Investigation of AI reassessment upon reload

[hrvojej]

Hi all,
I apologize for not being around in the past few days, life got in the way of testing.

Okay, just checking to see if you thought it was okay. I think the Brutii are perhaps the best choice, given their sheltered location, the fact that they are unlocked to begin with, and that they are a Roman faction (it is Rome: Total War after all). Of course, that last bit works against choosing them to some extent as you also have the Senate AI hardcode possibly interfering with things. Perhaps we can do both, and see if there are any significant differences?

I don't think the Brutii would be great because of the senate, as you have mentioned, and because they are supposed to be an active faction due to the senate as well. Which therefore means that they are more likely to conquer something when controlled by AI and produce results.

As to the player's activity influencing AI moves, that's a separate variable that the test I originally proposed does not test for. However, it's kept constant in it, and hence does not influence its results. The only thing that is not constant, provided that everybody does the test in the exactly same way, is saving/reloading. This very basic test will tell us whether this single variable is doing something to the game, provided everything else is kept constant. Nothing more, nothing less. I won't go in whether the AI responds to player's moves or not right now, as this test is not designed to test for that in the first place. If really nothing happens when the player just stands still, then we'll go from there and redesign the test. But I can say right now that even though I'm highly aggressive in my campaigns, with sufficient reloads everybody else is static no matter what I do. Also, the preliminary result by Bromley are promising (thanks for posting them btw), and hence I think the save/reload test is worth doing in any case.

As far as my testing goes, I'll do my runs by tomorrow. Feel free to PM me your results if you already did your tests.

Cheers,

[roguebolo]

MORE TESTING

I decided to use the same, identical test that was proposed on this thread except starting from my save game at turn 19 rather than at turn 1. The Brutii laid siege to Segestica on the second turn and immediately released it after a save/load and "End Year". However, the following turn it laid siege again and I discovered that the city had suffered from attrition just as if the siege had never been relieved -- it could hold out for 3 turns now instead of 4. I followed this with three save/loads immediately followed by End Year during which time the Brutii maintained the siege. In addition, other factions were still declaring war on each other. I guess this kinda blows away the idea the save/load always forces the AI to relieve sieges, or paralyzes the AI into some kind of inactivity. I think it just needs for some kind of opening moves to be initiated before it can follow up on them a little more decisively. Again, I have the save game if anyone wants to see it. I've done it more than once and the Brutii always besiege Segestica.

OK, I'm coming to the conclusion that CA is right -- as I would expect them to be, since their information comes straight from the developers. "Load game" does indeed seem to cause random events and AI behavior to change, but not in any way that is game-breaking. In the Thapsus/Carthage-Lemonum/Condate Redonum example I'm still forced to ostracize them from my territories -- whether I sally from the siege or attack them in the open terrain. Otherwise I must succumb to repeated attrition and devastation. The change in the behavior of the AI caused by a save/load procedure allows me to select which of those two options I prefer, sallying or open terrain, but it does not otherwise dramatically change the course of the game -- the main problem, as I see it, is that it denies me the privilege of being the defender in a castle assault, which happens to be a lot of fun.

One can hardly come to the conclusion that the AI's behaviour is indicative of losing track of long-term goals in the light of these results. It took a total of five turns for the Brutii to arrive at Segestica by boat, initiate a siege, relieve the siege, then reinstate it, hold it for three turns, and finally occupy the territory.

Furthermore, in the test involving Thapsus/Carthage and Lemonum/Condate Redonum, although the existing sieges were temporarily released, those units that were approaching a settlement to initiate a siege continued toward their objectives. In other words, they did not lose track of those objectives. Apparently in these cases the AI deemed that instigating conflict through a siege or through desecrating the territory were equally acceptable and the load game caused them to choose the opposite one that was in effect at the time the game was loaded. This is something which can be exploited if I feel I'd like to endure the siege for a turn with the likelihood of being able to meet them in the field on the next turn by doing a save/load, but it's definitely not a game-breaker.