My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

First off, I have to say that I'm a long time fan of Stars! and MOO2 (like most everyone else here probably), but have never played any of the previous SE games prior to this latest incarnation. It's generally lots of fun, but I feel like it's not totally complete in the AI department. I've been reading through the Posts here and have noticed that most people seem to think that many aspects of the AI need "tweaking". I agree, though most of the criticisms seem a little understated. Please forgive me if this sounds overly harsh, but IMO the AI is absolutely deplorable. That said, know that my intention is not to flame MM for a game that they obviously spent a lot of time and thought on. The tech/econ models are wonderful, the diplomacy system has lots of potential, and tactical combat is the best I've seen in a 4x game since MOO2. Not to mention the level of player customization that's possible. All in all, the first 10 hours of gametime on SEIV proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's an instant classic. However, I'm finding that the game's two major shortcomings combine to deal a potentially lethal blow to the game's longevity on my hard drive:

1.) Weak AI (I just watched the Praetorians fly 8 Battlecruisers straight into a black hole, and the list goes on...).
2.) Lack of more gratifying multiplayer features (PBEM just doesn't quite cut it these days with many players; TCP simul-turn with manual tac combat resolved at the end of each turn would be awesome).

Take away either one of these weaknesses, and you've got a near-perfect game. Add them both together and well... ouch.

I've read the great suggestions by everyone here on how to improve the challenge the AI presents (smaller quadrants, all AI vs. all Human, etc.). These are simple solutions and they tend to work the majority of the time, but I'm still left unsatisfied. I want huge galaxies, I want AI's who act like they should and attack the other AI's (as well as me!) without provocation. I want truly "bloodthirsty" AI's who wouldn't think twice about accepting an alliance with another empire, let alone offering one. I want to look at that Treaty Grid and see some red every once in a while! When I glass three Terran planets, I don't want them to still be AMIABLE towards me! When they glass one of mine, I don't want them to turn around and propose a trade alliance on the next turn! The AI just isn't very consistent at all, though one thing you can count on is that they'll want to be your pals until you get your score up to 500; and even the AI empires who decide to go to war end up throwing away the better part of their ships to minefields and suicide runs. I don't even use mines anymore, it's just not any fun.

Man, I really really REALLY want to love this game. It's so good in fact, that I'm sure I'll keep right on playing despite the hopeless AI. But I sure hope MM has some AI improvements in store for us. I hope too, that all of you guys making the excellent suggestions are e-mailing them to MM! I would offer my own constructive criticisms, but you guys have already covered everything I can think of. So you get nothing but useless rants out of me http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif. Here's to hoping that this good game someday becomes great.

Is there an "official" thread somewhere on these Boards that MM checks regularly for player recommendations?

Re: My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

They do read this board. I do not know how often. I do know that most, if not all, of the beta testers read it and send things on to them also. MM has a great reputation for supporting their games, so look for the patches and time will tell.

Re: My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

I know Aaron has a TCP/IP setup planned in the future, and I actually think the AI is fairly good. Sometimes (like any AI) it does some stupid things but that is to be expected.

I would encourage you to drop Aaron a line at bugs@malfador.com. Be specific and send him specific save games to show your problems otherwise he cannot reproduce the problems.

Aaron offers his community stellar support, but in order to do that he cannot read every board.

------------------
Sarge is coming...

Richard Arnesen
Director of Covert Ops
Shrapnel Games
http://www.shrapnelgames.com

Re: My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

Just how practical is 'live' multiplayer, though? In case you hadn't noticed, SEIV is an epic games. It takes a long, long long time to finish a game. Unless you don't have a life, how many people can spend the 40 hours (just a estimate) to fully play a game?

Live multiplayer works well for simple or short games like RTSes or FPSes, where is there no real depth, but complex ones are too long for live mp. IMHO anyway...

Re: My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

Personally, I can live without Multi-player. (I just think games 4X games like SEIV are too big and long to work that route).

On the other hand, I also think the criticisms of the AI are spot on! The same behavior (or lack thereof) I commented on in the demo still seem to be in place with the full Version: Races that are described as Xenophobic or Psychotic and supposedly "never make treaties" (direct quote from race description), come begging for alliances a few turns after I encounter them. And they never seem to break them or get PO'd at my actions: When I took to blowing up one supposedly Violent race's ships via Intel Ops, all said race ever did in retaliation was send a strongly worded note!

I don't want a MOO2 clone (as some people around here seem to), but I would like to see some distinct personality traits instilled into the AI races. Or, at least, a little agression!

Re: My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

From what I can tell, the 'personality type' of the AIs are immaterial. A 'Berserk Psychotic' acts no differently than a 'Serene Engineer'. This is because they share the same 'Angry file' and the same 'Politics file' as well as the same 'Speech' file.

The game data is set up so that each race can have its own files, but at present, they dont. They seem to all use the default...hence VERY flat personalities. I'm tweaking it for my data, but with no info on what the files MEAN, its trial and error. Its very time consuming.

Also, I can manage to get it to be hostile towards the players, but there seems to be way to instigate it to INITIATE attacks. I've seen it happen occasionally, but more often than not, it sits idly by and is squashed piecemeal.

I think the only things needed are:

1) to flesh out the files for each race, so that they are distinctive.

2) to make the AI in general (and ESPECIALLY the 'aggressive' types) more likely to pick fights with the other players.

3) to have the AI engage in 'punitive' raids and raids bent on economic destruction. I'd like to see it seen fleets (not individual ships like I see now more often than not) in the opponent's backfield and laying waste to their colonies.

If the AI was simply forcing the players to REACT instead of act, its other flaws would be greatly diminshed or at least not as noticable. If anyone else has played SSI's Imperialism II, you know just how unpleasant the AIs can be. They dont cheat, but they do know how to kick you when you are down! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

All in all, it just seems like it just needs some more time invested in the AI dept. Now that I think the 'mechanics' of the game are fairly stable, MM should be able to begin working on the 'flavor' a bit more. I hope so as its the only thing really missing from an otherwise great game.

If anyone is interested in experimenting with the AI, I'm more than willing to test.

Talenn

Re: My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

I think you've got it nailed down, Talenn. I've been perusing the AI texts and what you say seems to be the case. I think perhaps a little too much emphasis was placed on the player's ability to customize the AI and not enough on basic hard-coded AI behavior. If you're able to do anything significant with it, let me know! I'd love to beta for you http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif.

Richard: Thanks for the tip, I'll do just that. As far as the AI being pretty good, I'll admit that it does perform basic strategic tasks well enough. I also understand that AI algorithms for 4x games are probably some of the hardest to code convincingly. However, there are many fundamental features lacking. The destruction/takeover of an AI homeworld for example (instead of invoking a good measure of irrevocable AI hatred against the offending player), merely takes the current AI's diplomatic stance down a couple of notches. This is only one of the more glaring issues I've come across, but I'll save the rest for my e-mail http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif.

Kodos: Sure, I could easily overlook the lack of multiplayer features... with a more challenging AI element. I'd vote for getting the AI up to snuff BEFORE working on the multiplayer anyday.

Trancejeremy: I have to strongly disagree. There are many popular turn-based games of "epic" proportions that have thrived via the Online gaming community. SSG's Warlords series and multiplayer Civilization/Civ2 Gold are two that pop into mind. Also, I have a 5-workstation LAN in my home and I would be (almost) ashamed to admit how many countless hours have been spent with friends playing "live" turn-based strat games http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif. Allowing the host to save the game when everyone decides to call it a night and continue at a later time is an easy workaround for the lucky people who have "lives" to get back to. Myself, I'd be more than willing to spend an all-nighter or three on SEIV with some good human competition http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif. I'm guessing I'm not the only one.

Reading through these Posts and learning of MM's awesome reputation for customer satisfaction, I'm confident they'll come through with some better AI. Turn-based gamers tend to be a patient lot, and I'm certainly no exception.

Re: My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voidhawk:
Myself, I'd be more than willing to spend an all-nighter or three on SEIV with some good human competition http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif. I'm guessing I'm not the only one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're damn right about that. You're not the only one. SEIV would be a perfect game to play over the dorm network at univ (a very big network with all dorms connected http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif ) or back home with my friends on our LAN. Lugging around a bunch of computers and setting up a LAN at someones house for a weekend of gaming is not unheard of. Quite common actually. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

I agree with the original poster, this game has everything except the most important element: competition.

There is so much to like about this game it is a really pity that the AI is so inept.

My first real game (I played the demo once) I made maximum difficulty for the computer (I guess I could give the CP advantages) and proceeded to play. Now being very unfamiliar with the technologies, and the mechanics I made a lot of mistakes.

However, by turn 90 I had almost 3x the points of the nearest computer player. Every turn all of the computer wanted to be my ally. I never attack a CP and they never attacked me.

I was getting very bored and was curious about the new tech. So I proceeded to build research center and for the next 60 turns I just simply clicked on the next button. I didn't move a single ship, at the end of the period. I was still beating the computer players by a wide margin. There were plenty of undefended colonies for the computer to attack and at least one empire had the same environment I had. You'd think that the AI would prioritize attacking a Huge
world with good resources and the right atmosphere. I don't think a 10 small satellites would stop a determined attack!

Re: My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tampa_Gamer:
One of the more interesting facts is that the AI_Research files for many races does not research a tremendous amount of items that human players would not do without. Perhaps this is b/c the existing AI hard code cannot handle some decisions??? Anyway, it would be helpful for everyone to compare notes on how/what they are specifically tweaking in the AI files even if it is just a readme.txt file posted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are absolutely right. I have looked into the files too and have found "bugs" i could not believe.
Ever wondered why the AI does not use Quantum Reactors, more PDCs, ECM, ECCM and the like?
Well, its simple. The AI constructs a ship "down" a list, item for item, and at the end fills up left space with the first weapon choice. But the placement rates for weapons, shields and armor is so high that there isn't any space left for quantum reactors and the like. I have modified my files just a little bit and now the AI uses all the available systems.

Another BIG "bug" is the inability of the AI to research and build planet condition improvement plants like the atmosphere converter. The AI builds facilities till the planet is full. It does make upgrades, but it never tears something down. As the improvement facilities are only developed later in the game, the AI will not use them BECAUSE THE PLANET IS ALREADY FULL! The AI should look after its planets once on a while an scrap some buildings to build atmosphere. converters. When the AI is doing this it only has to check if the atmosphere is already the desired one so not to build a converter or to scrap the old one. The AI already does something very similar with system wide facilities like space ports.

Philipp

Re: My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

The potential of this game rocks!!!!

I play 5 days now one game (even by knowing all the Ai-flaws) and i´m still impressed about the depth of this game - but, if the AI would be "finished" the game would be a hammer. (i hope that MM will improve the AI as promised)

Greetings to all

Jochen

Re: My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

I think the game is great for multi-player email play, which is why I bought it. I can play one turn a day at my own leasure, I don't have to connect the same time as all the other players. The simultaneous play mode beats turn based games where players send the game file around in a circle with several days between turns.

What I would like to see is more information in simultaneous mode so I can figure out why I lost or won a battle. I have to run a simulation and guess the enemies strategy to figure out what may have gone wrong. CNN news reports on wars give the public more information than SEIV gives to a race's emperor.

As far as the AI goes, I really don't care that they are rather poor. They are basically there to help me test race designs before I employ them against human players. I suppose they could make the AIs tougher if they cheated like they do in Stars (even there, it is boring to play the AIs once you play the game a few times).

Where this game excells over Stars is in the simplification of managing ones economy and the political interface for treatings, trade and the like. Stars Genesis Supernova (or whatever they currently call it), sounds like it will compete with SEIV, if they ever stop adding functionality and just get it down and leave the ideas as future patch enhancements.

I give Malfador Machinations this to their credit: They finished the game so it could be released while leaving the door open to add some really need stuff in an on going fashion. They now have a user base who will help them(or should I say him - one designer/programmer in the credits) come up with new ideas.

Re: My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

I also agree with the original poster. I did some extensive research over the weekend into the AI files and how they are interacting with my ver 1.00 mod. I am in the process of cleaning up my notes and putting them into my "SE4 Anaylsis.xls" spreadsheet that I posted on the scenario/mod board two weeks ago. I plan to update this spreadsheet as I find out more. One of the more interesting facts is that the AI_Research files for many races does not research a tremendous amount of items that human players would not do without. Perhaps this is b/c the existing AI hard code cannot handle some decisions??? Anyway, it would be helpful for everyone to compare notes on how/what they are specifically tweaking in the AI files even if it is just a readme.txt file posted.

Re: My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

Well, first of all, the AIs in Stars! do not cheat. However, they are REALLY deplorable adversaries. Nevertheless, Stars! is meant to be a multiplayer game and has the necessary functionalities (e.g. battleviewer). SE4 is basically a single player game so far, and as such, I have to say I am rather disappointed with the AI so far (though it does perform some basics rather well). After easily beating the AI three times in a row on highest difficulty and with maximum AI advantages, I feel I must share my grief with you on this message board (and maybe with Aaron who might read this and decide to fix some of it ?).

Though I also feel that SE4 is a great game as far as the general concept and its diversity are concerned, it lacks heavily in terms of challenge. Given that it is poor as a multiplayer experience because its most interesting part, the battles, cannot be played tactically and there is not even a battleviewer, the gamer will usually find himself plotted against the AIs. But alas, the latter do not really represent a challenge, even if the human player does some role-playing and does not use its option to his maximum advantage. What's wrong with the AI ? :

It is a sissy! The AIs are too treaty happy and do not pursue their goals as they should. I do find it very suitable, that AIs enter into treaties with you, however, they do not sufficiently defend their interests while we are allied. My ships enter their borders, I establish colonies in their space, I attack their other allies… all these things should lead to higher anger levels and thus finally to the end of the treaty. I do not find these elements in the AI anger file. The AI anger file should be extended, maybe the whole algorithm should be revised.

It has Alzheimer ! The AI forgets everything. It time and again runs into my minefields and never sends a sweeper. It does not seem to remember my fleet concentration ("Hey, what are those 10 cruisers, 2 carriers and 3 troop transports doing in the black hole system on my border. Mmmh, never mind, probably only on a Sunday afternoon walk." ) It does not learn from its defeats but continues attacking the same superior fleet with single ships. The AI should get some kind of memory, remembering "dangerous areas", "potential attack fleets", etc.. It also should simulate every battle in advance. I am not saying it should cheat, but its simulation should be based on know designs and components (given the known tech levels of my human adversary, how would I, the AI, build those battlecruisers ?).

It did not take its "Lebertran". At least it has a serious problem focussing on a strategy. That is to say, it does not have a strategy. Its fleet rushes from one part of its empire to the other and never follow through an offensive. Last time, 5 AI battleships entered my homesystem (I did not worry their approach, thought they were on a Sunday afternoon walk), attacked the nearest colony, annihilated the 34 million people on the planet and then…withdrew, without molesting my undefended homeworld. Things like these happen all the time. The AI should fix some priority strategic targets and then follow through on them. Secondary threats and opportunities should either be ignored or be met with secondary fleets. Major threats and opportunities (like my undefended homeworld) should however lead to a temporary change in strategy.

It did not watch the first Star Wars trilogy. Jesus, it does not realize that fighters are the ultimate attack weapon if the big, bad death star is not properly equipped with point defense canon. My complain is actually twofold:
Firstly, the AI does not properly react to the human adversary using lots of fighters. Lately, one of my light carriers single-handedly defeated 7 AI battleships (on tactical). With only one point defense canon, they could not take down sufficient fighters before they were blown into space dust. Here the AI should adapt its design. If the human adversary continuously uses large Groups of fighters, more point defense canons should be included on the standard design or the AI should build anti-fighter ships (with lots of PD and emissive armor). In that context, could anybody provide an explanation of the Default_AI_DesignCreation.txt file ? I do not understand what a lot of those entries mean.
Secondly, the AI does not seem to use fighters sufficiently to make advantage of their enormous potential. It should be much more biased in that direction. This point can be extended to other powerful defensive, offensive and economic means: why does the AI never use minesweepers? Why does it not lay more mines itself ? Why does it not build dedicated, cloaked surprise fleets (but mixes cloaked with uncloaked ships) Has anybody ever seen the AI build a ringworld ? etc., etc. …

It has a suicidal tendency. Very often, they AI sends single ships within the reach of my fleets, which never stand a chance against my forces. This obviously is an invitation to attack them and thus take the out one by one. Not very smart…

O.k., sorry for the long post, but I had to share these grievance with you. Now if anybody wants to take my place on the couch…

Re: My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

Jowe

Thanks for your post you saved me a lot of time and some frustration. If you are giving the computer maxiumum advantage and still beating it. I guess it is pretty hopeless.

One of the best things about MOO2 and Alpha Centauri is that on the toughest levels, I don't always win. Now at some point victory in those games becomes inevitable and the mopping up operation is a bit dull, but the beginning and middle games are fun.

I bought this game partly due to the reviews, and a lot because I want to support Indy developers and publishers. I was so impressed with Combat Mission: Overlord I figured I should these guys a shot.

Please, Please ignore the requests for more features, and make the AI better. I don't care if the AI cheats a bit, I want a good single player game.

Re: My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

The AI needs some serious tweaking IMHO.
In the meantime I have modified many of the AI files. I will post it to the MOD-section in the near future (maybe today).

What have I done?

First of all, I did NOT change any components.

I did change what the AI is building in terms of ships and units in numbers and designs.

I altered the research for the AI so it will research any tech that the Ai is using (i.e. fighters but not ring worlds).

I heavyly altered ship design for the AI.
First of all, it now designs defense ships (and so will defend itself as this design is needed for the defense plans of the AI - at least in SE3...).

Second, it will use quantum reactors, ECM and ECCM.

Third, it will use 2x to 3x more PDCs.

It will never use a master computer. Sorry guys, but the AI does always build a ship with bridge ect so there is no reason to include a mc. This is - as it seems - hard-coded.

Philipp

Re: My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

Another mod you might want to make in the AI files is changing the "Turns to Wait until next attack" variable in the "AI_Settings" file (there's a unique Version for each race, plus the default). In every settings file I checked, this value was set to 6! Which I interpret to mean the AI waits 6 turns between attacks on any given target. Personally, I've been known to attack the same target three or four times in the same turn (generally when trying to glass an enemy planet).

One could probably also modify the "Get Angry over colonizable planets" and "Percentage to consider as attack locations" settings in the AI_Settings file as well.

Just my two centi-credits' worth!

Re: My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

My Mod should be available now in the mod section. Please give me some feedback.

Re: My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

Thanks for posting your mod Mephisto, I will compare it to what I have done so far. Perhaps there are enough people out there interested in single play (and with a little assistance with the mid-December patch) that we can put together a stellar AI (non-cheat).

Re: My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

I very much hope so. Drop me a line on your review, Tampa.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tampa_Gamer:
Thanks for posting your mod Mephisto, I will compare it to what I have done so far. Perhaps there are enough people out there interested in single play (and with a little assistance with the mid-December patch) that we can put together a stellar AI (non-cheat).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Re: My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

DirectorTsaarx:

Yes, tweaking those numbers and a few in the AI_Anger files will indeed make the AI players more hostile. Unfortunately, it makes them more hostile to everyone they meet...ie, it doesnt just react to Human players that way (which is good..its not cheating). But what it DOES mean is that the AI is going to war with just about the first person it meets. Thus, the AI players are all fighting amongst themselves and are even LESS likely to attack someone else.

If the Human player plays it cool, its very possible to stay out of prolonged conflicts with the AI. Either that, or the Human player can just stomp the first AI player they come across and be reasonably safe from the others who are constantly embattled with one another.

The other problem concerns the QUALITY of the attacks. As observed below, the AI attacks on others are half-hearted and ill-advised most of the time. So even when the AI is currently engaged in hostilities with a player, its unlikely that they will do too much damage.

All:

I'd like to test some of this too, but my Data is so customized at this point that I dont think I can be of much direct help. I will go through your list of changes and see what I can implement into my set. I can then at least have a similar frame of reference with others to continue comparing notes.

Has anyone been able to translate anything in the 'politics' file? This one is obviously the key to the AI being so 'treaty happy'. I cant really make enough sense of the file to want to change anything, though. I'm pretty sure that making use of this file and the anger file, we can create distinctive AI personalities. But I'm not sure how to go about it just yet...anyone?

Thanx,
Talenn

Re: My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)
 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who couldn't figure out the "Politics" file. I looked at it for an hour, and every time I thought I understood an entry, the next entry would seem to work the exact opposite way!

I'll look over the mod... BTW - I posted some thoughts about the AI to the SE4 forum on "eGroups" (http://www.eGroups.com/Messages/SE4) a few days ago - y'all might want to read that forum as well (if you aren't already).

Good point, Talenn; the AI seems to beat up on neutrals pretty quickly already (I have a game going that started with 7 regular computer players and 5 "neutral" computer players, and 3 of the neutrals have already disappeared; although two new ones have also appeared - I think the AIs are using intel ops against each other!!).

Of course, I don't think it's necessarily out of line for the AIs to go after each other - and "playing it cool" doesn't work if the AI is aggressively seeking opponents. The only solution would be to stay bottled up in a few systems, which severely limits your ability to build infrastructure. And, if the AI use of minesweepers gets fixed, (back to the QUALITY of the AI) it'll be much more difficult to defend those systems...

One Last thought - when the Mega-Evil Empire factor kicks in, the AIs should probably make treaties with each other to improve resource/research/etc; I don't think the game is set up that way right now, but it's something to think about...