Investigation of AI reassessment upon reload

[roguebolo]

I can send you the save games in question. Since they are midgame saves, I obviously can't describe each and every move from the start of the game in order to duplicate the situation. But I can let you try to establish a protectorate yourself from my save position. It won't work. And that is duplicatable.

I originally encountered the Protectorate exploit because I was bound and determined to have Gaul submit to Protectorate status after laying siege to their last remaining territory in Celtiberia, so that I wouldn't have to worry about having to keep it garrisoned. They would under no conditions yield to my demands. So I went online to see if anyone had any advice about Protectorates. That's when I encountered the exploit; the person described it as working every single time, without failure, so I figured I'd just do it the quick and easy way. After several tries, I decided it just would not work.

One of the developers had also posted in that forum (I wish they'd do that more), and described a process that was somewhat longer and more arduous. I followed his advice, and a few turns later they finally agreed to a Protectorate for about 3-4,000 Florins.

I had the exact same results with Spain in Lusitania a few turns later.

I have a close friend who's also an avid RTW player, and I asked him to try it as well, in his game. He experienced the same results.

The exploit seems to work well near periods of extrema, in the absence of threats or alliances.

However, I HAVE observed an AI faction submitting to Protectorate status to another AI faction, when it did not seem reasonable. Specifically, in the same game Germany is a Protectorate of Brittania -- yet Germany is still strong, with a number of territories. Although this might seem illogical, it certainly doesn't work in my favor. It creates a situation in which they function almost as a single faction -- their alliance and military access and trade agreements give them the combined strength of a very large faction, which seems to be what people are saying they would like to confront later in the game.

As the first respondent, I will state that I agree with you -- but only partially. My agreement is restricted specifically to rebel territories, in which the AI will illogically abandon the territory for no gain. I think this is an oversight in the game design because in general the rebels seem to be treated as "just another faction".

[Pode]

Blasted work and school are keeping me from being able to do this myself, but here's a test I'd like to see. RB has advanced the hypothesis (if I understood him correctly) that most of the AI flakiness we have observed after loads settles out as you approach midgame, especially with the player being active. However, this is tough to test on other machines since being active produces a unique campaign situation and so we don't have a controlled test. I'd like to see someone post a savegame file where we can all download it easily, one from a ways into a campaign. (I'd like to volunteer RB for this since he somehow seems to not have the bu . . fea. . . issue, and I'd like to dig into that a bit. However, anyone's game will do, so long as everyone is working from the same game file). Run the standard player-passive tests from that mid-game point, 20 turns w/o loading, followed by 20 turns loading every turn, and compare AI province conquests. 20 turns loading at different frequencies would be interesting too, and if we coordinated beforehand who would run what frequency test it wouldn't be massively time consuming for any one of us to do. Thoughts?

[Bhruic]

I'm was curious about roguebolo's claim, so I fired up a game I'd played that was in roughly mid-game state. I was playing the Greeks, and was at war with the Romans (all of them), Macedonians and Pontus.

I had a diplomat in one of my cities, with a diplomat from the Julii near, and a stack of Macedonians. So after loading, I first tried to get the Macedonians to become my protectorate. They refused. I asked for a ceasefire, they demanded 1940 denarii in return.

So no luck with them. I then tried the Julii diplomat. Request they become Protectorate and they agreed.

The only major difference between the two I could see if the advancement of relationships. I've had no real contact with the Julii, they declared war because of the Scipii and Brutii attacking me. In fact, I don't think I've even fought one of their ships.

The Macedonians, on the other hand, I've been fighting since turn 1. I've declared war on them twice.

So it's possible that the "Protectorate bug" only works if you don't have any diplomatic history with a faction?

Bh

[roguebolo]

I think it's a very good idea, and I'm sure I'm going to get the response that people just don't have enough time, but I think multiple people should upload save games so that we also have tests that eliminate other factors. For instance, my tendency to create a huge number of alliances could affect the way that my games are behaving. In general, I'm finding that a large database of save games is allowing me to test different theories, and to challenge them in situations that are contrary.

At the very least, if I'm going to volunteer, I would like to volunteer the most enigmatic of the situations I've encountered. Specifically, this is the Turn 12 and Turn 14 scenario. Both are very close to the period of extrema, which means they should exhibit at least SOME of the AI behavior exhibited by the sanitized 20-turn test. However, turn 12 exhibits it in the purest fashion -- straight lines across the board under territorial rankings with nothing but save/loads and "End Turn". Turn 14 ends up the exact same way as when I was really playing, with a number of territorial acquisitions. The only difference is that I made three alliances in between the two turns. Those are the ones I would like to submit, because they are the ones that I understand the least. They are the reason for some of the theories that I've promoted here.

If you just want to see a save game where the AI alternately relieves and reinstates sieges, I could provide that too. It does give some information, but I don't think it's quite as useful, nor as enigmatic. You're basically going to come to the same conclusion I did -- you gotta kill 'em, whether you do it outside your castle walls or a few miles away.

One thing that would be very useful is the ability to turn OFF fog of war in mid-campaign. Do any modders out there offer this capability?

[*edit*] Actually, in retrospect, I might be able to hack it in the save game file. But I'd prefer to avoid this extra work if someone can just point me to a mod solution.

[*edit*] Actually, heh, now that I think about it even more, it might be possible to change the load game behavior by hacking the save game files. If "state" information is stored as a numerical value, then changing this "state" information could change the way in which the AI moves after a load game...

[Pode]

toggle_fow in the romeshell window works, although when I loaded your turn 19 game you emailed me I had to toggle it, load and toggle it again before it finally took and began truly toggling. Maybe it gets borked by loading too?

[Bhruic]

I think it's a very good idea, and I'm sure I'm going to get the response that people just don't have enough time, but I think multiple people should upload save games so that we also have tests that eliminate other factors. For instance, my tendency to create a huge number of alliances could affect the way that my games are behaving. In general, I'm finding that a large database of save games is allowing me to test different theories, and to challenge them in situations that are contrary.

It may have some utility, but I'm not sure how useful it would be overall. A fair amount of a game's understanding comes from playing the turns to get there. Starting from a set point in would mean that you may have missed a great deal of the give-and-take that goes on. For example, let's say on Siciliy, that Carthage takes the Greek city, but then loses it to the Scipii. If I saw a game after that point, I'd have no idea that Carthage took the city (and fought the Greeks). That could taint the results.

One thing that would be very useful is the ability to turn OFF fog of war in mid-campaign. Do any modders out there offer this capability?

Hit ~
type "toggle_fow"
(type "toggle_fow" again to turn it back on)

Bh

[Kraxis]

Rouge, while the harassment might be better against you, it is only better because your are a much better commander than the AI. You can outsmart it pretty much every time. But since other AI factions fight auto-calc that is not likely to be a good strategy against them.

Result is that the AI does not expand but gains something of a better chance at getting a draw with you. I would rather that it lost its assault on me and gained other cities so it wouldn't be worn down too fast. A war with Dacia as a two province state is no fun when we talk about 40 turns into the game. True that could happen in a no save/load game but at least the Dacians have had the possiblity of expanding correctly but have gotten beaten at it.

And I wouldn't say that harassment is effective. It only gives me more time to bring in reinforcements if my garrison is very small or weak, and if it is strong it means that I will most certainly not suffer much damage to my economy.
I have been half-beaten enough times in sallies for me to believe that a sustained siege is better than a run-around. And it isn't always possible to win a sally. If you sit with 2 Peasants, 3 Militia Hoplites and a unit of Peltasts there isn't much you can do against a large army consisting of archers and/or horse archers plus a bit of other troops.
In such a case a broken siege is very bad for the AI as it will result in it never gaining a relatively weakly defended city.

[therother]

The LM has webspace available to host files. PM me and I can arrange for the file to be uploaded.

On the issue of this thread, please look through your previous posts and remove anything that is not directly related to the investigation of this issue. That means discussion of patches, CA, Activision, bugs and so on. This thread was intended to be clean of such discussions, and it is our intention that it will be. One way or the other.

[roguebolo]

Actually, on my way to the store just a few moments ago, I realized that one of my statements about hacking the save files was incorrect. Although it might be possible to modify a save file so that the behavior of the game changes after a load, it would be almost impossible to do so without the benefit of the source code. The reason for this is that typically you attempt to save a game in two identical situations with only one factor changing...then you analyze what data changed in the save file.

Unfortunately, the one thing that I want to try to change is consistently the same after each load game. Hence, no changes in the save file.

I'm going to PM you in a few seconds. I'm going to send all three of these save games -- the ones called "Turn 12" and "Turn 14" are the enigmatic ones, and the one called "DefendThapsus" illustrates the behavior of the AI during midgame.

We can address the issue of Protectorates after you've taken a look at these.

[Kraxis]

Ahhh but rouge can also be meant in the context of you being 'a rouge', a sort of romanticised bandit. And since your name is in fact two names (first- and surname) then rouge is fair enough, especially since you have chosen to write it small.
But yeah it is also a colour. Anyway, I will refer to you as RB from now on, ok?

I agree with therother that what we call this issue is of little point here. To some it acts too strangely and thus to them it must be a bug, to others it is merely a weak code of some sort, others yet an unfinished feature. But what we can agree on is that loading after a save has a grave impact on the game if done fairly often. We don't agree on how grave it is.

[Bromley]

FIRST: Apologies, but I have missed out Rhodes (Greeks) in all of my tests. It's immaterial to the conclusions though.

Summary

Thanks to RB for mailing me his files. I've looked at them and have concluded that they in no way contradict the statement that loading the game damages the AI expansion.

Any other conclusions/theories about the effect of alliances on the AI are for others to advance. My only objective in this test was to determine whether or not save/load produced results that I might expect from earlier tests.


Details

RB supplied 3 files which I refer to as "12", "14" and "19". Those numbers don't directly translate to turn numbers. Assuming that we call the first turn (270s AD) Turn 1, then they refer to turns 14 (264w BC),16 (263w BC) & 20 (261w BC) respectively.

The tests use "12" and "14" and run until 261w BC, which is when "19" was saved. The first thing to note is that these tests cover relatively short periods (6 & 4 turns), so I've also performed an couple of extended runs on "14" that go for 6 turns to 260w.

Thanks to Bhruic for telling us how to turn FOW off on someone else's save. That made the comparison a lot easier and allowed me to see a lot of interesting stuff that I would have otherwise missed. BTW, anybody trying it may find that they have to type it into the console twice to get it working properly.

As well as recording the territory data, I've also listed a bunch of locations that I found under siege in some of the runs. This is not necessarily comprehensive, but they do account for many of the sieges. x means that it wasn't besieged, s means that it was (followed by who is doing it) and lifted means that it was no longer sieged (note that this may have occurred in the previous turn). Likewise, taken means it was taken (duh!) but not necessarily in this turn. If there's no mark then I didn't check on the status.

"12" Test

A simple one to conclude. Look at the increase in total territories from 74 to 81 when no loads are made. As we've come to expect, zero growth with save/loads every turn. Also note that the no-loads column (interval=NIL) has a bunch of cities under siege, whereas the save/load every turn (interval=1) column has none. This means that the difference between the two runs could be expected to increase if we continued for a few more turns.

"14" Test

You'll see that the total territory only increases by 1 up to 261w BC whether you load or not. However, this is not too surprising as there have only been 4 turns. As we're already 14 turns into the game, it's reasonable to expect that the AI has already taken many of the easy Rebels. Indeed, we know that there have been 6 Rebels taken by the start because I recorded to total territory in 270s in my earlier tests as 71.

When I extend the test by 2 turns to 260w BC, you see a huge change. The save/load run shows no change at 78. However, not saving or loading for those two turns allows the AI to expand by 8 territories! That's huge when you think that in the preceding 20 turns it had only expanded 7 territories.

The reason can be seen in the Sieges box. There are a huge number of outstanding sieges at the end of the first 4 turns without saving. A large number of these succeed, along with a bunch of others that I didn't record like Noricum.

So again, this is evidence of the loadgame feature being pants.

"19"

Included for completion, this is RB's save at 261w from when he was playing the game. One possible conclusion is that he reloaded approximately every 3 turns when he was playing, as the total territory increase is similar to my interval=3 test that I ran previously and that covers a similar length period. In fact this conclusion probably applies to "12" and "14" because they similarily exhibit relatively little expansion.

Strangely enough, I did not replicate RB's results where he saw territorial expansion compared to "19" using "14" up to 261w BC. However, I did note that Pontus managed to expand by 1 territory despite save/load every turn. Also, there were a few sieges in place when I finished that run. Maybe sometimes with save/load an army will siege a Rebel and, as the Rebels have their turn at the end, the Rebels may sally before the turn ends? That way, the AI would be able to win a siege in one turn even with walls being present.

[Kraxis]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rouge
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rogue

The content of this post will be removed fairly soon. Sorry, I couldn't resist butting in.

-Simetrical

Hahaha.... I see I have made a fool of myself. I guess I use the term 'a rogue' too little. I wonder at how I missed the point. Maybe because rouge is pronounced in a french style (roosh).

Anyway, thanks Bromley.
Clearly the AI had built up its forces by the end of 14, thus enabling it to expand mightily.
But I think this is obvious proof of something not being right.

[Bhruic]

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

So you would like to posit the theory that having all of the factions remain with their original provinces is functionally equivalent to having one single faction that controls all of their combined provinces? That an enemy with 80 provinces is no harder to fight than 20 enemies with 4 provinces?

Because, frankly, I find that idea to be extremely silly. One of the saving graces of mid-game MTW was that no matter where you were, there would almost always be another large empire forming. That gave a focus and credible threat to your position. Yes, there were many things you could do to work around this, but that's outside the main point. In RTW, with frequent loading/saving, you don't get that situation. And working through a smaller empire is demonstratably easier than a larger one (assuming all conditions are equal).

Bh

[roguebolo]

First, those two turns were not selected because they show an absence of the AI's anomolous behavior; they were selected because they were close enough to the period of extrema that they should still exhibit the behavior in spades, which the one labeled Turn 12 certainly does. That's why I keep referring to it as some sort of "breaking point".

I've had different results playing from the save game labeled Turn 14 until 261 BC, because sometimes in addition to Pontus gaining a territory, the Egyptians and Seleucids will exchange one as well. This might just be due to a different roll of the dice in an autocalc situation.

I decided to move a little further back toward the point of extrema, and started at Turn 10 instead, since it seems to be on the other side of the "breaking point". I played forward to turn 19 without any save loads or making any new alliances, anticipating that the AI would exhibit its standard behavior and that by turn 14 there would be an equal number of territorial acquisitions to those that were in my save game.

Unfortunately, the results were not exactly what I expected. The AI was actually less aggressive up to turn 14, as there was precisely one less territorial acquisition. Pontus neglected to take a rebel territory. I don't know if the lack of alliances had any effect on this or not. However, if I continue playing from this point without save/loads until turn 19, Pontus remains dormant and Brittania and Carthage become more active.

I think I've discovered why "toggle_fow" must be typed twice to turn off fog of war. The fog-of-war flag is set to whatever is in the preferences.txt file and is overridden, but does not change value, by the information in the load game. Hence, if the fog-of-war flag is set to FALSE in preferences.txt, the first time you type it it will be set to TRUE and the new value is applied immediately to the game, so that fog of war stays enabled as it was marked in the save file. On the second invocation, it gets reset to FALSE and fog of war gets disabled.

[roguebolo]

So you would like to posit the theory that having all of the factions remain with their original provinces is functionally equivalent to having one single faction that controls all of their combined provinces?

No, but in midgame when my faction is larger, the remaining nearby factions tend to ally against me, functioning in a manner similar to a very large faction. I have seen no evidence whatsover that pressing "End Turn" without load games will result in a few large and dominant factions within, say 100 turns, nor that the AI would be substantially more challenging in such a situation.

My gut feeling is that however this situation might turn out, neither scenario would provide as much of a challenge as if the AI factions did a better job of producing more elite troops and providing them with the latest weapons and armor upgrades.

Taking Sicily as an example, which seems to be upheld as the prime example of the ineffectiveness of the AI's behavior, I know of several other actions on the part of the human player that will prevent the Scipii takeover of Sicily, in addition to load games. 1) If the human player is one of the other Roman factions and decides to prevent it by forming alliances; and 2) if the human player is Greek or Carthaginian, and decides to resist the takeover through military action. (And why doesn't the AI do this if it hasn't been "crippled" by load games?)

So there are at least four factions whereby human interaction decides the course of the game regarding nearby factions. However, load game behavior seems to inhibit the AI's takeover of rebel territories (with a few notable exceptions), regardless of any amount of human interaction. This is why I consider the rebel territories to be the greatest flaw in the reassessment logic.

Originally Posted by Simetrical
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rouge
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rogue

The content of this post will be removed fairly soon. Sorry, I couldn't resist butting in.

-Simetrical

Note that in the case of my handle, as in the case of Laumer's books, "bolo" is a noun and "rogue" is being used as an adjective. To quote the adjective definitions from that link, and show how they apply to a wargaming handle:

2. Large, destructive, and anomalous or unpredictable: a rogue wave; a rogue tornado.

3. Operating outside normal or desirable controls: “How could a single rogue trader bring down an otherwise profitable and well-regarded institution?” (Saul Hansell).

Laumer's novel by the same name is, coincidentally, about an AI supertank (a "bolo") with a bug in the AI programming...and it requires the entire US military to bring it down when it goes bersernk.

[Pode]

OK, I'm a bit confused, been a bad day at the office and my brain is fried. Bromley loaded RB's earlier saves and found that loading had a detrimental effect on the AI when he worked from the earliest save using the standard passive player test technique. RB says that's what he expected, because the early saves are close enough to the start of the campaign that it should still be wonky after a load. If both of you load up the *latest* save and go forward from there with player passive tests like Bromley did, what happens? I guess I still haven't seen (or been bright enough to recognize) evidence for or against RB's theory that the AI gets better in the midgame, away from the starting extrema. I think it's a good theory, and it would explain both what we've tested so far and what CA said to us, so it's attractive emotionally (we can all be right!), but I want to know for sure one way or another.

[Bhruic]

No, but in midgame when my faction is larger, the remaining nearby factions tend to ally against me, functioning in a manner similar to a very large faction. I have seen no evidence whatsover that pressing "End Turn" without load games will result in a few large and dominant factions within, say 100 turns, nor that the AI would be substantially more challenging in such a situation.

Hmm, then maybe you should look for some. The Roman factions especially will become quite large and quite powerful if the player doesn't do something to stop them early on. Egypt is another powerhouse. Sadly, the other factions don't expand as much as might be hoped for. But suggesting that the AI isn't more effective with more territory seems foolish. They are demonstrably so.

My gut feeling is that however this situation might turn out, neither scenario would provide as much of a challenge as if the AI factions did a better job of producing more elite troops and providing them with the latest weapons and armor upgrades.

I'm sure they would, but I think that's going beyond the scope of the discussion.

Taking Sicily as an example, which seems to be upheld as the prime example of the ineffectiveness of the AI's behavior, I know of several other actions on the part of the human player that will prevent the Scipii takeover of Sicily, in addition to load games. 1) If the human player is one of the other Roman factions and decides to prevent it by forming alliances; and 2) if the human player is Greek or Carthaginian, and decides to resist the takeover through military action. (And why doesn't the AI do this if it hasn't been "crippled" by load games?)

This is flawed logic. The fact that the player can actively work to oppose the AI in no way excuses the fact that the AI will also be hampered by the save/reload issue. If there was a bug that automatically killed any army you encounter, would you excuse that because you're likely to win the encounter anyway?

I'm really not sure where you are trying to go with that paragraph. I don't understand how you think it reflects on the save/reload issue, or why you think it excuses if (if, in fact, that is what you are trying to suggest).

Bh

[roguebolo]

Originally Posted by roguebolo
No, but in midgame when my faction is larger, the remaining nearby factions tend to ally against me, functioning in a manner similar to a very large faction. I have seen no evidence whatsover that pressing "End Turn" without load games will result in a few large and dominant factions within, say 100 turns, nor that the AI would be substantially more challenging in such a situation.

Hmm, then maybe you should look for some.

Actually, I just did. I realized that in my current game in progress, I was in a strong enough situation to test exactly that. I control 21 territories and the vast majority of my empire is too far away from the other factions for them to worry about -- such as Spain and Northern Africa from Tingi to Thapsus. There were numerous rebel territories in the North and around the Ionia area, as well as a few scattered about elsewhere.

I have so far played 50 turns without save/loads and with no user activity except to repel Brittania's sieges at Lemonum and Condate Redonum, replenishing the forces afterward, and modifying taxes and games to keep my territories happy and green. The game is running in the background as I type this, waiting for the next 50 turns.

During the first twenty or so turns, all of the other factions quickly nabbed the nearest rebel factions. Pontus was the luckiest (why the heck is it always Pontus?) because its starting position allowed it to grab the most rebel territories. I think it managed to take three.

As soon as most of the rebel territories had been claimed, the game became very static, with no factions expanding or acquiring each other's territories except in one instance when the Brutii took a Germanic territory (I'm obviously watching with FOW disabled).

At a certain point the Brutii got very lucky because all of Germania's territories turned suddenly rebel, and the Brutii began to absorb them into its empire. However, due to bad management or something, it has been losing these territories as well, sometimes reacquiring them.

Other than the original free-for-all with rebel territories, and the Brutii's ridiculous attempt to maintain civil order with its new acquisitions, there has been no expansion worthy of note. No faction has established itself as a dominant one, although Pontus and the Brutii have a somewhat larger "presence" due to their rebel acquisitions.

I'm about to press "End Turn" another 50 times. I would think that after 100 moves, with no save/loads, that SOME faction should eventually establish itself as the dominant AI faction. Don't you? After all, that's about 1/6th the maximum moves allowed in an entire game!

[Pode]

Thanks to therother I was able to get a vanilla 1.2 install going, and ran an abbreviated test while I waited on my grad school team to edit a draft I sent out. Loaded RB's "19" game and ran forward passively for 6 turns. Without loads, five factions took ~ 10 provinces (not keeping close count, sorry). With loads every turn, not one faction gained a single province. Not conclusive, but convincing to me.

Now if I follow RB's last post, he's also advancing the theory that the AI aggression level (and thus siege maintenance) is a function of the player's activity. I can't think of a good way to test this, since activity will produce changes that invalidate the controlled test scenario.

[Bhruic]

As soon as most of the rebel territories had been claimed, the game became very static, with no factions expanding or acquiring each other's territories except in one instance when the Brutii took a Germanic territory (I'm obviously watching with FOW disabled).

In general, a lot of the factions seem to be almost too balanced. In my games, Germania and Britannia are almost always at war. When I turn FoW off (I don't play that way), I can see armies sieging cities. But I never see them take territory (or, if they do, they lose it again quickly).

But the Julii, Brutii and Scipii will almost always expand after a period of 30-50 turns. For some reason they are very slow starters (other than the initial moves). That is, of course, unless I block them.

At a certain point the Brutii got very lucky because all of Germania's territories turned suddenly rebel, and the Brutii began to absorb them into its empire. However, due to bad management or something, it has been losing these territories as well, sometimes reacquiring them.

Unfortunately the AI is remarkably bad at maintaining order in their cities. I'm not sure why. I've done a few things to try and work around it, but they still make bonehead moves from time to time.

I'm about to press "End Turn" another 50 times. I would think that after 100 moves, with no save/loads, that SOME faction should eventually establish itself as the dominant AI faction. Don't you? After all, that's about 1/6th the maximum moves allowed in an entire game!

It may happen, it may not. I suspect that some of the empires will be larger, while others will have gotten eaten up. The Gaul tend to fall pretty quickly once the Julii actually get around to attacking them. Carthage will tend to lose its territory to the Scipii. What happens in the Greek area is a little more of a toss up, as Macedonian can sometimes put up a decent fight.

Although, I'm not sure exactly what faction you are playing, so I'm not sure what influence you'll have on the game. From the sounds of it, you are playing out west, possibly Carthage? If so, that will certainly impact whoever is closest.

Regardless of how it turns out, however, I'm not sure whether the general passivity of the AI precludes the existence of an even more passive AI when save/load occurs.

Bh

[HarunTaiwan]

Thanks Bromley for the outstanding tests. I think that settles it. If we need a game save from later on, I'm sure we can find one.

[roguebolo]

My theories haven't changed, Bromley. I still contend that AI siege behavior in midgame has no real effect on my gameplay. I've noticed you've made no mention whatsover of the midgame savegame I sent you, called "DefendThapsus", in which the AI behavior seems consistently aggressive toward the human player.

Those early moves were not intended to disprove the AIs behavior in response to a load game; they were intended to illustrate different points where that behavior changes slightly, in an attempt to understand the reasoning behind the behavior. As I've stated before, no one has made any kind of effort to explain the behavior or reasons why, in some cases, it seems to change.

In answer to your question, Bhruic, I'm playing the Julii and Gaul has been reduced to its capital at Celtiberia and is my protectorate while Spain is reduced to its capital in Lusitania and is neutral toward me. So basically the bottom, left side of the map is a non-issue.

I've now pressed "End Year" 80 times, without a load game (or a save game), and the factions are still pretty static across the board. The Brutii are still bumbling their management in the north, gaining and losing rebel provinces almost each turn.

However, Pontus has capitalized on its good fortune in being able to acquire so many rebel territories at the beginning of those 80 moves that it has acquired an additional territory and also managed to convince Armenia to become a Protectorate. Likewise, the Brutii have managed to convince Dacia to become a Protectorate. That particular alliance could present something of a challenge, especially if the Brutii ever figures out how to keep its provinces from rebelling. A few other territories changed hands, with Thrace surprising me when it attacked Macedon.

But the truth is that no AI faction has established itself as a dominant one. Some have gained and then lost territories, but those that managed to grab the most rebel territories in the grab-fest at the beginning are still the ones with the greatest presence. At this point, I have sat patiently in my empire, doing nothing but watching for 1/8th of the maximum number of turns in a game, waiting for some faction -- ANY faction (except, of course, Gaul or Spain) -- to establish some kind of clear dominance, and none of them have done so. If I had actually been playing, the game would surely almost be over.

So has the absence of save loads created a more challenging game?

I think the best point is the one that bhruic made:

Regardless of how it turns out, however, I'm not sure whether the general passivity of the AI precludes the existence of an even more passive AI when save/load occurs.

I'm almost sure that it does not. Despite the fact that there is no dominant AI faction, there's still a problem regarding the rebel territories. In my test, Pontus in particular would have had a much smaller presence than it currently does because of the fact that it would most likely NOT have grabbed the rebel territories, at least so quickly, if there had been a large number of load games. Other AI factions would have been similarly affected, but not as much as Pontus.

I don't think this is really specific to any save game. I think I could try it from any save position where I'm sure I can keep happiness in my territories and fend off invasions, so that I can observe the AI factions playing against each other for an essentially unlimited number of turns, and it would yield similar results. I'm also relatively sure that if I had been doing a lot of load games the majority of the territories that were originally rebel-controlled still would be. However, without load games, there are only three rebel territories remaining if you don't count the ones the Brutii keep losing and gaining.

I'm not sure if I'm going to let this go on for another 80 moves or not; it's still running in the background. But I think it's pretty clear that I'm never going to see a game with an ending like MTW, where it pretty much came to a showdown between myself and one other faction -- whether or not load games are a contributing factor. And that's fine with me, since it adds a little variety to the game as well as a little historicity.

[Bromley]

My theories haven't changed, Bromley. I still contend that AI siege behavior in midgame has no real effect on my gameplay. I've noticed you've made no mention whatsover of the midgame savegame I sent you, called "DefendThapsus", in which the AI behavior seems consistently aggressive toward the human player.

As I stated in the Summary, "My only objective in this test was to determine whether or not save/load produced results that I might expect from earlier tests." My objective was to counter (or support, if it turned out that way), the claim made over on .com by ML Crassus about your posts:

"While it doesn't nescessarily doesn't prove without a shadow of a doubt that the siege bug is nonexistant, it does call into question the effectiveness of these tests."

Although I haven't mentioned the DefendThapsus savegame here, I did in the email that I sent to you. "I haven't looked at the DefendThapsus one because I'm getting all tested out :) ."

Those early moves were not intended to disprove the AIs behavior in response to a load game; they were intended to illustrate different points where that behavior changes slightly, in an attempt to understand the reasoning behind the behavior. As I've stated before, no one has made any kind of effort to explain the behavior or reasons why, in some cases, it seems to change.

For me, the reasons why it's screwed are not really important. Even if we knew exactly what was wrong, that doesn't help us if CA refuse to consider it as a bug/screwed feature. Of course, they're now apparently claiming that they never called it a feature. As igaworker asked, "I am not trying to be a smart behind, but my question now is this: If the reassessment is not a feature (as Mike B says) and it is not a bug (as Shogun says) then what is it?"

Of course, as the thread was closed before they could answer, we may never know .

[Pode]

Let me suggets one further test. If we use someone's save game from the civil war timeframe, there should be a long track record of player activity and aggressiveness. Hopefully this info is stored in the file and maintained through the save and load. A short test period of player passivity (5-10 turns) would hopefully not skew that average enough to cause the AI to shift into a passive strategy.
If the AI acts aggressively with and without loads, this test would support RB in saying the AI reacts to player activity. If it is aggressive without loads and passive with, I think we can conclude that the extrema theory is not valid and the original "it's just screwed up" theory best fits the data. If it's passive for both, I think that would show that the AI is reactive but only to the player's current level of activity, which may be WAD but is an astoundingly bad WAD. The last thing the AI should want to do is time its attacks to coincide with when I have armies in the field and am ready for it.
Has anyone taken a 1.2 campaign up to this point without giving up in frustration as I did? Are they willing to post such a game here that we can test with?

[roguebolo]

Pode,

When I tested from midgame, both with the savegame entitled "DefendThapsus" and with the sequence in which I did 80 moves without save loads (which is still running in the background), the AI never ceases its aggressiveness toward the human player. To be quite honest, the AI doesn't have much of a choice; in both situations, those AI factions had no one else to be aggressive toward; in "DefendThapsus" it was seeking to retake its territories from an aggressor - myself. (In general this seems to trigger aggressive behavior on the part of the AI.)

The difference was the way in which it manifests its aggression. The AI tends to attempt to maintain a siege without a save/load, or relieve one with save/loads, resulting in alternately establishing and relieving sieges when there is a load game each turn. In many cases, relieving the siege gives it a better chance of doing damage to my armies if I decide to attack it in open terrain, since it is clearly outmatched. "DefendThapsus" is particularly illuminating because if you play with save/loads for several turns, Brittania will start besieging two targets in the north (Lemonum and Condate Redonum), while Numidia is besieging two settlements in the south (Carthage and Thapsus). As a result, you can observe the behavior of four sieges simultaneuosly.

However, if enroute to a siege, a "save/load" does not cause the AI to forget its target. So the targets never really change, just the way it manifests its aggression.

In the 80-move test I did observe the AI choosing to relieve sieges despite the fact that there was never a load game. In "DefendThapsus" and similar savegames where sieges were in effect, I have not yet seen it elect to maintain a siege after a loadgame except on rare occasions wherein the target is a weak rebel territory. Bromley and others have reported that there are indeed such instances, but that they are limited to certain settlements which appear to be "immune" to save/load behavior. In the long run, though, I don't consider alternately relieving and reinstating sieges to dramatically effect gameplay. I still need to eventually oust the assailant from my territories.

After allowing the AI to play 80 turns without any load games, I also don't consider the general passivity of the AI to have any dramatic effect on the overall political landscape, with the exception of the fact that loadgames will tend to cause the AI to leave rebel territories unclaimed. Without them, the AI will snatch them up in what I've referred to as a "grabfest". After observing numerous tests in numerous starting scenarios, the behavior of the AI toward rebel territories is still my main complaint regarding loadgames.

80 turns is about 1/8th the maximum turns allowed in a game, and maybe 1/4th the moves I would actually expect in a game. A few minor exchanges of the AI factions' territories changed the way that I percieved certain factions, their "presence" relative to other factions, but did not provide me with any particularly strong factions. However, the takeover of rebel territories had an absolutely profound effect on two factions in particular, Pontus and also the Brutii after Germania went bottom-up. If one considers that Dacia is a Brutii protectorate, the combined alliance will be almost as strong as I am (at least in terms of number of territories) after the Brutii manage to establish civil order in their northern territories. (They've been trying to do that for over thirty turns, though.)

I don't think that pressing "End Turn" for 80 more turns without load games is going to provide much additional information. That will be nearly one half what I expect the entire length of the game to be, and i would expect to have won the game by that point, so it's a fruitless effort.

For me, the reasons why it's screwed are not really important. Even if we knew exactly what was wrong, that doesn't help us if CA refuse to consider it as a bug/screwed feature.

Well, an understanding of the AI's behavior is the only thing that's going to lead to a workaround. I can force the AI to behave in certain ways by the use of alliances, but I do not seem to be able to force it to change its behavior toward rebel provinces, where alliances have no effect. If a trigger can be identified for midturn-reassessment, then pulling that trigger might galvanize the AI into some action by forcing it to select the next "equally viable" option in the list.

Such information would undoubtedly have been useful to the developers at some point, but my guess is that they have already studied the situation and understand it more fully than any theorizing that we have done here; and that they have concluded (like myself) that this is not exactly a game-breaker and that any changes we see in the behavior of the AI is reserved for future releases.

[Puzz3D]

I have played 58 turns as Julii in an SPQR mod campaign with FOW off. SPQR mod has about twice as many cities as vanilla RTW v1.2. I use Pode's no walls idea except I've left the walls on the 6 large cities that start with stone walls. With no walls, the AI always assaults cities on the same turn it lays the siege since no siege equipment is needed. I've saved the game 8 times for an average interval of 7 turns per savegame, and there were never any sieges in progress when I made the saves. I use very little diplomatic strategy, and concentrate on a gradual military expansion. Armies can be trained very quickly in this mod because the training time is 0 except for ships. There tends to be lots of full army stacks on the map since the AI ramps up its military seemingly to whatever its income allows in most cases.

SPQR mod also eliminates Numidia, Spain and Thrace as factions. Carthage is given all of Numidia. Macedon gets most of Thrace with a bit going to Dacia, and Spain is all Iberian rebles. Carthage is the strongest faction, and has increased its population and military a lot and its territory slightly in the first 58 turns. It's focused on conquering Sicily and looks like it will succeed in doing so soon. It's has done very little expansion against the rebels on the Iberian peninsula. As Julii, I've tried to slow down this conquest of Sicily by helping to destroy the Carthaginian navy because I'm concerned about this faction's economic power which will allow it to field countless replacement armies. Of course, they keep building new ships, but that should reduce their ability to replenish their land forces if I can keep attacking their ships. This is costly for me, and I've had to stop my own land expansion for the time being.

Egypt is the next strongest faction, and it was very quiet for the first 15 years, but after building up its military, it has been expanding up into Asia Minor. The eastern most faction, which I think is Parthia, got caught between Armenia and Egypt and eliminated just a few years ago. Selucid appears to be next since they are caught in the same kind of relentless squeeze between those same two economically stronger factions. Egypt has been fighting a lot in recent years and its military has actually declined in power due to the casualties sustained in the last 10 years. Dacia is probably the next strongest followed by Macedon. They are both quite formidable.

As Julii, I went right after Gaul and steadily but slowly captured one city after another from them in the first 20 years. I'll have to check later just how many cities I've taken. Gaul has been fatally crippled because after about 10 years Britannia also started taking their cities. Britannia also has been fighting off an on with Germania, and taken one or two of their cities. I eventually took the city Narbo M. from Gaul, and that put me in contact with neutral Britannia. As soon as I had this province adjacent to Britannia, I could see them scanning my city on every turn and moving armies up to within striking distance. For the last few turns now, Britannia has been relentlessly attacking my city, and they have stopped attacking Gaul. This same thing happened on my eastern frontier when I took Segesta from the Greek Cities. That put me adjacent to Dacia, and they started scanning my city. Soon Dacia attacked my city a couple of times. The only reason I've survived the attacks by Britannia and Dacia is because even without walls it's fairly easy to defend the town square. If the AI would simply lay siege with the intent of starving out the defenders, I would be in dire staights because I'd would then have to sally and fight the AI in the open field which is no easy task in SPQR mod because the AI has huge armies and they seem to make sure they have a larger army than the enemy when they lay siege.

I only post all of this because I think it shows first that the AI is cautious when expanding, and second that it does become aggressive against the human player when it comes into contact with him. I could probably have diverted this aggression with diplomacy, but I don't try to do that. Britannia did ask for a cease fire which I accepted after they lost 4 large scale attacks on Narbo M.

Neither of these conclusions causes me to think the loadgame issue isn't a serious one. With walls, I could possibly mod out the siege equipment and force the AI to starve out all cities, but I'd then have to play much longer sessions which just isn't resonable for me. Even without walls, I won't play the game unless I have at least 4 hours available since the battles are larger and take longer than vanilla RTW v1.2 which I will not play.

[roguebolo]

I think it shows first that the AI is cautious when expanding, and second that it does become aggressive against the human player when it comes into contact with him.

I agree 100% with both of those conclusions.

After 80 turns (or maybe 1/4th of a game) of pressing "End Turn" without a load game, I can see that there are some minor changes in the relative strength of different factions, that some have gained or lost a little presence. My attitude to that is "So what?" It doesn't exhibit the projected conclusion that any given faction will establish any clear dominating presence to make the victory conditions any more or less difficult. However their own territorial disputes turned out, they're likely to ally against me anyway when they begin to percieve me as their greatest threat.

The AI's tendency to not take rebel territories is a different issue. That does deny the AI factions the economic and positional advantages offered by a potentially large number of rebel territories, hence weakening the overall, combined strength of the AI factions militarily. A work around for this would be to focus on building an infrastructure for several quick turns (something which I occasionally tend to do anyway) until those territories are occupied, without any load games; and I think I'm going to start checking by toggling off FOW occasionally and doing exactly that.

The mod that you mentioned does seem to have some pretty cool approaches toward eliminating the problem, however, and I'm interested in checking it out because I happen to prefer larger battles myself. I'm a little disappointed that Numidia and Spain were dropped because of the roles they played in history, but apparently this mod is primarily designed for game balance.

[Bromley]

and that they have concluded (like myself) that this is not exactly a game-breaker and that any changes we see in the behavior of the AI is reserved for future releases.

This is the crux of the matter for me. In both my original tests and in ones using your saves I can show significant differences in AI expansion between no-load and load-every-turn.

The original test quantifies the effect of the various intervals and supports DimeBagHo's results posted to .com.

Surely you accept that AI factions will not take cities off the rebels or each other as often with frequent loads? And that frequent loads are unavoidable for some people. So I assume that we can agree on that.

That just leaves your belief that many smaller AI factions are going to be just as hard for the human as few larger AI factions. As you know from our emails, I disagree with you on that, but fair enough.

If the AI is so inept that it cannot expand and hold onto new cities when one plays for 100 turns without loading, then that's a different issue. I was working under the assumption that the strategic AI, although weak, wasn't a slathering loon. If I was wrong in this assumption, then that just deepens my disappointment with CA. I never expected stellar (or even fairly good) strategic AI, but that's too much.


EDIT: It would seem that it is too much. With the exception of Egypt and Britannia, no one has really pulled out the stops in this no-save 100 turn extension of the 1st turn of my Brutii test (I was watching Troy ). They started well enough, but see those Rebels in the middle of Scipian Africa and the Scythian steppes? They were originally the property of the respective powers, but they lost them. How often has a player lost a city in 1.2 to unrest?

This was on medium campaign difficulty but, as I didn't make a move, you would be forgiven for thinking that that shouldn't matter. The only thing I can say is that the strategic element of RTW is some damn shoddy work.

[roguebolo]

I can show significant differences in AI expansion between no-load and load-every-turn

So can I, but I've been looking at the results of that behavior over a very long period of turns, and how much it affects the political landscape and therefore my gameplay. Perhaps, if extended beyond a eighty turns, the results would be more pronounced; but once I get beyond 1/4th the total number of turns in a typical game, it's starting to become irrelevant.

The most obvious and pronounced effects are the way that AI factions will grab rebel territories -- several of them in just a few turns, if they can -- thereby significantly increasing their production power.

I've also been trying to identify player activity (or even a glitch, if possible) that will force the reassessment to select a new plan of action midturn. I think the easiest way to identify such factors is early in a game. That's why I've been going back to early save games.

The one case in which you and I did not have the same results, if I was reading your posts correctly, was the one labeled Turn 19. In the first few moves, with a save/load each move, it exhibits behavior that is entirely contrary to what we've come to expect. I just tried it again to make sure. You don't even need to disable FOW to see it. After the Brutii arrive by boat and lay siege to Segestica, and you do a save/load and "End Turn", they relieve the siege. After another save/load and "End Year", they reinstate the siege. So far, this is what I'd come to expect. But after the next save/load and "End Year", they maintain the siege -- and continue doing so for 3 years until they have occupied the territory. This is so contrary to what I'd come to expect, especially this early in the game, that I assumed something must have happened at an earlier point in the game to modify the reassessment behavior, which is why I started looking at earlier turns for an answer.

I jumped back to the save game labeled "Turn 14" and saw that Pontus took a rebel territory, so I jumped back to "Turn 12". Playing with save/loads from "Turn 12", the Brutii never get on a boat with the target of Segestica. In fact, as we've both observed, nobody ever takes any territories. Somewhere after turn 12, the Brutii made some irrevocable decision to hop on a boat, sail it all the way down to Segestica, and take the place by siege, load games or no load games, and absolutely nothing was going to change their minds.

If the AI is so inept that it cannot expand and hold onto new cities when one plays for 100 turns without loading, then that's a different issue. I was working under the assumption that the strategic AI, although weak, wasn't a slathering loon.

LOL. I was hoping that someone would point this out. There are many other obvious strategic weaknesses in this and many other games I play. I obviously have my own list of things I would like to see changed, but I have come to the conclusion that it will be a long time before the AI in a game like this reaches the point where it is any kind of a true challenge. MTW was just as bad at maintaining civil order in AI provinces, if not even worse. At least the TW series doesn't attempt to cheat with respawns and triggers and whatnot, like so many other games.

After a certain amount of expertise, MTW was not even close to being a difficult game for me -- not even on VH/VH as the Polish or one of the other more difficult factions. The thing I learned when I was playing MTW was that when I reached that point of mastery over the game, the strategic campaign was merely a platform for setting up different scenarios that I considered interesting. (One of my favorite self-set goals in MTW was to wipe out the entire Mongol Horde the same turn they appeared on the map; with Viking Invasion, it's possible to do so with an army domininated by units that have about the same support costs as standard peasants.)

[Bromley]

I didn't perform any tests on "19". All I did was tabulate its state for comparison. However, my "14" extension with save/load every turn did show the Brutii maintaining their siege of Segestica to completion over 3 turns (with loading at every turn).