Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
my ai file
#1
Ok I created an AIMD file, currently there is only 1 side (Allied). I am playing as a Soviet side and it works for the most part. My old AIMD file the computer made AMCV quicker and they had 3 ConYards at any given time. A little Info on my AI file.

There is Allies and Axis sides

Allies
Allied - US, England, France
Soviets - Russia, Poland, Eastern Europen, Australia

Axis
Yuri - Germany, Japan, Italy

Each country has its own tanks, planes, and special unit. Each side will share the normal infantry (until I or have someone makes me new troops), bombers, and navy. Not all of these are listed in the AI file that is attached for the other countries.

Can some one look at my AI and explain to me on how to make the AI tougher. Like I said it works, but I get more Infantry attacking then Tank Attacks. The planes attack pretty well, but they don't build the bombers and I want them to build both. The bomber script was taken out of this file for now. And is it possible to make a building a taskforce? I would like the AI to build more than 1 war factory and AFC (air force command). I know the computer will make more than of these depending on if they have more than 1 Command Center.
Reply
#2
Nice to see another AI Coder around here Smile

Quote:Can some one look at my AI and explain to me on how to make the AI tougher.
There are different things to do to improve AI. Its best to use all:

1) Good coding in aimd.ini, giving them good attacks to use, and strategies. You could just be lazy, and make the number of units in each taskforce larger Tongue

2) Changes in rulesmd.ini.
Here are the most important for better AI.

MultiplayerAICM=
AIVirtualPurifiers=
TeamDelays=
TotalAITeamCap=
DissolveUnfilledTeamDelay=
MinimumAIDefensiveTeams=
MaximumAIDefensiveTeams=

3) [AITriggerTypes]
Make more of these, and you'll get more "intelligent" AI,
as you make ones that will actually respond to the players actions.

Quote:Like I said it works, but I get more Infantry attacking then Tank Attacks.
Change the "weight" factors in the [AITriggerTypes]
If you give ones with the tanks higher weight, they'll be used more.

Quote:The planes attack pretty well, but they don't build the bombers and I want them to build both. The bomber script was taken out of this file for now.

The 2 taskforces with bombers aren't listed in any teamtype of triggertype. Instead, non-existent taskforces are listed.

Quote:And is it possible to make a building a taskforce? I would like the AI to build more than 1 war factory and AFC (air force command). I know the computer will make more than of these depending on if they have more than 1 Command Center.

The only way to make a building via aimd.ini would be if the buildings are deployable. Otherwise, see rulesmd.ini Wink
Reply
#3
ok, deployable vehicle that could transform to warfactory or air field. ok, thanks or the feedback, ill try your suggestions
Reply
#4
ok i read the MODENC on those items, does it mean the higher the number the more they will build & more money they will get??? Putting more units in taskforce will force the computer to build 30 tanks (not all 1 kind) will make them sit at the base until done, I think I might have 15 tanks in 1 taskforce

MultiplayerAICM=
These are the coefficients applied to the amount of money the AI generates in multiplayer games. Listed by difficulty level, Brutal, Medium, Easy.


AIVirtualPurifiers=

These are the multipliers to the AI's harvested money bonus for multiplayer games only. They default to hard coded values for the single player campaign. Listed by difficulty level, Brutal, Medium, Easy.


TeamDelays=
Intervals, in frames, between the AI checking for and creating teams. Listed by difficulty level Brutal, Medium, Easy.


TotalAITeamCap=
The total number of team types the AI will aspire to have at any one time to assign to specific missions. These are in addition to general unit creation and 'pool' teams which may be created by the relevant Action= in a map file. Listed by difficulty level, Brutal, Medium, Easy.


DissolveUnfilledTeamDelay=
The time, in frames, that the AI will wait before dissolving an AI trigger team that has no members. Applies only to multiplayer games. NOTE: you should not lower this number, particularly if you have edited AI.INI and increased the size of the TaskForces or included expensive units (or those which could otherwise be time consuming for the AI to build) - doing so may mean that the AI would not use those TaskForces as it may not be able to assemble them before this time limit, meaning they will be dissolved and thus unused.


MinimumAIDefensiveTeams=
If UseMinDefenseRule is set, the AI will strive to create this many IsBaseDefense=yes TeamTypes before even trying to create other Teams (all AITriggerTypes which don't include such teams will be treated as if their conditions haven't been met yet). See also MaximumAIDefensiveTeams.

MaximumAIDefensiveTeams=
When an AI house has no less than this many TeamTypes with IsBaseDefense=yes active, it will start thinking that any trigger including at least one such team doesn't have all of its conditions met and thus cannot be executed. See also MinimumAIDefensiveTeams and UseMinDefenseRule.
Reply
#5
(06.12.2008, 09:15:08)Nikademis Von Hisson Wrote: ok i read the MODENC on those items, does it mean the higher the number the more they will build & more money they will get???

You could do like some mods and just raise the 2 money ones, making the AI rich...

Quote:MultiplayerAICM=
Raise to make AI have more money.

Quote:AIVirtualPurifiers=
Raise to make the AI's harvested ore worth more, like the ore purifier building.

Quote:TeamDelays=
Lower to make the AI build a new team quicker.
i.e. a high number means they'll take a long time to start building a new team (after old ones gone, or at game beginning).
lower number is generally better for AI.

Quote:TotalAITeamCap=
Raise this, but not too much, and you could have the AI handling many teams at the same time.

Quote:DissolveUnfilledTeamDelay=
Raise this if you enabled really large taskforces.
Otherwise, they might never be completed.


Quote:MinimumAIDefensiveTeams=
MaximumAIDefensiveTeams=
Controls AI defense teams.
Don't raise too high, or you'll have a turtler AI.
But a little raise would be good IMO.

Quote:UseMinDefenseRule.
Supposedly a yes makes it wait longer (until enemy is picked) to build defenses.
So I set to "no" and the AI will build defenses earlier (although I'm not sure of this one...).
Reply
#6
Quote:TeamDelays=
Lower to make the AI build a new team quicker.
i.e. a high number means they'll take a long time to start building a new team (after old ones gone, or at game beginning).
lower number is generally better for AI.

How low is too low???
mine TeamDelays=1000,2000,2500
originL TeamDelays=2000,2500,3500

Quote:TotalAITeamCap=
Raise this, but not too much, and you could have the AI handling many teams at the same time.


Original is 30,30,30.............is 50 too high??



Quote:DissolveUnfilledTeamDelay=
Raise this if you enabled really large taskforces.
Otherwise, they might never be completed.


Original DissolveUnfilledTeamDelay=5000

too high??? DissolveUnfilledTeamDelay=2000
Reply
#7
Lol. These values don't have to be exact!
Go change them to what you want your AI to be, all it takes is some common sense.

If you still have no idea, you could look at how others did it...

Like for TeamDelays... "too low" would depend on how you want the AI to be; low values make it make "autocreate" teams in shorter intervols.
However, a lower number might not be good in some instances (if you made the AI have most their teams to be large, then this could just spam up the AIs base).

Quote:Original DissolveUnfilledTeamDelay=5000

too high??? DissolveUnfilledTeamDelay=2000

This tag, however, shouldn't be lowered too much (for the reason I stated).
Its useful if you, for example, added some large teams which take very long to build, than you should increase this to make sure they can be completed in time before this limit (its like a time limit for building a team for AI).
Reply
#8
DeeZire Wrote:NOTE: you should not lower this number, particularly if you have edited AI.INI and increased the size of the TaskForces or included expensive units (or those which could otherwise be time consuming for the AI to build) - doing so may mean that the AI would not use those TaskForces as it may not be able to assemble them before this time limit, meaning they will be dissolved and thus unused.
Forum Rules

(01.06.2011, 05:43:25)kenosis Wrote: Oh damn don't be disgraced again!

(25.06.2011, 20:42:59)Nighthawk Wrote: The proverbial bearded omni-bug may be dead, but the containment campaign is still being waged in the desert.
Reply
#9
Quote:Its useful if you, for example, added some large teams which take very long to build, than you should increase this to make sure they can be completed in time before this limit (its like a time limit for building a team for AI).
Reply
#10
You weren't even there when I replied Tongue

Besides, the point was that it's there and documented. DZ's paragraph is comparatively long, elaborate, and explains in detail what the flag does and how it should be treated. Your quotes says essentially the same (logically) - so why is it required in the first place?
He found DZ's quote - he has it in his post. If he doesn't understand DZ saying "if you have edited AI.INI and increased the size of the TaskForces or included expensive units, doing so may mean that the AI would not use those TaskForces as it may not be able to assemble them before this time limit", what difference does it make if you tell him "if you added some large teams which take very long to build, than you should increase this to make sure they can be completed in time before this limit"?

The whole premise of his post was silly. Do you really think DZ would have written an entire, detailed paragraph if the effects of the flag could be summed up as "the larger this value, the more they will build"?
This flag (and all others on this list) has a specific, explained effect. He has quoted the explanation of the flag(s). There should not be anything left to say than maybe questions about specific bugs and peculiarities in implementation.
To go "here are the explanations of the flags I'm going to use, can I sum them up as 'more = more'?" only shows that they were not understood, without actually asking for help understanding them or identifying the problem.

DissolveUnfilledTeamDelay is documented. It is the time limit after which the computer will give up assembling the team because it takes too long to build. That's what it is, and it's simple. Any attempt to simplify it to "greater number = more units" is silly, almost inevitably inaccurate and unnecessary. If he had truly understood what it meant, then his question would not only have been unnecessary, but he would actually have realized that his attempt on oversimplification is inaccurate.
If he did not understand what the explanation meant, then he should have specifically stated so and identified where the problem with the phrasing is - because if he didn't get the original phrasing, your almost identical phrasing is unlikely to help him.

Hell, in fact, your original reply underlines that quite well - instead of replying to his oversimplification, you ignore the question and tell him how to use the flags. And yet, he still came back and asked for specific values. Had he actually understood what the flag does, then he should have been able to roughly calculate how high his number should be. If he still doesn't understand the flag, then he should specifically state so. If he does understand what it does, but doesn't know how to calculate his value, then he can ask about that, as well.

My post was not directed at you, mt. As said, when I opened the thread, your post wasn't there yet. My post was meant as a subtle hint that his entire course of understanding and problem solution is majorly lacking.

So far, he is only randomly guessing numbers and asking for your approval. That is not the kind of modding we promote here, and that will not help him diagnose problems in the long run. We are willing to help with any problems of understanding the system, if he can explain where the problem is. If it's a simple thing of "I do not understand the explanation given, please rephrase it", then I'm sure you'd happily oblige - we could put it up on ModEnc, and future modders running into this problem could all benefit.
But so far, all I see is that he has all explanations right here in front of him, and making no effort to actually understand them. And that's not just annoying, that's wasting our time, the server's time, database space, and so on.
Forum Rules

(01.06.2011, 05:43:25)kenosis Wrote: Oh damn don't be disgraced again!

(25.06.2011, 20:42:59)Nighthawk Wrote: The proverbial bearded omni-bug may be dead, but the containment campaign is still being waged in the desert.
Reply
#11
I would like to remind people that DeeZire's descriptions are not always correct.
Reply
#12
I'll be a smartass and...

(12.11.2008, 01:42:57)Renegade Wrote: If DZ's guide was accurate, we wouldn't need this page.

Tongue 2

EDIT:

Quote:So far, he is only randomly guessing numbers and asking for your approval. That is not the kind of modding we promote here, and that will not help him diagnose problems in the long run.

which is exactly why I said

Quote:Lol. These values don't have to be exact!
Go change them to what you want your AI to be, all it takes is some common sense.

(edit2): and also didn't give him exact numbers (except for maybe one tag), only a brief description of what raise/lower will do...

(edit 3): (sorry for all the edits. Its kinda hard doing two things at once x_x)
Yes, I agree completely that it would be very inefficient to come on this for every little change...
Reply
#13
(09.12.2008, 18:33:08)DCoder Wrote: I would like to remind people that DeeZire's descriptions are not always correct.

(09.12.2008, 23:20:36)mt. Wrote: I'll be a smartass and...

(12.11.2008, 01:42:57)Renegade Wrote: If DZ's guide was accurate, we wouldn't need this page.

Tongue 2
Unless you have any proof or reason to place doubt on this particular description, or can point out any point in time where Nikademis doubted its accuracy, your "smartass" remark is completely pointless and irrelevant.

No, DZ's descriptions are not always accurate. But if the flag name implies what the description says, and you yourself said the same the description says, then you can pretty much assume this particular description is correct.
So unless you wanna challenge the factual accuracy of the description of this/these flag/s, my point stands, and I would appreciate it if both of you stopped needlessly throwing around red herrings. We have a page of mistakes In DeeZire's INI Guide. This flag is not on it. So either you two know something and actively withhold information from the community, or you're just needlessly trying to cast doubt on a perfectly valid piece of information.

(09.12.2008, 23:20:36)mt. Wrote: EDIT:

Quote:So far, he is only randomly guessing numbers and asking for your approval. That is not the kind of modding we promote here, and that will not help him diagnose problems in the long run.

which is exactly why I said

Quote:Lol. These values don't have to be exact!
Go change them to what you want your AI to be, all it takes is some common sense.
For one, what you say does not change his approach.
For two, as I have mentioned multiple times by now, your post was not in the thread yet when I opened it. I did not see it until before I replied yesterday. As such, it did not influence anything I said at all.

(09.12.2008, 23:20:36)mt. Wrote: (edit2): and also didn't give him exact numbers (except for maybe one tag), only a brief description of what raise/lower will do...
How exactly does your behavior retroactively change his behavior?
In other words, what the hell does the fact that you didn't spoon feed him as requested have to do with the fact that he tried to get you to spoon feed him in the first place?

This isn't about you. Stop trying to make it that. Hell, this isn't even really about him. It was a passing remark, a subtle reminder that all the information he needed was there. And yet, every time I post, you forcefully try to interpret it as a criticism of you.

Quit it.

I am not talking about your replies. I don't care for them. For all I can see they were adequate and accurate. All I'm doing is pointing out a reluctance to learning/understanding on Nikademis's part.

Hell, I fucking explained that in my post:
Myfuckingself Wrote:My post was not directed at you, mt. As said, when I opened the thread, your post wasn't there yet. My post was meant as a subtle hint that his entire course of understanding and problem solution is majorly lacking.
This is not about you and your replies, mt. So there is really no point in showing me what you did or didn't say.

Are we clear on that now? Good.

Nikademis, do you or do you not have direct, specific problems understanding the documentation of the flags named in your post?
If yes, please state those problems instead of randomly trying to guess the "right" answer anyway.
If not, please say so so we can end this thread, or evolve it into something else.
Forum Rules

(01.06.2011, 05:43:25)kenosis Wrote: Oh damn don't be disgraced again!

(25.06.2011, 20:42:59)Nighthawk Wrote: The proverbial bearded omni-bug may be dead, but the containment campaign is still being waged in the desert.
Reply
#14
Since you asked nicely... I just checked, and the code says a team is dissolved if it has exactly 0 members DissolveUnfilledTeamDelay frames after being created. Not if it has less members than it requires for completion, which is what I gathered from DZ's description.

Note to self, add team creation info to ExceptChecker some day.
Reply
#15
So then why did you not say that in the first place instead of just generally putting the quote into question? (Answer: Because you were lucky, nothing more Tongue)
In addition, it means the info mt gave wrong as well, and it means the flag is pretty much worthless, and basically just has to be set to the maximum build time of the costliest unit in the rules. Not to mention that ModEnc has to be updated - since, at this point, you're the only one actually knowing what it does, I'm looking forward to seeing your edit Tongue

Also, given that that revelation puts the entire basis of this thread into question, this discussion as a whole is worthless until all flags mentioned have been fact checked.
Forum Rules

(01.06.2011, 05:43:25)kenosis Wrote: Oh damn don't be disgraced again!

(25.06.2011, 20:42:59)Nighthawk Wrote: The proverbial bearded omni-bug may be dead, but the containment campaign is still being waged in the desert.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)