Aggressive AI

[CrazyG]

It uses the units level to augment it.

G

What kind of an augment are we talking? +10% per promotion?

 

[tu_79]

Right now it just takes the total sum of all power of units (with power augmented by health and # of promotions on the unit). I could turn this into an average (So military power = the average of your unit power stats). Might be a better indicator of force, actually.

G

This won't do, either. A civs with 5 warriors will be considered weaker than a civ with just one horseman.

But you could use the average strength for weighting your current algorithm.

As in, for comparison purposes, multiply the normalized average strength by the total military strength you had before. Normalized average strength is actual average strength divided by average worldwide strength.
Normalized average strength is a number close to 1, so you would be scaling your current algorithm by how advanced your units are compared to the rest of the world, and don't need to touch any other part of your algorithms for it won't change of range.

Ranged and faster units should be weighted too. A ranged unit is worth 50% more than a melee unit of the same strength. I'd say that a faster unit is also more worthy than a normal one, but can't say how much it is. But for an approach, you could give the unit +25% value per extra movement. This way, a mounted unit with 15CS is like a 22CS melee unit (+50% because mounted has 2 extra movement), and a 6CS archer is like a 9CS melee unit (+50%).

Looking into kind of promotions or into army balance composition will be overdoing in my opinion.

 

[Gazebo]

This won't do, either. A civs with 5 warriors will be considered weaker than a civ with just one horseman.

But you could use the average strength for weighting your current algorithm.

As in, for comparison purposes, multiply the normalized average strength by the total military strength you had before. Normalized average strength is actual average strength divided by average worldwide strength.
Normalized average strength is a number close to 1, so you would be scaling your current algorithm by how advanced your units are compared to the rest of the world, and don't need to touch any other part of your algorithms for it won't change of range.

Ranged and faster units should be weighted too. A ranged unit is worth 50% more than a melee unit of the same strength. I'd say that a faster unit is also more worthy than a normal one, but can't say how much it is. But for an approach, you could give the unit +25% value per extra movement. This way, a mounted unit with 15CS is like a 22CS melee unit (+50% because mounted has 2 extra movement), and a 6CS archer is like a 9CS melee unit (+50%).

Looking into kind of promotions or into army balance composition will be overdoing in my opinion.

Globals aren’t available in this function. Recursion is bad.

G

 

[CrazyG]

I was thinking about how the displayed military score and what the AI looks at are two different things.

Might be a dumb question, but why do they need to be two different things? Could you just change the military score to whatever the AI looks at?

 

[Recursive]

I was thinking about how the displayed military score and what the AI looks at are two different things.

Might be a dumb question, but why do they need to be two different things? Could you just change the military score to whatever the AI looks at?

I think it's used in the PTP function and for Time victory scoring. Might be an issue somewhere there, idk.

 

[tu_79]

I think it's used in the PTP function and for Time victory scoring. Might be an issue somewhere there, idk.

If ever, it would be an improvement for this victory condition.

 

[ElliotS]

This won't do, either. A civs with 5 warriors will be considered weaker than a civ with just one horseman.

But you could use the average strength for weighting your current algorithm.

As in, for comparison purposes, multiply the normalized average strength by the total military strength you had before. Normalized average strength is actual average strength divided by average worldwide strength.
Normalized average strength is a number close to 1, so you would be scaling your current algorithm by how advanced your units are compared to the rest of the world, and don't need to touch any other part of your algorithms for it won't change of range.

Ranged and faster units should be weighted too. A ranged unit is worth 50% more than a melee unit of the same strength. I'd say that a faster unit is also more worthy than a normal one, but can't say how much it is. But for an approach, you could give the unit +25% value per extra movement. This way, a mounted unit with 15CS is like a 22CS melee unit (+50% because mounted has 2 extra movement), and a 6CS archer is like a 9CS melee unit (+50%).

Looking into kind of promotions or into army balance composition will be overdoing in my opinion.

A problem could also be that a powerful authority civ with some spearmen garrisoning safe cities in industrial could be underestimated if they drag his whole army score down.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

A problem could also be that a powerful authority civ with some spearmen garrisoning safe cities in industrial could be underestimated if they drag his whole army score down.

If the mechanic works this way, a human could abuse it. A bit unlikly, cause you need 10-20% of your cap to lower the average value significantly.
You really cant use those 10-20% units for fights but still have to pay their maintenance. I dont think someone would do it, but it still could cause other troubles.

Maybe some exponential evaluation?