IASSET and IPOWER

[peter450]

This more a general, kind of enquiry just to satisfy my curiosity really

I have been doing some tweaks around my units, as i'm sure some already know from my recent posts, i don't intend to do anything with my MC but i did notice this while browsing my XML's


The AI has a very low IPOWER rating for this unit?, normally the IPOWER number is = to or greater than the units strength, why so low? typo or intended

<iAsset>6</iAsset>
<iPower>14</iPower>

The battle ship file looks like this

<iAsset>5</iAsset>
<iPower>40</iPower>

I guess i'm curious as to why it's like this, i don't think it's got anything to do with the missiles carrying as the sub can also carry missiles and it's got a IPOWER rating of 28

 

[Roland Johansen]

Oh, yes. That's an error. I've seen it mentioned before in the discussion about the demographics screen here. The power rating should be around 42 I guess (a bit better than the battleship as it is faster and can carry missiles but not a lot better as it is not more powerful).

In the latest patch of civ4, the power values of modern ships were heightened to be comparable to the power ratings of land units which meant an increase with a factor 2 to 3. The missile cruisers value was not increased. It looks as if it was forgotten by mistake.

 

[peter450]

Ok i can get that swopped around then, did they also forget some land units? after discovering this i went though my xml file and did a quick check on all the values, they all seemed roughly correct with one exceptions

Gunships have a Asset value of 4, yet all other end of tree units (mech inf, Mobile sam, etc) have an AIASSET rating of 5

Do these asset ratings affect the way the AI uses there units do you know?

 

[Roland Johansen]

Ok i can get that swopped around then, did they also forget some land units? after discovering this i went though my xml file and did a quick check on all the values, they all seemed roughly correct with one exceptions

Gunships have a Asset value of 4, yet all other end of tree units (mech inf, Mobile sam, etc) have an AIASSET rating of 5

Do these asset ratings affect the way the AI uses there units do you know?

I don't know. The value difference is not so dramatic as that of the missile cruiser (12 in stead of 42).

The AIPower values of units is used by the game as a component for calculating the military strength of a civilisation which is important in the war declaration algorithm. I guess the AIAsset value is likely used by the AI to determine the value of the element that it's going to construct as buildings also have this value, but I don't know. The AIPower value is only positive for militarily oriented buildings.

Wait for one of the creators of this mod to react. They know how the AI works.

 

[Roland Johansen]

A small question about the AIasset value from me: the value is 0 for all the power plants. Does the AI have a separate incentive to acquire power in a city?

 

[peter450]

I guess it must do, as the AI does build power plants, it must be tied into the factory AI somehow

Not sure exactly how though, i'm a bit of novice when it comes to the AI

 

[jdog5000]

The asset value is not used to much. It has no bearing on whether the AI builds a unit/building or not (so yes, there are other calculations the AI does to decide to acquire power in a city).

For units, the main specific points seems to come in picking the best defender ... a unit with a high asset rating seems to be less likely to be picked as a defender if there are other similar strength units available. (EDIT: Actually, looks like only the asset value of cargo reduces the chance of being chosen as defender)

Aside from that, the AI keeps track of the sum of all the assets values for each civ. It seems like AI players ask for help from civs with higher asset values, and may offer it to those with lower values.

Power is much more influential, as it effects war decisions. I'll definitely up the rating on the MC ... an iron clad has a rating of 12, so it's pretty clearly in need of an update. Good spot!

 

[Roland Johansen]

Thanks for the info jdog5000.