Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'ai'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Naval Action
    • Naval Action Community and Support
    • Naval Action - National Wars and Piracy
    • Naval Action Gameplay Discussions
    • Naval Action - Other languages
    • Naval Action (Русский язык)
  • Age of Sail Historical Discussions
    • History
    • Shipyard
  • Ultimate General
    • Ultimate General: Civil War
    • Ultimate General: Gettysburg
    • Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail
    • Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts
    • Forum troubleshooting
  • Sea Legends
    • General Discussions
  • This land is my land
    • General discussions
  • Game-Labs Forum
  • SealClubbingClub's Topics
  • Pyrates and rovers's Literature & Media
  • Pyrates and rovers's Gameplay / Roleplay
  • Pyrates and rovers's History - ships, events, personae
  • Clan [GWC] Nederlands talig {Aanmelding}'s Topics
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Rekrutacja
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Historia - Polska na morzach
  • Chernomoriya's Topics
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's Mysteries
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's The Book of Rules
  • Congress of Vienna's Global
  • Congress of Vienna's EU
  • Congress of Vienna's Historical
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's Discord Server
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's The Rulebook
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's Tactics (methods)
  • Ship Auctions's Topics
  • Creative - Captains & Ships Logs's How to...
  • closed's Topics
  • Catalunya's Comença la llibertat !!
  • Port Battle History's Topics


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


  • Community Calendar
  • United States Continental Navy's Pearl Harbor Day

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 42 results

  1. Why do division captains not take evasive action on their own discretion when they come under a torpedo attack? I have seen countless times that subordinate (division) captains mindlessly continue their path even if torpedoes are sighted. I can understand that they have to follow the orders set by the division's lead ship, but some sort of own discretion would be great if they come under torpedo attack. It is for example quite annoying that I manage to dodge some torpedoes with the lead ship only to see that the ship following gets torped. Imo, in this game you are the admiral, not a captain. The priority of the captain is the well being of the ship, whereas the admiral's priority is to set out and complete tactical or strategic orders. Therefore the captains of all the ships in the game should always be able to temporarily act on their own discretion if an immediate danger to ship is detected. We already have collision avoidance, which is done on a ship to ship basis. Here the captain (AI) does take action. Also, if the lead ship of a division is hit severely it will also automatically swap places the ship next in line of the division. Would it be possible for the devs to perhaps add a bit more freedom to operate when a subordinate ship (maybe even lead/flag ship) comes under direct threat, such as during a torpedo attack. Just like with swapping places when the lead ship is too severely damaged, the ship that would conduct evasive manouvres would at the end fall back to the line formation. Just like in the Ultimate General series I feel that this micromanage avoidance fits the idea of a more tactical/strategic game well. At least I rather praise the Ultimate General series for offering a more tactical/strategic battle rather than a micromanage one as found in too many games anyway. I hope Ultimate Admiral can inherit these aspects as well.
  2. When player start a new campaign, game will load ships templates to the AI memory, that player have used in the academy missions (maybe not every template... yes, I'm looking at you Accipiter!), or even from the previous campaigns. If the AI has both technology and resources, it can use these templates created by the player and use them against him!
  3. Preface. I am not the kind of player who can remain engaged for very long with static missions such as offered in the Naval Academy. However, give me a custom battle setup with AI controllable forces and a spreadsheet, and days will fly by. Thus recently with release of the latest Alpha update (Alpha 4 v67) I have been spending a fair amount of time smashing fleets of AI ships together while I patiently await the arrival of the campaign mode. During this time I have observed some behaviours that I feel it would be useful to begin a discussion on. Unfortunately this means a wall of text of incoming, but hopefully someone will find the time to read it and perhaps some useful points to engage with and discuss as development of this fine game continues. Perceived desirable traits. As of the time of writing, this will be a single player game. As such, the AI opponents needs to provide a challenging and engaging game play experience whilst not being so complex as to be to computationally heavy and bogging down the simulation. To my mind, providing this engagement can be done in two complementing fashions. The first of these is verisimilitude. The AI should exhibit behaviours that mimic real world/human behaviours, to provide the illusion that hidden away behind your screen an enemy Beatty or Scheer is directing the opposing forces and doing their damndest to prevail against you. The second element is to provide a challenge. The AI should understand the systems inherent in the game it is playing. It should utilise those systems at the least in a competent manner in order to provide the greatest tactical challenge to a competent player. This includes at least giving the illusion of pursuing a coherent tactical battle plan, with some variety of overall approaches roughly appropriate to a given engagements strategic/tactical considerations. With these traits in mind, I will now highlight what I think are the largest negative factors presented by the AI admirals as currently implemented. Target selection. I have observed ships of all classes primarily engaging the lightest visible opposing elements with all available weaponry unless engaged at very close ranges. This results in some very spectacular explosions when a battleships main battery lands a square blow on a torpedo boat, but is perhaps not entirely desirable and certainly challenges perceptions of verisimilitude with the games gunnery model. I believe that a ships primary and secondary batteries should engage opposing forces with respect to the vessels role within the fleet. Ideally ships primary weaponry should be engaging their opposing class first, engaging down only when no ideal target presents itself, and only engaging up as a last resort. Secondary weaponry should prefer to engage down, although certain classes of secondary weaponry may be optimised for other targets. This assumes relatively historical ship design considerations, although given the design flexibility inherent in this title, perhaps prioritising targets dependent on the calibre of the individual battery would be more appropriate? As a suggestion, perhaps a useful guideline for weapon based target selection would be: 2-5” weaponry would prioritise torpedo boats and destroyers 4-7” would prioritise light / protected Cruisers 6-9” would prioritise armoured / heavy Cruisers, possibly lightly armoured battlecruisers 10”+ should be engaging enemy battleships and battlecruisers as priority. Torpedoes should be prioritised as engaging the heaviest viable targets, though as a weapon of opportunity they should be used against any target that presents itself. Perhaps the margin of allowable error should be judged much more strictly when choosing to engage light manouverable elements such as opposing torpedo boats. Currently an entire fleet will engage a single enemy vessel until its destruction. While probably the correct choice for the damage model as currently implemented, as more gradual reduction in fighting ability from accrued impacts is implemented (through crew casualties and the like), it should become viable to implement a more historically accurate tactic of each ship with in a line engaging its opposing number in the enemy line, only beginning to double up when friendly forces maintain numerical superiority. Formation Keeping. This mostly comes up when a unit tries to fall out of line due to battle damage. Currently a unit seeking to fall back to the end of their squadrons battle line will do a full 180 turn to achieve this via the shortest path for their current relative position (often coming to a complete stop in front of the enemy gun line and disrupting the formation of following friendly elements, also causing them to come to a complete stop). However, ships of the era -should- be aiming to maintain constant speed. The correct course of action for a ship unable to keep pace with their squadron is to pull out of line -away- from opposing forces, before settling into a parallel course allowing friendly units to pass between themselves and the enemy. Similarly, when formations are disrupted, the lead ship should reduce speed to allow the rest of their squadron to catch up, currently once disrupted any lead element that missed the blockage will quickly become isolated and find itself facing enemy forces alone and distant from supporting friendlies. Position selection for supporting units: when given the supporting role (as opposed to follow), squadrons seek to position themselves between the supported formations and the enemy fleet. While this is the correct choice for scouting units before the main battle lines become engaged, this positioning is suicidal once heavier enemy forces are within firing range. Ideally supporting forces should be withdrawing to a position behind the primary gun line once battle is joined, only sallying back through the line should it become necessary to fend off enemy destroyer/torpedo boat attacks. These attacks should also not be the default behaviour for destroyers and torpedo boat, these forces should be held in reserve until such times as the battle lines close to a short distance or to finish off vessels already crippled by gunfire. Supporting units manouvering around primary gun line. This remains problematic and causes many of the formation issues mentioned above. When mixed category fleets are manouvering together, the heavier elements at most should hold their course when approached by lighter elements. A single torpedo boat trying to reach the other side of a battle line should not disrupt an entire squadron of battleships. Heavier elements should hold their course and allow the lighter units to perform the bulk of the evasive manouvering. Similarly, when selecting an appropriate path, unless capable of performing a well timed turn between gaps in a battle line (probably a bit complex to ask of an AI tracking many constantly changing variables of speed, position and tactical situation), the AI needs to be aware of all ships in a formation it is trying to manouver past. Ideally, instead of just trying to avoid the lead ship in a formation and disrupting all vessels trying to follow it, a formation should choose to reduce speed and allow the interceding formation to pass before cutting behind them to reach their intended position. Fleet manouver. Probably the lowest priority to adjust/implement as current, as addressing all previous issues will drastically change the conditions in which the current implementation is working and possibly produce different outcomes. Current observation seems to indicate 3 broad class of AI/AI engagements. The first, and most aesthetic, is when the lead element of each fleet chooses to make their initial turn onto parallel courses, forming something of a classic battle line IF the majority of supporting elements have been set to follow and thus falling out of the engagement envelope of the leading gun line, allowing the classic gun duel to develop. If lighter elements are supporting and thus interposed between the gun lines however, the second type of engagement evolves in which battleships seeking to engage light elements end up clashing at a 90 degree angle at close range, the initial stages of this engagement are often slightly farcical with Battleships within spitting distance of each other engaging distant torpedo boats with everything they have, and as lighter elements succumb finally devolving into a close range slugging match, if one side fit torpedoes they tend to win at 1890s tech, if both side fit torpedoes, everybody dies. The third engagement resolves when lead elements turn onto opposing courses, resulting in a circling engagement that will first slaughter supporting light elements caught in the middle (who often find themselves entangled with their opposing numbers), before falling onto the following support elements at the tail of each fleet, the battleships only finally engaging their opposing numbers when all lighter shipping has been eradicated. Closing Remarks. I understand that at this stage of development, many of the core mechanical systems the AI must utilise and work around are still very much in flux. Thus until the game systems themselves stabilise at some closer to a releasable state, to much work on the AI can be seen as a waste of developer time and effort. However, as we approach the time in which the campaign mode is released to the public for testing and comment, having a functional and satisfying AI opponent will go a long way towards showing the systems in place in their best possible light and allow current and future players to remain engaged with the games future development. This engagement would generate further interest with the titles progress and hopefully contribute towards the success of the final product. All errors and misunderstandings of the systems currently on show are my own and no fault of the development team. Finally, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.
  4. Have been replaying those missions that relies heavily on the use of torpedoes. Noticed one thing. If you hand over the control of your fleet to AI or group sevral ships up as a flotilla it usually works pretty decent for gunnery-focused warships in regards of maneuver and positioning, I'll give it that. That's much less the case for torpedo-focus warship types though, such as TB, DD or CL. They still try to behave as a gunship and rush to the face of the enemy regardless of their current torpedo tube reload status. Also they just sail in small circles near the enemy around themselves after dropping off their torpedo payload, which looks pretty stupid. Is it possible to have an adaptive AI system that, depending on the how important torpedoes are on the current ship type, uses different behavior and methods of approach against enemy fleet? For example, when facing enemy capital ship in a flotilla, if total torpedo weight is above x% of the displacement, after dropping all torpedoes in one broadside, the flagships automatically turns back to the last place of the flotilla(like how flagship behaves after taking substantial damage), and when (control given to AI) all of the ships in the flotilla had their (single broadside) torpedoes dropped, the entire flotilla tries to disengage, wait for torpedo reload, then reengage in the same manner. In my opinion this is a more reasonable manner of behavior for those screen ships which feature torpedo as their main armament.
  5. Please consider voting on how you think Aggressive Ai should work. I believe I have created every situation; if not please choose "Other" and comment. The first 9 questions deal with areas of Friendly Nation. The next 3 are all areas of OW. The next 9 deal with areas of Enemy Nations. The next ones are obvious.
  6. I've lost two ships because of this bug. It's a major game-breaking bug. The two ships that were deleted by the AI were: Hercules from the Final Exam - deleted approx. 30/01/19. Purple Endymion purchased from another player - deleted yesterday. Both instances occurred when I tried to sell lesser ships. I captured traders and tried to sell them on the Navy screen. I clicked sell trader and the computer responded by listing the name and sale price of the trader and then asked to confirm. I clicked ok. When I looked at my fleet again the computer had sold my main ship, and the trader was still in my fleet. Normally, this is not supposed to happen, because the AI will prompt you to remove all guns, upgrades and items from the hold. In both cases, the ships were filled with guns, upgrades and items in their hold. I even tried to replicate the bug by selling one ship instead of my main, however it didn't work. On the Hercules I lost the clock from the final battle, upgrades, repairs, rum and doubloons. The same issue happened on my Endymion. All guns and repairs were sold as well as upgrades, and doubloons captured from other vessels. ... I've attached photos of my trader's vessel directly after the main ship was sold. As you can see the guns were transferred to the warehouse and the ship is empty. After my main ship was deleted by the AI, another ship was replaced as my main ship - an LGV. This is the second time this has happened; and on both instances, I filed a bug report but I still have not heard back or received compensation. Profile: Andrew Maldovard - PVE server - Revision: 45664.CleanOWProd.x64
  7. I know that cannon loadout, mods, and build quality (color) are not reflected in your AI fleet ships' combat capabilities but what about wood choice and regional trim?
  8. AI fleet members are necessary for trading, but have limited utility in combat. I have two ideas regarding more versatile commands. 1. A command for AI fleet members to loot Since a major source of permanent upgrades (and the only source for some) is looting ships, it would be a fantastic addition to command AI fleet members to loot wrecks. Implementation could be simple, as in you tell an AI to loot a specific wreck, and he's programmed to approach and then some mechanic exists for looting. 2. A general "move to here" set of commands. There's lots of situations where you'd like an AI to perform an action, but have a preference of the route he takes to do so. As in you can tell him to flee, but he just automatically goes to his fastest point of sail, even if that's straight into a group of AI. We should be able to set waypoints that end on the desired action. Combining with my first suggestion, tell him to move to point x before moving to loot a wreck at point y.
  9. Are there any plans to make ai on pve server more active or, at least less passive? I don't know another game with ai,enemy completely ignoring player.
  10. I am a new player on the PvE server and am attempting to buy a resource in a port that produces it. It is identified on the shop screen under "Allows production" but none currently appears. My understanding is that the production port will fill a contract immediately for 4 times the production value of 1 quantity of the resource. My question. Where do I find the production value? I've looked at at the trader tool on the map and it is not clear to me how this applies.
  11. So I went out for a quick mission in my Santisma today unknowing it would be my last. I was doing my normal 1st rate mission Santi vs Santi. Everything was going as planned and he boarded me. After three rounds winning against him, something went horribly wrong. My timer said there were 10 seconds left, then it immediately went to 2 seconds left. Thus, I could not properly coordinate my attack rounds and lost 150 of my crew. Then the next round came and it was even worse. If I remember correctly, it went from 10 seconds to 3 then back to 5. I was doing all I could to select the appropriate defense moves, but I could not work against the clock this time. While I could just very well be bad at boarding action, I know not to counter-attack into an attack, but nothing like this has happened to me before. I have no idea whether this will happen again or how to correct it, as the issue makes sailing too dangerous to try. Needless to say, this is a large loss to my fleet and I and others experiencing the issue find it hard to sail out of port again in fear of this issue happening again. Thank you for any ideas and help!
  12. Just a thought, if AI ships/fleets could report sightings of players to their respective Nations, in an "AI Reporter" a similar chat box to Combat News. So say a Spanish AI is sailing along and a French player is within its sight, the AI reports something like, "French ship 20 k's SE of Turneffe" to the Spanish Nation. This would open up a whole new way to play and add to content in my opinion. Thoughts?
  13. Why we get back ship capture from NPCs? It was one of the best changes of 10.0 beside removal of TP, tow and introduction of 1 dura. 10.0 was under the banner of promoting OW gameplay. What was and is in my opinion a great succes. Now we are going back to the singleplayer i dont have to care state?
  14. So i ve been leveling my avatar with combat missions (as it is common) and i managed to get to 5th rates. I know basic and some advanced tactics in battle but when it comes to balance of the missions, AI gets a stupid amount of "help" in order to fight back the human. I had cases of me haveing a snow (6th rate) and a triple (3) armada of snows apear in battle as within the level of my mission guessed i could take em head on... well that was not the case. other time had my Cerberus (5th rate) and a frigate fully armed with carronades and stuff got my hull breached like a swiss cheese. Even with a pal i found to help me we totaly got owned (he had a cerberus too). i find this extremely hard for a new or even a somewhat experienced player to deal with such early firepower and hull to get through.. Dont get me wrong the first levels are easy but when i went to second and first lieutenent i had really bad spawns (i dont know if they are fixed or random spanws but thats what i had to fight) anyway hope you guys get what i mean, good luck and keep up the good work!
  15. The AI seems to have learned a new trick where it reverse onto the land then falls over so you can no longer shot its sides makes it really hard to kill
  16. Its not the first time I encountered that problem. When chasing a ship AI seems to get into a tunnel vision and starts to do stupid stuff. They start to sail zickzackways and cross other ships bow and they start turning to get a shot on target without looking for other ships. Even the other ships didnt changed course for a while. It seems to me AI is missing the ability to predict where a ship will be when its not an enemy. The following video is an example for such an AI behavior.
  17. Ok, so now it appears AI is shooting double ball and double charge. Not only that, they are shooting them through CARRONADES! I want that hack! I F11'd it but thought I'd post it here too. This was regular AI, from an OW fleet, not a player's AI. So...bug, or feature (read that as "AI's hacks")?
  18. Greetings, Closer to case - we have fast and heartless AI wich need 0 seconds to aim and 0 seconds to count the angle/speed/distance/waves/penetration. Moreover ai is incredibly overpowered on 200+ m distance. Even though AI is bad at a close range - it is good at shooting on a big one. Thread is not about sailing or tactics, cuz tactics against AI is always the same atm. Get as close as you can, dodge and shoot. We should make ai less accurate. Cuz 23 hits out of 23 on 200 m. are too many. Very good aim. Add some time to aim(bot aim is 0 secs atm) at least 2 secs or more. Good day there, <3 may the Northern seas bless you. Harsh Winter
  19. Is there any relation between what AI traders are carrying and the ports they are near? If not, @admin, there should be. AI traders seem to mainly be making short hauls. It would make sense if they were carrying goods consumed or produced at the nearby ports. I apologize if this is already in game and I just haven't noticed it.
  20. With all due respect to Darth for the amazing game, I must say that the AI's weapon scaling is implemented badly and ruins immersion. With a high enough recon stat, you can see that : All of the AI's infantry will share the same the same gun, all of the AI's artillery will share the same gun, all of the AI's skirmishers will share the same gun , and all of the AI's cavalry share the same gun. This is very unhistorical and unrealistic : units were issued different weapons throughout the war, on both sides--especially the Confederate side. Confederate units in the Army of Northern Virginia used everything from smoothbore muskets to stolen Springfields to imported Enfields. So, when playing as Union, facing an army of Confederate brigades equipped with M1855s and ONLY M1855s is extremely instantly breaks immersion. Likewise, when playing as Confederates, it is unsettling to face a Union army with 108,000 M1861s and not a single other type of rifle. Historically, Union brigades were outfitted with everything from Sharps rifles, to M1861s, to Enfields and Spencers) This is also very evident with artillery batteries : an AI army will only have ONE TYPE of cannon. So, when I played as Confederates at Chancellorsville, I had to face 311 10pd ordnance rifles from the Union. That's ridiculous from a historical standpoint : a Union army would have multiple rifles issued to its brigades and multiple types of cannons issued to its artillery. Proposed solution : I am not a game designer, so I do not know how difficult it would be to implement weapon variation, but here's my idea : Ideally, the weapons scaling system averages the "quality" of your army's rifles and then formulaically (taking into account unit "eliteness", historical availability and prevalence) generates/assigns guns to your opponents' army's brigades, keeping a lower/similar/higher average weapon "quality" depending on difficulty.
  21. I'd like to see attrition of the AI "player" somehow built into the game. I think it's a bit inaccurate for the AI "player" to come back healthy and well armed after suffering defeat after defeat. You (the human player) can only rebuild depleted units so much. Why not make this the case for the AI?
  22. Hi there, Would it be possible to create a mechanic by which AI ships (particularly traders) choose to surrender to a vastly overmatching foe rather than fight? Parameters could be how many times greater the enemy is in size/weight of broadside/crew, proximity, and speed. Merchant sailors weren't keen on getting slaughtered to no end in hopeless fights in the 18th century; creating an AI surrender mechanism would be vastly more realistic than having to force a small merchantman up into the wind to be boarded and its crew cut to pieces in a single round. Thanks--
  23. If you issue the Demast command to your AI fleet, is he chaining the sails or going in close trying to kill the mast with ball shot?
  24. well the thing is i see no use for is AI-driven Battleships in OW (there are already epic events) the cargo fleet can stay reason : *they are always to big to attack (and even do not attack you as an enemy) *they are in the way at PB (tagged in, and counted as well) *they are to big for a single ship to attack (ai 3000 br vs player 120br ) *they are everywhere they can be, for example: in the vicinity of a ow fort or tower what makes no sense (the fort is not attacking in ow) and the ai fleet is even not attacking other enemys it just makes no sense *because i HATE AI driven things ( @i love them in missions btw) *they have no use as a escorte ,they are to slow moving and also stear the other way ,so no use for that to. * if you see an enemy fleet it always looks like this : 6 victorys 6 pavel 6 bellona 6 santismo 6 nukes or whatever,, you get my point.!! REMOVE THEM PLEASE......... ps:...The cargo AI vessel can stay ... greetings.
  25. A couple days ago I set fire to an AI ship in two separate battles. In the first battle the AI ship blew up. This is the first time I've been able to blow up an AI ship with fire in probably 6 months. Usually they almost always put out the fire, even if I set it on fire multiple times. In the second battle the ship was on fire and sinking. As it was going down the fire spread up the masts to be burning at the top of the ship. I have never seen that before in 11 months playing. These two things lead me to believe the devs have changed the fire mechanics significantly in the last week or two in a patch. Does anyone else know if this is true, or have any similar recent experiences? Or did I miss a patch description or writeup about this?
  • Create New...