Stupid AI, drop the damned troops!! - Page 2

Rollo · #11 August 16th, 2001, 04:39 PM

Whoops, I was offline typing.

Rollo · #12 August 16th, 2001, 04:59 PM

"What happens if you use Rollo's method but with *no* troops on the DN?"

If you put no troops on the DN, that will make the troop transport (TT) wait. The DN is just a warship with a cargo space.

"Would it make a difference changing the fleet leader and/ or formation? (ie make sure the troop ship gets there first.)"

Yes, that is a good idea.

"Failing that get some more troops on the DN and hope they can take the planet."

IIRC the problem is that CW doesn't have enough troops to fill two ships.

"Or... reduce the shields of the dreadnought so that it's just tough enough to soak up all the enemy fire, but gets damaged / slowed down / destroyed before reaching the planet and dropping it's troop. (Getting desprate now)."

Should work. As I said before, I was thinking the DN would get destroyed in the approach anyway.

CW, if you don't find the DN/TT combo satisfactory, the best thing (if possible) would probably be that you build/refit two DN/TT hybrids. Both should have:
A) enough troops to capture the planet
B) enough shields so that at least one will reach the planet
C) one small weapon and some PD to finsh the sats

Rollo

[edit]typos

[This message has been edited by Rollo (edited 16 August 2001).]

Kadste · #13 August 16th, 2001, 05:00 PM

Rollo,

In one of you Posts you mentioned
"In one of my tests with an AI that captures planets, a planet was glassed only moments after the capture by the sats that were still in orbit."

Is this AI posted. It would make a tremendous difference to my (and I think to most of our) games if some AI's had this capability.

I searched the Scenario/Mod Archives and did not see any Posts by you. If it is not post it, can you? If it is posted, can you point me to it.

Thanks,

------------------
Never Give up, Never Surrender!

dmm · #14 August 16th, 2001, 05:02 PM

quote:
Originally posted by CW:
I've [got] to admit the AI in this game is one of the worst I have seen.

1) I've seen a LOT worse, and for less complicated games. Most of the challenging AIs cheat, which I hate. Certainly, SEIV's AI is aggravatingly stupid at times, but I don't see that as the main problem here.

2) The problem, in this particular case, is arising because you're trying to capture a planet by _exploiting_ the weak AI! Ironic, isn't it? Admit it, you'd never capture that planet with that fleet against a human opponent. He'd go after your unshielded troop transport as soon as it came into range and would blow it to pieces with one salvo. And he would ignore your "shield ship." The AI would be good enough for the job if your fleet were good enough to capture the planet from a human opponent.

3) Your (probably human) opponent has set up his planetary defences (defenses?) in accordance with known AI behavior. Sorry, but you just have to deal with it. That's the game. The hard-coding that insists on destroying weapons platforms before landing troops was probably put in at the request of some poor slob who had his heavily-defended planet stolen from him by someone who tricked the AI into ignoring troop transports. Ditto with the "one drop per combat" rule.

4) You should feel lucky. You've got a 50/50 chance of capturing a planet that you've got no fair expectation of capturing. The planet owner is the guy who should be complaining!

Rollo · #15 August 16th, 2001, 05:05 PM

Kadste, thank you for your interest,
the AI is for the Space Vikings shipset that dogscoff is doing (btw, how are the gfx coming along?

). Both the AI and the ships are still "under construction". I can send you the AI files if you like. Then you can check it out and give me some feedback for improvements.

Rollo
[edit]typos and additions

[This message has been edited by Rollo (edited 16 August 2001).]

Rollo · #16 August 16th, 2001, 05:11 PM

quote:
Originally posted by dmm:
4) You should feel lucky. You've got a 50/50 chance of capturing a planet that you've got no fair expectation of capturing. The planet owner is the guy who should be complaining![/b]

good points dmm,
just let me answer to one of them: if the planet owner is reading this, he will probably adjust his defenses anyway. just build some sats with ionic dispersers and enjoy the fireworks

.

Rollo

dmm · #17 August 16th, 2001, 05:52 PM

quote:
Originally posted by CW:
And if I'm directing the fight personally I wouldn't let him get in range of my transport!

I'm missing something. How could you avoid getting into range of defense platforms and still land troops?

Do you mean that you could dance in and out to wipe out the sats and platforms? I think you'll admit that's not realistic, and only works in tactical because there's no "opportunity fire" mode for defenders. It's a weakness of the turn-based system.

Or do you mean that your weapons out-range the sats and platforms, and that the AI is too stupid to take advantage of that? In which case, I agree with you, that's really frustrating. (But I thought that problem was fixed.)

[edit: Above was posted before CW's edits. Below is after.]

So, it's the dancing thing, huh? Like I said, that wouldn't work if there was opportunity fire. Your solo games went so quickly because you exploited the lack of it, by using tactical combat. Try a simultaneous-move solo game (strategic combat only). It's harder, as you are finding out. Strategic combat is (purposely?) set up not to use dancing, which roughly simulates the effect of opportunity fire. I think, however, that if a ship has only weapons that take multiple turns to reload, then it will move out of range while reloading. Not a true dance, but it might help. What happens if you try that?

[This message has been edited by dmm (edited 16 August 2001).]

CW · #18 August 16th, 2001, 06:00 PM

quote:
1) I've seen a LOT worse, and for less complicated games.

Unlucky you. Most of the time I research a game before I buy it, and that effectively filters out the games with bad AIs. But I agree with you, SEIV is a good game even with its improvable AI, makes some interesting engineering challenges!

quote:
2) The problem, in this particular case, is arising because you're trying to capture a planet by _exploiting_ the weak AI! Ironic, isn't it? Admit it, you'd never capture that planet with that fleet against a human opponent. He'd go after your unshielded troop transport as soon as it came into range and would blow it to pieces with one salvo. And he would ignore your "shield ship." The AI would be good enough for the job if your fleet were good enough to capture the planet from a human opponent.

If I'm directing the fight personally I won't even let him shoot at my transport in the first place!

AND that planet is easily takable with that DN and transport. The biggest problem is the AI doesn't know how to do little tricks to defeat an enemy that doesn't move (the WPs namely).

quote:
3) Your (probably human) opponent has set up his planetary defences (defenses?) in accordance with known AI behavior. Sorry, but you just have to deal with it. That's the game. The hard-coding that insists on destroying weapons platforms before landing troops was probably put in at the request of some poor slob who had his heavily-defended planet stolen from him by someone who tricked the AI into ignoring troop transports. Ditto with the "one drop per combat" rule.

You can set the AI to engage the transport first in strategies but appearent none of the default AIs were set up for that. Either way, who says it is not a valid strategy? I'm the kind of person who don't like sticking to set-piece battle drills.

quote:
4) You should feel lucky. You've got a 50/50 chance of capturing a planet that you've got no fair expectation of capturing. The planet owner is the guy who should be complaining!

It is turn 23 already. In my solo games I normally would have wiped out my first AI empire by now, and with comparable forces. Again, the problem is the AI doesn't know how to defeat static defenses.

By the way, the empire I'm fighting is AI controlled.

[edit] sorry something funny happend to this post and I had to repost it.

[This message has been edited by CW (edited 16 August 2001).]

CW · #19 August 16th, 2001, 06:05 PM

quote:
Do you mean that you could dance in and out to wipe out the sats and platforms? I think you'll admit that's not realistic, and only works in tactical because there's no "opportunity fire" mode for defenders. It's a weakness of the turn-based system.

Exactly. You can't really call this an exploit, it is just playing to the rules. The turn based system doesn't represent anything realistic, so the only way to make it fair is to have a real time combat system, orbiting sats etc.

dmm · #20 August 16th, 2001, 06:15 PM

LOL. We keep posting past each other.

See my added comments in previous post. And I agree that dancing isn't an exploit, but strategic doesn't work that way. Is that more realistic, or just stupid AI? I think MM would claim the former.