AI misreading my military abilities

I'm playing a game where I've got the least amount of planets (at 7) and am pressed into a back corner of the map. I've got some above par research, and my economy went into overdrive once the 3x trade event came in.

My military is very, very weak, focusing on having as many cheap ships as possible. To that end, I have a "Flea" figher, which is a tiny hull with the basic armour tech (bulky but incredibly cheap) and a mark 5 railgun (mass drivers chosen, again, because they are cheap), which costs me between 50-60 BC each. Backing it up is a slightly outdated medium hull design, the "Reaver", with 5 railguns and a single deflector. They've been mass produced and tossed into fleets.

However, I have the highest rated (and most powerful) military in the galaxy. The reason is that I've got all these ships sitting in the vicinity of 3 starbases (with starbase mobilization researched) that make even those tiny fighters very potent attack units that'll take a fair amount of punishment. With the fleet setup, where the Reavers mix in with the tiny fighters, the Reavers will soak up the damage while the Fleas deal the damage. The ships also get +3 speed each, and enemy ships are all slowed down considerably. Its a very nice defensive setup... without some very powerful warships, you would not be able to even dent that defense as long as those starbases aren't hit.

The end result is that I have a military rating that far outpaces anything the other races, with more conventionally constructed militaries, can construct. However, it's obviously limited. Only a few alien planets are in range, and those ships are confined to that little bubble. Outside it, they would be easily taken apart, since the ships are designed to be mass produced. Their area of operation can be extended by building more starbases, but that's obviously slow. However, despite the fact that my military is largely irrelevant in anything but a self defense scenario, the other races still treat my military might as though I'm capable of taking that fighting capability to their doorstep... everyone wants to be my ally, no one wants to attack.

The AI should really recognize how much a civilisation is capable of waging war based on more than a sum of attack and defense values. As it is, an attacker can still attack a couple of my planets that are outside the starbase's influence, and an ally wouldn't see any rienforcements if they were attacked... I'd just sit there and defend myself since it's all I could do. It'd be nice if the AIs could recognize my inability to attack or counterattack.
4,364 views 13 replies
Reply #1 Top
It'd be nice if the AIs could recognize my inability to attack or counterattack.


What your asking would require some serious tacktical coding. Even if that was done, i would think such AI programming would open up a whole new frontier of cheese!

As it is, the AI will readily attack me thinking it is strong.... then my few but powerful ships decimate them like squashing bugs. but i like it that way, as if they think they can bully me, huh, watch this!
Reply #2 Top
I think this should sum up my response.

WWW Link
Reply #3 Top
I think it should be fairly simple: have military strength be calculated sans any starbase bonuses. Of course, decisions to attack any particular area ought still look at how strong your ships are in that area. But overall military might has a strong element of projection to it...

Reply #4 Top
The AI does a generally poor of evaluating your military strength compared to its own. It's a pity, because it never seems completely prepared. This is with DA 1.4
Reply #5 Top
Excellent, Starstriker1. As far as I know, you are the first to notice and post on this . (I certainly wasn't). During the early and mid-game, I play as a minimalist, with only enough military to keep the AI off my back. Knowing this will allow me to field an even smaller force, with resulting savings. I will add this strategy to my next game.
Reply #6 Top
Possible solution: evaluation of defensive military strength vs offensive strength. All combat ships can defend, but not all can attack. Offensive military strength should include base stats only (and possibly disregard ships that are too slow/short ranged to be any kind of long range threat), while defensive strength should be evalutated as it is now. Civilisations wouldn't have a negative on relations with civilisations that have high defensive values, but they wouldn't see it as a plus unless there was a high offensive value to back it up.

Also, perhaps AIs could keep track of how successful a given player is tactically. If a player, on average, manages to take out x military power of enemy ships with y loss to his own military power, perhaps the player's military rating should be scaled by x/y?
Reply #7 Top
Attempting a complex calculation taking into account ship speed, military starbase placement, etc would probably be fairly expensive in terms of design and programming hours. Particularly if the fog of war is covering most of the target's empire and fleet and the calculation can't deal with military starbases and ship speeds that are unknown to the calculating AI. Note that I said target instead of "player" since this computation would presumably need to be used in AI v. AI comparisons as well.

On the other hand, having military rating exclude military starbase bonuses might take considerably less time and successfully deal with the "cheese" of sector-wide "spin control centers".

All that aside, I congratulate the original poster on such an effective use of said starbases. If it doesn't get nerfed, I'll be using it
Reply #8 Top
Have the military rating be rated both with the usual attack point and the kill ratio effeciency. (with a % proportionality)

exemple: If I manage to kill 10 attack point for every 1 point I destroy, then the AI would take into account that I use my ships much more efficiently than he does. He could then take actions in consequences.
Reply #9 Top
This issue was dealt with early on in GC2. AI wasn't counting the bonus military SB were giving fleets and they were making really bad descisions. Including the SB effects in their descisions made them appear smarter without adding a lot of complex AI code. But you are right it's not perfect.
Reply #10 Top
I'm surprised Mumblefratz hasn't chimed in here--perhaps its his Metaverse focus at the moment plus the fact that he's not doing the beta. The OP has made me vaguely recall some stuff I read from Mumble elswhere, and IIRC, he has either used or suggested this cheap ship+military starbase strategy (maybe related to "keeping the AIs off my back" talk?).

Regardless of who does it, I'd like to see some numbers talk (especially from coders) about how hard the OP's idea might be to implement. It seems like the "fix" for AIs ignoring military starbase bonuses could use a "fix" of its own.
Reply #11 Top
It came as a bit of a surprise to me that it worked like that for me, actually... my intent was to bunker up in my corner with my vast fleets of cheap ships and simply barricade myself in until I achieved a tech victory... I honestly didn't expect to be forming alliances with everyone! Last time I'd tried the strategy it hadn't worked so well for me... I survived a long time, but eventually got overwhelmed by multiple opponents, partly because my economy didn't allow for three full starbases and 7-9 fleets. This time, with extremely good trade revenue, that hasn't been a problem... my worlds can produce a fully decked out military starbase (minus fortifications and with two mobilization techs) in a surprisingly fast time.
Reply #12 Top
The only problem with multiple alliances is someone will go to war and then insist you either help them or drop the alliance (taking a hit in reputation). Of course, you can just avoid those nasty, entangling alliances.
Reply #13 Top
Since I got the opportunity to ally with all but one or two of the 8 races present, that issue is a bit of a null point.