Investigation of AI reassessment upon reload

[Puzz3D]

In the test I did with a Julii campaign, the war declaration didn't change between playing continuously and reloading.

Julii imperial campaign, M/M difficulty, FOW false:

Start, 270 BC. Position the map so that you can see both Syracuse and Athens. Hit end turn.

Turn 1, 270 BC. Scipii sieges Syracuse which can hold 7 turns. This initial siege of Syracuse might be scripted. Hit end turn.

Turn 2, 270 BC. Decline the trade offer from Gaul. Syracuse can hold for 6 turns. Hit end turn.

Turn 3, 269 BC. Accept the marriage offer. Syracuse can hold for 5 turns. Hit end turn.

Turn 4, 269 BC. Syracuse can hold for 7 turns. (Perhaps an unsuccessful assault was made and the siege has been reinstated.) Macedonia sieges rebel owned Athens which can hold for 6 turns. Macedonia is at war with the rebels and no one else. Save the game. Hit end turn.

Turn 5, 268 BC. Syracuse can hold for 6 turns. Athens can hold for 5 turns. Hit end turn.

Turn 6, 268 BC. Syracuse can hold for 5 turns. Athens falls to Macedonia. Exit the game.

Load the savegame made on turn 4. The random number generator could introduce a difference at this point because after a reload the AI may not perform the exact same sequence of decisions requiring a random number. It's possible that a random number is used to weight the decision to break a siege, but I find this test to be very repeatable. Hit end turn.

Turn 5, 268 BC. Scipii lifts the siege on Syracuse and moves away. Macedonia lifts the siege on Athens and moves away. Macedonia is still at war with the rebles, and the Macedonian army which was sieging Athens moved north to an area where there are no rebel armies. There is in fact no observable threat to Macedonia anywhere on the map, and they are not at war with any other faction. Hit end turn.

Turn 6, 268 BC. Scipii sieges Syracuse which can hold for 7 turns. Macedonia sieges Athens which can hold for 6 turns with the same army as before. This is a futher indication that there are no other threats to Macedonia because the AI returned to the same strategy is was using before the save on turn 4.

End of test.

Conclusion:

Clearly, loading the game caused both sieges to be lifted because neither siege was lifted when play was not interrupted by the save/load cycle. The expansion by Scipii and Macedonian is set back by the lifting of these sieges. It's apparent that the AI reformulated it's siege strategy, and it took more than one turn to get the sieges back in place. It took the first turn (turn 5) to reassess the situation just as CA claims, and the second turn (turn 6) to reinstated the sieges. This reassessment was necessary only because the AI was not fully aware of the situation after the reload. The course of the campaign is altered by saving and loading because Macdonia should already be in possession of Athens on turn 5, and Scipii should be further along in it's conquest of Syracuse. This has a far reaching effect because a faction is set back economically for the rest of the campaign, it affects all AI factions and happens repeatedly as often as you reload.

It's true than not all sieges are necessarily lifted after a reload, but from observation with FOW off I would estimate that 90% are lifted. The AI may be moving these formerly sieging armies away from cities because it's programmed not to position them that close to cities that it isn't sieging.


Bromely's data is very nicely done, and it doesn't surprise me at all that it shows 4 continuous turns to be the level which allows expansion since the max siege length is typically 7 turns. I'll bet the average siege length is about 4 turns. I would say to get on a level footing with the AI you have to not only play at least 4 turns per sitting but also break off your own sieges and perform no diplomacy on the turn after a reload.

[roguebolo]

OK, after confirming that there was a breaking point at Turn 12 in my game, I began to wonder a few things. Why was it that if I did save/loads and "End Turn" consecutively after turn 12 that other factions would not take rebel provinces, when they seemed to have no qualms about doing it when I started from Turn 14 or Turn 19? The only thing I did other than building my internal infrastructure between turns 12 and 19 was establish alliances. But how could that have such a drastic effect on the AI?

So I went back to the original test scenario, starting at Turn 1. This time, I looked at the diplomacy panel each turn, both with save/loads and without them, to determine which factions were allies and which had declared war and -- more importantly, because it's not explicitely listed in that panel -- which ones had established a ceasefire from the previous turn.

As anyone who has played MTW is familiar, the course of the game was largely decided by the alliances that you established. The same is true of RTW.

It appears that in the reassessment process, the AI does not merely reassess its moves -- it reassesses who would make the best allies and the best enemies before making any other decisions. When "load game" is NOT used, it sticks with its original choices.

When a "load game" causes it to reassess the political landscape, and it sees multiple choices that are equally viable, it will often establish a ceasefire with hostile countries and select a new target -- I suppose all on the grounds of remaining "unpredictable". (It also has the byproduct that the human player can exploit load games to change the political landscape, allowing him to establish alliances that were previously not possible.)

The end result is that repeated "load games" on consecutive turns throws it into a floundering, confused state, with so many allies and enemies to select from, of switching sides over and again. You can confirm this by watching as ceasefires go into effect when sieges are released, and as they begin to ally with factions that they were besieging a few turns ago.

To further complicate things, the AI apparently percieves the Rebels as "just another faction" and sees the same benefits of nonhostile relations with them as with other factions. So the rebel factions make out like bandits (no pun intended) in this situation.

However, as I've pointed out, there seems to be a stabilizing factor that occurs as you move further and further away from this point of extrema, which is partially provided by the actions of the human player. As the human player begins to interact with the other factions, establishing declarations of war and ceasefires and alliances, and as other factions do so as well, each faction starts getting "locked in" to a situation in which it is less and less desirable to cease hostilities or establish or break alliances. This is the stabilizing factor that made it so much more difficult to recreate the phenomenon in midgame.

It does have some kind of an effect on the beginning of the game; primarily that if you load and save a lot, it will take longer for rebel territories to be occupied. The fact that the Scipii have two extra territories and the Greek Cities and Carthage each have one less territory before this stabilization process begins, assuming that you did not interfere with that course of events by using load games or by establishing alliances which prevent it, has very little effect on the progress of the game as a whole; in fact, as the Julii I'm more likely to be at war with Carthage or the Greeks before the Scipii, so it makes the game a little LESS challenging without the save/loads. Note that load games are not the only thing that will prevent the Scipii from conquering Sicily -- you can intentionally prevent it by manipulative use of alliances.

But the fact that save/loads causes rebel territories to be occupied later is more of a problem, because it sets back the development of those territories by several turns.

In my real game, the situation was becoming stabilized by turn 14; but as you can see, I was making a considerable number of alliances. It may take longer for players who wait for the AI to establish the political landscape.

Now that I understand the situation a little better, I actually do have a real gripe about the fact that rebels are being treated the same as other factions. Although it may not ultimately have a major impact on midgame or endgame, which is really the part that I'm looking forward to, it does have a minor impact. And furthermore, it just plain doesn't make sense.

I'm not exactly sure why you guys are studying this issue if CA has stated they do not intend to release another patch because of their two-patch limit. I think in the long run bugs and glitches and other phenomenon like this one will make themselves evident; what really needs to be addressed is the two-patch limit. Speaking as a programmer, I can honestly state that this is a ridiculous, arbitrary policy and needs to be changed. So go for it. I'm going back to my game. If there's any way I can help with your efforts, let me know.

And, btw, congratulations on whoever first discovered this phenomenon. Good work!

[Kraxis]

Wow... I'm impressed. You guys have done a gerat job.
It seems the player will have to play a good number of turns before doing a load, so that the political scene can work towards active AI factions. But even in that case many people are forced to reload pretty much every turn for a wide range of reasons. For them it is still impossible to get the AI to pose a threat, at least a fun one.

We know they read this forum, so this is more of a plea.

[Bromley]

Thanks for the hug ShellShock .

Another extension of my test. I loaded up the 260 save where I'd not save/loaded during play. That gave me some nicely expanded AI factions, so they could be expected to turn most of their efforts towards other factions rather than Rebels.

I then played 20 turns with a 2 turn save/load interval. But this time, I was active and really played them. If nothing else, this proved to me that the Medium portion of the strategic game is ridiculously easy . Greece and Macedon both felt my wrath.

Check out the results. Although there's obviously a slight problem with my method of determining how many provinces were taken from other faction (as I know I took 6 yet the function spews out 5), the variance is pretty immaterial.

What isn't immaterial is that I was responsible for ALL of the faction on faction province swaps. So I think that it's fair to assume that, for the purposes of AI expansion, player activity is not a determining factor.

I'm not going to perform an interval-2 test with no activity by myself because I think it's pretty obvious from earlier tests that the AI won't expand. I've included the 250 no-load data where I was passive for comparison - you can see that the AI might be expected to have nabbed 8 provinces off other AIs in those 20 turns without the save/load feature (on top of an extra 5 Rebel provinces)..

[roguebolo]

But even in that case many people are forced to reload pretty much every turn for a wide range of reasons. For them it is still impossible to get the AI to pose a threat, at least a fun one.

Not really. It just takes longer for the game to reach a more stable situation. The political climate will be DIFFERENT, not less challenging; the factions you are at war with may be different and they may be stronger or weaker, but eventually you need to face the majority of them and their wishy-washy alliance changes become less likely. However, the same logic that allows it to change alliances if they look equally viable could cause a long-time ally to suddenly break their alliance with you and form one with your primary rival. Or vice versa. Especially right after a load game, or any other event that triggers a reassessment.

The territories that started out as rebels, however, will always be underdeveloped if you were using a lot of load games in the earlier moves of the game. That's why my main gripe is regarding the fact that the AI is treating rebel factions as "just another faction." Eventually they will conquer the nearby rebel territories...just a little too late, and too slowly.

In my game I was saving and loading every turn, and the political climate *started* stabilizing by turn 14 -- but as someone mentioned, I formed an awful lot of alliances. It would take quite a bit longer if the human player is not as proactive about forming alliances. I like forming alliances early because it gives me more control over the political climate.

[drone]

Something Puzz3D said got me thinking:

Turn 1, 270 BC. Scipii sieges Syracuse which can hold 7 turns. This initial siege of Syracuse might be scripted. Hit end turn.

Does anyone know if the first AI moves are scripted? If they are, do the scripted decisions get saved and how do they fit into the reassessment? If they are scripted but not saved, this could be causing problems at the start of campaign games.

Nice work, Bromley!

[roguebolo]

Especially right after a load game, or any other event that triggers a reassessment.

I feel funny quoting myself, but thinking about it I began to wonder...ARE there any other known events that can trigger a reassessment? Has CA mentioned any, or has anyone else observed any? Or is it just the load game?

I agree that it is the rather strange two patch policy that needs to be changed, but since it has been settled already (actually before the game was finished at all)

That's what I meant when I called the two-patch policy arbitrary. It's not a very realistic approach to software development. It's entirely arbitrary. I'd like to share a few anecdotes with you of similar situations but its too off-topic.

[HarunTaiwan]

So, roguebolo, should I save load every turn, for even BETTER AI?

Notice Bromley confirms that's it's all rebel territory many without walls that you are seeing being taken, and not AI territory.

I doubt alliance does much at all, since the AI breaks those at will.

I suspect the reasssessment if it exists leans toward peace and friendship, which could explain the protectorate issue a bit. Maybe it's designed so the human player who is coming back has some breathing space. LOL

Also, Roguebolo, the last thing you want in a wargame is stability. You need to feel threatened as well as threatening. In MTW, you definitely felt that. In RTW, only if I play a small nation am I ever worried.

[Kraxis]

Nah, I rather think that the AI goes "Hey what is going on here... Ok I better get in a position where I can formulate a good strategy (hence sieges broken off) and I need to secure myself (hence acceptance of Protectorates)."
Basically the AI goes into 'start'-mode. It starts over again as if the game starts at that date, which seems to be a fitting explaination as the info to make the AI realize it was actually in a running game could possibly be rather substantial, and an obvious place to cut if size was demanded smaller.

[HarunTaiwan]

I agree with you. I think the results show if you play 6-7 turns it's not so bad...so I will play less now since sometimes I only have 20-30 minutes...shouldn't have had that kid, should I?

[Puzz3D]

Basically the AI goes into 'start'-mode. It starts over again as if the game starts at that date, which seems to be a fitting explaination as the info to make the AI realize it was actually in a running game could possibly be rather substantial, and an obvious place to cut if size was demanded smaller.

I think that start-mode is a good word to describe what's happening. The AI has to rebuild some memory resident data structures.

[roguebolo]

Notice Bromley confirms that's it's all rebel territory many without walls that you are seeing being taken, and not AI territory.

Right. I've done the same tests. I've watched what happens in Sicily without load games. I've also watched what happens in midgame with them. Even then the AI will relieve sieges, but the net effect is different. It continues to threaten the same territories. Like I said, don't take my word for it. I'll send you a number of different save game positions that show it to you, from the same game even.

The truth is that the AI has never caught me with my pants down so that waiting out a siege would ever work anyway...so it boils down to a matter of, "Should I sally or meet them in the field?"

The fact of the matter is that in the first 20 moves, without load games, it's primarily rebel territories that fall.

I doubt alliance does much at all, since the AI breaks those at will.

Here, I agree with The Shogun in that there is (in his words) "a misunderstanding of the AI." In midgame, the AI definitely does not easily break or form alliances. There's a very clear logic on what it considers acceptable. However, in the early phases of the game it will change them willy-nilly whenever there's a reload. It doesn't seem to merely reassess the situation and roll some dice for 50% odds -- it seems to intentionally reverse its previous decisions.

Play through the test scenario one more time with load games, but this time watch what happens in the diplomacy Pane with Egypt/Seleucids/Armenia or the factions in Sicily. Make note of ceasefires as well. You'll soon see a pattern of ... they removed the siege ... a ceasefire is in effect ... now they've formed an alliance ... etc. I should have recorded that information and posted it because it gives some good insight as to what is going on.

At any rate, if you doubt that alliances have an effect on the AIs willingness to follow through with sieges, I can illustrate with specific save games in which that is the one and only determining factor that modifies the behavior of the AI, despite load games. Isn't there an upload area for sharing data?

the last thing you want in a wargame is stability. You need to feel threatened as well as threatening.

Now, that's taking everything I've said out of context. Stability is a very generic word which can mean a lot of different things. I think you know perfectly well that I was not referring to a "comfortable, easy-going game where everything is under my control." I was referring to a stable political landscape which causes the AI to behave in a more stable, reasonable manner. You certainly don't want the kind of instability that it exhibits early in the game with numerous save/loads to continue throughout the game.

Sometimes I wonder how many people here are actually playing games beyond the first twenty moves. I can definitely see that there has not been much testing beyond that period of extrema. But to truly understand the phenomenon, you need to come up with instances in which it is NOT exhibited, and determine why. You need both a positive and a negative.

While the statistical data supporting the load game behavior is very good, I have seen very few suggestions that explain this behavior -- nothing that illustrates a truly good understanding of it.

It's a hard proposition to make projections about the overall difficulty of the AI factions in midgame on the grounds of its early behavior resulting from load games. Generalized statements like "it's less aggressive" don't carry much weight in the light of actual savegames which illustrate the AI's midgame behavior to be substantially different. They tend to be semantical statements arguing a foregone conclusion of an empirically observed and repeatable fact, and that's simply not good enough. You not only need to be able to make projections about the future behavior of the game, but you need to back them up by observing and measuring the resultant behavior as well.

A similar semantical argument (and similarly illogical) would be, "It sounds to me like you want one of the AI factions to beat all of the others for you, so that you can take it on after it's overextended itself." When the Scipii, your allies at that stage of the game, grow stronger, Carthage and the Greek Cities grow weaker. But the sum total of the AI factions is the same, and must all eventually be defeated.

I really feel that some serious thought should be given to proven instances in which this phenomenon does not seem to exist or does not seem to exhibit the projected results. I don't think it will be fully understood unless those are understood as well. I have a number of such save games, which is why I've asked several times about sharing them with people. I'd like someone else to take a look at them and see what conclusions they come to. If anyone is interested, please PM me and I can send them by email.

[Bromley]

How does that fit with my last test? That seemed to show, to me, that the AI broke off all sieges (note that I did not visually confirm this, it's just that they ceased to expand into each other and only took a few Rebels). That's even with a human playing and after the diplomatic scene had been given 20 turns to mature (although the human was passive in those first 20 turns).

Also, although without save/loads the Rebel territories are a larger part of the total territories taken in the first 20 turns, there were more provinces swapped in my 270-260, no save/load test than taken from Rebels. The proportion of Rebel territories to all territories taken approaches 100% as save/load interval is reduced. I personally believe that this is because the Rebel territories are easier to take (fewer defences, smaller defending armies, no supporting armies), but may be wrong there.

[HarunTaiwan]

Not only easier to take, possibly hardcoded into diplomacy for the AI to ignore rebels as a negotiating partner, etc. If you can't negotiate with them, lifting a siege won't result in any diplomatic benefit, so you might as well see it through.

Also, Roguebolo, your point noted on "stability" but yes, I do think having AI's expand and compete along with you, to the point where you face factions of similar sizes makes a much better game.

[roguebolo]

Bromley, yours is some of the statistical data that I said was referring to as very good. I guess the point is that although you've been able to create scenarios which duplicate the phenomenon, I've been able to dig up some scenarios which duplicate explicitly contrary behavior. In some cases they illustrate the very kinds of AI behavior that The Shogun mentioned in his post, but that does not necessarily redeem them. Aren't both worth some study if you wish to understand that behavior?

I actually do visually confirm the results of the first 20 moves with an "End Year" without save/loads, and there are typically four territories under dispute that are not rebel. All of the remaining acquisitions are rebel, and if you ask me that's some pretty sensible playing. It's also easier to debate the stance and prove the projection that rebel territories being occupied at a later point in the game will be less developed than if they were occupied earlier. I hope no one disagrees on that point.

It's much more difficult to debate the idea that a vague concept like "the AI is less aggressive to other factions" has any real impact on the gameplay, particularly in midgame -- then you'll need to face the entire slew of possibilities that The Shogun mentioned in his post and show that each and every one was not a reasonable assumption.

I honestly do consider the inactivity on the part of the human player to be a weakness of these tests. I'm not going to debate the reasons why but eliminating that lack of inactivity is what yielded the contrary results that I consider worth studying. In one case, even something as simple as forming three alliances in the space of two turns completely changed the behavior of the AI and made it more aggressive.

I don't really agree that a single large faction makes a better opponent; I would rather see smaller factions allying against me as there is more diversity in the gameplay because of the different unit types they can create. The only case in which I would like to see other factions grow at an equal pace is when I'm playing a Roman faction and eventually have to face the other Roman factions after civil war begins. When I first played I thought this is the way things would turn out, and I was surprised to find my Urban Cohorts facing large bands of Hastati and Velites.

This is a little off-topic, but the thing that reduces the challenge the most for me is that the AI does a poor job of building the more powerful units and a balanced army, and that it does a poor job of upgrading the arms and armor for its units. (There was actually a minor improvement in the latest patch, but not enough to be significant.) If it did a better job at these issues, it would make a considerably superior opponent.

[roguebolo]

Apparently my posts on this forum have become somewhat controversial, but I guess I'm getting used to that. Recently on a different forum regarding a different game some of my posts were originally considered controversial, eventually got me flamed by a few individuals, and ultimately won me an award as their best strategy columnist. Bromley has asked me to post a summary of my position because apparently some people have been referring to my posts as evidence that there is no loadgame bug.

In some respects, they are correct. The problem here is the word "bug". To a programmer, a bug is a clear and undetected error that produces incorrect or unintended results or an interruptive abberation in the behavior of a program, such as divide-by-zero errors or integer overflows or a deadlock due to improper use of synchronization objects. I have encountered, tracked down, and eliminated many such bugs over the last 20+ years, and this does not truly qualify as a "bug." I assure you that if you were to refer to it in those terms to the developer(s) responsible for the AI that they would take at least a small amount of offense to it. In fact, as a fellow programmer, I take a small amount of offense to it myself on their behalf. I do wish everyone would adopt a more accurate description such as the "load game reassessment behavior" or "load game reassessment anomaly".

What we are dealing with here is a peculiar behavior of the reassessment strategy under conditions of polar extrema -- beginning from the opening move of the game, without player interaction except for the refusal of all alliances which serves to reinforce the extrema. I'm not undermining this test, because it quite possibly gives us some insight into the viability of the the algorithms and heurisms used by the AI throughout the course of the game, including midgame and endgame, in the absence of such extrema.

There is a clear tendency for the reassessment that occurs after a load game to often (not always) reverse diplomatic decisions and to relieve sieges. It's also clear that this behavior tends to diminish or manifest itself in a different way as the game moves away from a position of extrema. Unfortunately, I'm one of the few people who has apparently studied the phenomenon with that possibility in mind, although Bromley is moving in the same direction. It helps to have a large database of saved games to draw from.

I think there are some weaknesses with the research that's been undertaken here. It seems that many people have reached "obvious", foregone conclusions from their observations of this fairly limited test, projecting those "absolutes" to the conclusion of the game even when the extrema is removed. There is no support for such conclusions except inasmuch as they can be supported semantically. There is virtually no empirical evidence as to the resulting strength of the AI opposition as a whole due to the AI's reassessment behavior.

There are also a few conclusions that are entirely accurate, although unsupported empirically, such as the fact that the load game behavior will allow the human player more time to acquire rebel territories and more time to develop them than the AI factions, which definitely gives the human player an advantage. I think this could easily be supported empirically, although the mathematical analysis would be quite challenging.

There has been very little attempt to understand the reasoning behind the AI's behavior, which I consider to be a key factor in suggesting how it might be changed. To simply say, "The AI needs to stop relieving sieges" could very well introduce another undesirable behavior in the AI. In order to understand the decision-making process of the AI, and how it might be improved, it is important to analyze those scenarios where the AI is behaving in a different manner than that which was observed under conditions of extrema.

In other words, I think the research here is a good start, but incomplete. It is not conclusive because it does not exhibit empirical evidence of the projected conclusions.

[Pode]

RB, you've put forth a fairly solid case and my opinion of the impact of this issue is being revised accordingly. However, my primary concern is that the anomalous behavior at an extrema is at an *unavoidable* extrema. Every campaign must have a beginning, and if the AI takes 20 turns or so to really get its wits about it (more if you play as I do and never form alliances with people you intend to subjugate one day), that's a crippling handicap. Even if the behavior straightens out and the AIs begin to function better as you suggest, for a lot of players it may very well be too little too late for the AI to pose a challenge. Your evidence is *beginning* to convince me that it is WAD, but even so I stand by my assertion that it's a very bad WAD and needs serious attention for the XP.

[roguebolo]

Pode,

My idea about alliances is not 100% confirmed, but it's true that the human player can force ceasefires between AI factions with his alliances sometimes, which also means it would no longer be a "equally viable" option for the AI to change its mind about certain alliances, bringing about some degree of stabilization. An analysis of alliances and ceasefire agreements in the 20-move test with saveloads seems to support the idea that changing alliances are partially repsonsible for the loadgame behavior, as do the save games from turns 12 and 14 of my campaign in which the AI chose to agressively take territories (even distant rebel territories!) only because I had established three new alliances without any other movement, despite the fact that I was doing save/loads each turn. Furthermore, the exploit that has been reported (I've never tried it myself) which allows you to create alliances with an unwilling faction, or even to establish a protectorate (which I've tried only in midgame, to no avail) also seems to support the idea. I think it merits a little more investigation.

For example, let's take the first 20 moves, with no load games. A good player, who has a good grasp of the game and how to manipulate the other factions, will realize that he can use his starting diplomat to sail to Lilybaeum by the third turn and form trade rights and an alliance with Carthage, and then sail to Thermon in three more turns to form trade rights and an alliance with the Greeks, which causes the Scipii to relieve their siege at Syracuse. (It also establishes some fairly lucrative naval trade.)

Hence, the situation in Sicily is entirely under the control of the human player. If you consider the Scipii takeover of Sicily desirable, you can allow it; or, if you choose, you can prevent it. From that analysis alone I don't see the situation in Sicily as a strong contributing factor to the overall effectiveness of the AI later in the game. The Scipii siege of Syracuse was only as effective as I allowed it to be, so the AI was not any more effective in this case, with save/loads or without them.

However, with save/loads, it is a more difficult proposition to convince the Scipii to attack Syracuse. In this particular example, due to the unpredictability factor caused by save/loads, the AI is somewhat harder to manipulate, just as load games seem to make it easier to manipulate in other ways. Try making these moves yourself if you want -- you don't need to make any changes to the original test except for your diplomat and the boat he came in on.

But you are right about the fact that every single game will begin with a floundering period of uncertain alliances if there are a lot of load games, and that the period will last longer for different players depending on their style of play. One thing is for certain -- the AI won't be picking up a lot of rebel territories, giving the human player more time to invade unclaimed territories (assuming he can spare the resources and manpower) and to develop his own rebel acquisitions. Although I don't consider that to be a massive game imbalance introduced by the load game behavior, it certainly has some effect.

As to whether the AI begins to stabilize, I'm certain that it does as the result of some fairly extensive testing. But nevertheless its behavior is still worth observing because it gives me a clue about how the AI is reassessing the situation on a load game, a topic which continues to fascinate me.

Arphahat:

Chess programs are a great comparison in some respects. If you save between moves, they will reassess their next move each time you load and may not make the same move -- either if it's drawing the information from a database, as in the openings, or if it's in midgame and sees equally viable moves.

It's funny, because those same programmers on the other forum brought up the comparison between the AI in RTW and chess. One of them pointed out that chess is also substantially different because of the fact that it has only 64 squares, and a limited number of pieces with limited movements. So, yes, it's an unfair comparison in that respect.

A chess program would have the same type of bug if after you loaded a saved game the AI would expose itself to checkmate regardless of the difficulty setting.

That is, again, merely an unsupported assessment of the degree of impact of the load game behavior. I have encountered too many midgame scenarios which discredit the viewpoint that it simply gives up the game because of load games.

[Simetrical]

I still don't see the reason that the AI needs to reassess on reload at all. roguebolo suggested that perhaps this was to add an element of unpredictability, but the easiest way to do that would surely be to use exactly the same code with a different pseudorandom seed, and that can't be what's happening—if it were, the AI might lift a siege or not, but it wouldn't do so disproportionately if a new seed were selected. Unless the decision of which action to pick isn't pseudorandom at all, but I don't see why that would be if you're aiming for unpredictability.

Then again, what do I know? I'm not a programmer. Probably none of what I said makes any sense.

-Simetrical

Edit: Removed semantics discussion.

[HarunTaiwan]

Roguebolo,

Is there a way to test your hypothesis?

If I am playing Parthia, engaging in alliances and war, you are saying despite load/save every turn that the AI will figure things out and the Scipii will take all of Sicilly?

This seems like an easy test to run.

Please confim if this test would fit your hypothesis that human interaction is needed to jump start the aggressive behavior.

Or is it only working when the human player's faction is involved directly in the situation?

[roguebolo]

Simetrical:

Right. Exactly. I think the same thing. As I pointed out earlier, software random number generators are not truly random -- they will produce the same sequence with the same seed. (A timer tic can be used as a seed to introduce more randomness, but the sequence will still eventually repeat itself.) Apparently you're familiar with these concepts. I was comparing it to a random number generator because I think that partially explains the phenomenon -- if the list of possible choices were enumerated, it would seem to always start with the same choice after a load.

We know in advance that it does not have an enumerated list of available, equally viable options for different situations. The reassessment process must construct such a list...and whether it is doing so using recursion, or techniques of combinatorial optimization, or whatever...further complicated by a rule-based heirarchy, topological relationships, and so forth...well, as you can see the end result is a heurism. In the long run, all AI boils down to that, especially with a game as complex as RTW.

I've asked once before if anyone was aware of other triggers which might cause a reassessment. One can assume that they would result in another possible decision-change on the part of the AI midturn (to use the random number example, the next number in the sequence without changing the seed), which would explain why user interaction can change the results of the "sanitized" 20-turn test.

I agree with roguebolo that this isn't really a bug. That the AI does reassess its move on reload isn't a bug; it's intended. That it reassesses it poorly is not a bug, it's a flaw or a problem. Bad AI does not constitute a bug. However, this is a matter of semantics that doesn't really need to be discussed further on this thread.

I think it's a matter of semantics also, and I also think it should be dropped. However, I still question the veracity of the statement that it is "poor AI."

HarunTaiwan:

The establishment of alliances will have the most dominant effect on the factions nearest to you and the ones that are bordering them. However, by establishing alliances with distant factions you can still have some control over events on the far end of the map. I generally do both. Is it really going to matter to you who is the strongest faction you have to fight when you expand toward Rome and have to fight Carthage, or the Scipii, or the Brutii, or the Greek Cities? Or some combination thereof?

[HarunTaiwan]

The establishment of alliances will have the most dominant effect on the factions nearest to you and the ones that are bordering them. However, by establishing alliances with distant factions you can still have some control over events on the far end of the map. I generally do both. Is it really going to matter to you who is the strongest faction you have to fight when you expand toward Rome and have to fight Carthage, or the Scipii, or the Brutii, or the Greek Cities? Or some combination thereof?

Yes. Because if the Scipii overrun Sicily early on, they might have more than hastati and velites. If it doesn't matter, then have no AI vs. AI battles and the player can just conquer a static, unchanging world.

And, if alliances are so key, I still can't understand how Scipi overrun Sicily without save/loads and do nothing with save/loads when THEIR FACTION IS LOCKED INTO ALLIANCES WITH ALL THEIR LAND NEIGHBORS EXCEPT IN SICILY.

Not to mention the script or Senate missions that always lead Julli and Brutti to take Segesta (?) and Appolonia like clockwork. I assume Scipii get the same marching orders to take Siciliy, but when it's save/load it somehow goes away?

Scipii are already allies with the other Romans. Without loading they seize all of Sicily. With loading, they do nothing. And somehow the butterfly wings of the player's alliances would alter this result?

Maybe for Greeks and Carthage who definitely can be busy elsewhere your points could be valid, but Scipii? And keep in mind if you are a Roman faction, it will affect your end-game civil war if the Scipii have not expanded enough.

Now, in games where I did not save often, I saw Scipii do better than Brutii...could it be a way to slow down certain factions?

[roguebolo]

And, if alliances are so key, I still can't understand how Scipi overrun Sicily without save/loads and do nothing with save/loads when THEIR FACTION IS LOCKED INTO ALLIANCES WITH ALL THEIR LAND NEIGHBORS EXCEPT IN SICILY.

Umm, heck, I just explained this. I played as the Julii in my experiment, but the Brutii would probably still turn out the same way. All you have to do is make alliances with Carthage and the Greeks, and then your Roman allies will honor that alliance and the Scipii will not overrun Sicily. It depends if you want to weaken your future enemies, the other Romans, later in the game or if you would prefer to weaken Carthage or the Greeks immediately. Carthage is actually considered (historically) as the target of the Scipii and the Greeks are considered (historically) as the target of the Brutii, but both are excellent trade alliances for the Julii, especially if you build a port in Ariminum immediately. However, if you would prefer for the Roman factions to be stronger for more of a challenge later in the game, you can always allow the Scipii to take all of Sicily.

Harun, listen. If you don't feel the game is challenging enough for you, what's to stop you from making your own rules? What's the earliest year that you've hit the victory conditions? Well, OK. Do it ten years earlier.

And if that's not a challenge, then try fifteen. And so on.

Truthfully, Harun, the AI is not even close to a match for me also. Maybe, you know, the very first time you played a TW game, it seemed like a real challenge. You know, maybe, if you think about it, there were numerous possibilites you'd never encountered before in a standard RTS or action game. And maybe you've become so jaded over being a "professional" that you feel content in being critical of an AI.

The first Chess Master that ever got beat by an AI felt the same way. He thought an AI would never be able to beat him, and was so confident that he offered a $10,000 reward (which was nothing to him based on his chess championships). But he did get beat.

[roguebolo]

I have been asked time and again, and I have been challenged on my theories, to provide some concrete evidence.

Now, I'm going to ask you gentlemen the same thing. You provide me with some concrete, empirical evidence. How, you ask?

Well, for starters, use the first 20 moves in its sanitized format, if you prefer, and add up the relative strength that your own faction needs to conquer to win the game. Consider every single other faction as your eventual enemies -- which, of course, they will be -- add up their armor and arms bonuses, balancing pikement against cavalry, elephants against flaming arrows etc. And you tell ME how much of a differential you can find that is created by those first 20 moves, with or without a save/load. Mathematically. Numerically. Emperically. Prove this to me

Any takers?

[HarunTaiwan]

Simply do the reverse of your test: prove to me that gaining provinces is not useful in terms of arms, etc. More resources, especialy exterminating, means better armies, more provinces can mean better interior lines, less battle fronts, etc.

I give up, though. I guess we'll never know if it's a bug, a feature, poor programing, or just AI's state of the art.

Next time, may I suggest to CA that any re-assessment should be done on a fixed amount of turns basis with no relation to load/save. (I think that would be obvious to anyone working the problem in their mind, but I'm not a programmer.)

Back to the real job! It's been nice talking.

[Midnight]

Please allow me to clarify (I don't have a terribly technical mind!):

If I play the first 15 or so turns straight, no save\load, and let the factions 'settle in' then, if I'm reading roguebolo's posts right, things should be much smoother for me to play in more 'normal' sessions of 1-5 turns (although, the more turns played, the better?)?

[roguebolo]

To a layman, it is not desirable to have the AI lift sieges and wander off when you were about to sally and break them. It is not desirable for an AI faction to make a ceasefire with you and attack you on the next click of the end of turn button.

I usually sally immediately, but the fact of the matter is that in my midgame tests, wherein the AI alternately relieved and reinstated sieges due to save/loads, that was a better strategy for the AI than if they had maintained the sieges (as they do without save/loads). First, it denied me the use of the castle to protect my flanks while approaching them and to protect my onagers, which can fire over the castle walls.

Second, it allowed them to become the defenders on a realtime map of their choice.

So to the devs, it might be "functioning as designed", but that design is fundamentally flawed. I don't think it's any kind of a reach to say poor design logic is a bug.

Again, you're assuming that everyone agrees with you that the design is fundamentally flawed. You're saying that you have a bug and I don't because of our perceptions and opinions of the game design? Because our expectations are different?

[Old Celt]

Again, you're assuming that everyone agrees with you that the design is fundamentally flawed. You're saying that you have a bug and I don't because of our perceptions and opinions of the game design? Because our expectations are different?

No not at all. What I'm saying is that if the AI would have assaulted without a save/load involved, I should be able to get that assault to happen after a load. The save didn't change anything. This special reassessment makes the AI do illogical things because there is no continuity between what it was doing and what it is doing after a load.

You can say it's conditional, and we can test for it, but it isn't logical, and there's no way it makes better sense for the AI to merely harass me with the threat of a siege when the logical, and much better strategic move is for it to capture the settlement outright. The only logical reasons for dropping a siege are to relieve their own threatened outposts, or because they are hopelessly outmatched by the garrison. This is common sense.

I make no assumptions about who agrees with me, as it is immaterial here. We are talking about simple problems in military strategy which can be solved with just a small modicum of logic. There is only one best move for the AI, in each siege situation. That best move is lost quite often by a reload. I say that is a design flaw, and believe from much experience with users and bug reports, that this would show up on my desk as a bug report.

I must also point to the totally haywired Protectorate behavior and say the same thing: it isn't logical for the AI to behave this way; it is a design flaw, and many users would simply call it a bug. I could say it wasn't a bug all day long, but I'd be in there coding a fix for it, just as sure as death and taxes.

[roguebolo]

As far as the Protectorate issue goes, I've had no luck whatsover duplicating it, although I've only tried it in midgame. I just talked with a friend on the phone last night and he had no luck either.

In the example I gave before, the AI actually was outmatched by the garrison. Also, I've mentioned before that one of my complaints with the load game behavior is that it does not allow me to be the defender in a castle assault.

In a castle assault, the defender has the advantage. So it is to the AI's advantage to taunt me until I attack it. That's not a bad strategy. It's actually a far worse strategy for it to maintain a siege with an inferior force, as it attempts to do without the load game reassessment.

In retrospect, in all of my testing, the only time I've ever seen the AI maintain a siege or perform a castle assault despite successive load games is when it seriously outmatches the garrison. However, I was not the besieged party in any of these instances.

I don't think any of the above behavior is a flaw. If I were to point out some serious flaws, they would include things like how easy it was to bribe your way to victory in previous patches/releases. However, that has been fixed in the latest patch.

[Old Celt]

I've seen the Protectorate bug in action myself, and seen the test results in graphic detail posted by others. I think that's the worst one yet as it can totally unbalance the game as the AI creates whacky Protectorate arrangements willy nilly as it reassesses after loads. I don't know why you can't duplicate results RB, but our purpose here is to analyze demonstrated, reproducible results. Until you give me a test sequence to reproduce your results, I can make no sensible comments about your data.

I would like to know if others here support my conclusion that the reassessment process is performing illogically? Specifically, when the AI has the means and time to execute a capture of a city, it will do so when no loading of game interferes, but deliberately choose not to capture the city ASAP when a load game happens.