless I have troops on their soil and can see those forces. Also, the LOS treaty would serve more purpose if it would allow me to see its neighbors. Another caveat to that would be me having the ability to request that Morrocco conduct surveillance on XYZ region border area. Relations would play vital to this and allow more flexible diplomacy - directly effecting LOS.

Enough for now, still this game truly rocks and I can't tear myself away from it!!!!

Tony
BigStone
General
Posts: 1390
Joined: Dec 22 2004
Location: Holland

Re: AI Deployment of forces

Post by BigStone »

tonystowe wrote: Little did I know this was going to subject me to the mindless noises of their war! BG: Please allow the LOS treaty to only be LOS - discontinue the sounds of their ongoing, mindless battles.
Now you'll probably understand why SR always recieve very bad audio- scores ..... :wink:
NO MORE NOISY FISH [unless they are green & furiously]
I HAVE STILL A FISH IN MY EAR
tonystowe
Colonel
Posts: 462
Joined: Apr 10 2006
Location: Tennessee

Post by tonystowe »

SUBJECT: Deployment of forces, forces placed in the Reserves, and production of forces should have a more linear, yet flexible, end goal.

The AI needs a method to its madness when dealing with the military. The same applies to the player's Minister's as well.

While playing I have watched as the AI-ran regions and my Minister mindlessly moves troops around the country for no apparent reason. Mix this with no understanding of Reserve placement, no concept of unit mixture (combined arms) ratios, and no guidance as to how it should build to deter "real" threats.

For instance, South Africa wants to build an enormous amount of Anti Air units, however the real threat posed against SA by Namibia and Madagascar are low to non-existent; threats from Angola and Tanzania are even farther removed.

Threat analysis, if the AI could be made to do even basic steps, would greatly improve the AI's position in both offense and defense. In threat analysis it would "ideal" for the AI to see what his neighbor is deploying and put units to counter the threat. i.e. If my neighbor deploys 1x MLRS, 1x Inf Garrison, 1x Recon Bn(M), 1x Inf(m) then I need to consider what assets will most effectively counter them.


The AI's reasons for not pushing troops into reserve to minimize its costs when at peace is a gross oversight. I watch as countries remain in the "red" with their money while the military continues to grow.

Deployment of forces is broke as the AI will send 2x artillery units to a location with no IFV or other units to defend them. The same has been seen for other "Combat Support" type units.

*** I am not venting, simply posting some observations as I still love this game!

Tony
Eric Larsen
Colonel
Posts: 350
Joined: Oct 25 2005
Location: Salinas, CA

Smaller is Better

Post by Eric Larsen »

tonystowe wrote: Little did I know this was going to subject me to the mindless noises of their war! BG: Please allow the LOS treaty to only be LOS - discontinue the sounds of their ongoing, mindless battles.
tonystowe,
I second that opinion. I also hate to hear the sound of crashing AI airplanes when there's no war going on.

I really wish the AI didn't go whole hog making such a huge crappy army. Way too many engineers, aircraft carriers, and other useless junk and not enough tanks or armored infantry. Plus no reserves. It's sad that the AI's bankrupt themselves with such huge forces during peacetime and doesn't put some units into reserves when built so it has reserves to deploy when at war. I also think that the AI should build a smaller army and do some training. I've found that a smaller trained force is far more effective than a larger untrained force, plus it's more cost efficient once the training is done. I remember seeing where Legend told us that a 100% trained unit is twice as effective as an untrained one. Plus the AI stinks at researching good stuff like facility defenses or economy or research boosters. I ended up giving my current AI opponent all of my econ and research boosters and it really perked up the little guy's economy.
Thanks,

Eric Larsen
tonystowe
Colonel
Posts: 462
Joined: Apr 10 2006
Location: Tennessee

Re: Smaller is Better

Post by tonystowe »

Eric Larsen wrote:I second that opinion. I also hate to hear the sound of crashing AI airplanes when there's no war going on.

I really wish the AI didn't go whole hog making such a huge crappy army. Way too many engineers, aircraft carriers, and other useless junk and not enough tanks or armored infantry. Plus no reserves. It's sad that the AI's bankrupt themselves with such huge forces during peacetime and doesn't put some units into reserves when built so it has reserves to deploy when at war. I also think that the AI should build a smaller army and do some training. I've found that a smaller trained force is far more effective than a larger untrained force, plus it's more cost efficient once the training is done. I remember seeing where Legend told us that a 100% trained unit is twice as effective as an untrained one. Plus the AI stinks at researching good stuff like facility defenses or economy or research boosters. I ended up giving my current AI opponent all of my econ and research boosters and it really perked up the little guy's economy.Eric Larsen
I agree with you as well Eric and I find myself providing other regions with the same research. While on the subject of research, the AI doesn't appear to have a balanced focus as to what it important or how to prioritize its research direction.

I have also found the trained units perform better. I have made quite a show on the battlefield by having several well trained Fighter/Bomber and Interceptor squadron's controlling the airspace/ground war. I have used them for quick reaction forces to slow/stop the AI's advances as it sends ground forces with no air defense/air support.

In terms of priority, I also train artillery and missile forces, AT and AA forces, armor, inf(M). Usually I will send the forces in groups of combined arms to conduct the training.
User avatar
bergsjaeger
General
Posts: 2240
Joined: Apr 22 2005
Location: Woods Bend, Alabama,USA

Post by bergsjaeger »

:lol: Since u talking about training units. I have a save were I trained every unit I had and built so far including the navy, army, and air force. I kinda went crazy with the training. Every unit has over 150 experience (even trucks and helios). All my F/B's have over 300 (which is only 7 squads of them). My ground force is half urban and half Alpine. And its too easy to win a war with these units (will take forever to get them over the pond to the other side of the world though because there is nearly a 1000 of them). Since I had the money to train my units I did. Cost me over a trillion I think.

As for the Ai deploying forces. In this save it won't do them any good. Already went though 2000 AI units already. A few more 1000 won't make a differnce. Course if they trained units like I did it be a really fun world scenario.
In war destroy everything even the livestock.
tonystowe
Colonel
Posts: 462
Joined: Apr 10 2006
Location: Tennessee

Post by tonystowe »

Training has made an obvious difference in my current game where I conducted an amphibious landing into Nigeria. Currently African Fed, Nigeria, and Cameroon are at war with me and my limited number of units continue to punish them. Luckily I was able to capture one pier, airstrip and two miltiary bases from Nigeria in the early fighting and I now regularly send my troops for repair once their strength get close to 50%. This has allowed me to slowly expand my control of the area as I move more troops up to that region. I only sent 14 TLCP's (I believe that to be correct) loaded to maximum capacity along with my destroyers, patrol boats, and a few helicopters and AE's to assist with resupply.
User avatar
Lightbringer
General
Posts: 2973
Joined: May 23 2006
Location: Texas

Post by Lightbringer »

tonystowe wrote: The AI needs a method to its madness when dealing with the military. The same applies to the player's Minister's as well.

While playing I have watched as the AI-ran regions and my Minister mindlessly moves troops around the country for no apparent reason. Mix this with no understanding of Reserve placement, no concept of unit mixture (combined arms) ratios, and no guidance as to how it should build to deter "real" threats.
One thing that occurred to me was that even with the AI's almost random troop building selection, if it would combine various units appropriately, the difficulty in subduing such forces would increase exponentially. I've noticed the AI attempting to station some sort of defense at every single structure on the map. This suggests some sort of priority list telling it which structures to defend first. If it was given a list of useful unit stacks to form (2X Eng, 2X AT, 2XAA, and 1X Arty for example...the possibilties are endless and could be sent in by us the players) before sending these units to defend a factory, mine, or bridge, it might have a better chance of holding something it deems important. The only time I see full strength stacks now seems to be strictly due to more than seven computer units wanting to occupy the same hex. (their capitol or base, or one adjacent to some defending stack of mine) The tendency to stack could even be tied to alert level or Belli towards a neighbor. Smaller or fewer stacks if at peace, larger and more as they become more alert. There could be an "offensive" stack guideline, and another list for defense for the AI to choose from according to available builds and money. It could even run solo units around like confused ants once it's suggested stacking guideline had been fulfilled.
I freely admit to a complete lack of programming knowledge. So if this sort of "menu" of unit groups is not suitable to be programmed into the AI then I guess it is back to square 1...or square 347 ;) whichever you are at. Still, right now tends towards killing their offensive units piecemeal en route to slaughtering hordes of AA and Arty stacked around and in their capitol.

....and please don't take my comments as any boredom with the game, or that I feel it too easy. This is the best game I've become addicted to since CivII, and to be honest I'd take SR2010 over Civ anytime. My wife has used the term "Supreme Ruler Widow" ;) I don't think she envisioned long bedtime discussions on the merits of various IFVs or new Arty tactics when she married me.
Post Reply

Return to “AI - Artificial Intelligence”