Do AI countries play by the same rules as human players?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Do AI countries play by the same rules as human players?

      Over the last six months, I have witnessed several things that have made me question whether AI countries are playing by the same rules as human players. Now, with the introduction of the new "elite" units that can only be achieved by the accumulation of multiple "blueprints" from air drop crates, I'm pretty certain that something rather odd is going on. Can anyone explain how AI countries that have never occupied an enemy province are producing "elite" fighter/interceptors, elite militia, and elite infantry (to date, the specific elite unit types I have personally observed being used by AI countries)? If AI countries are not playing by the same rules as human players with respect to blueprints and elite units, what other rules are AI countries permitted to circumvent? I am the only COW player who has a problem with this?

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      ..
      Can anyone explain how AI countries that have never occupied an enemy province are producing "elite" fighter/interceptors, elite militia, and elite infantry...
      ..
      >> Read here the COW-NEWS from Jun 29th 2016 <<

      "The crates only appear in 22 players, 100 players and pacific maps.
      When you create a new game you can enable or disable the crate feature."
      >> Crates can only be found on "new" cards, opened after release of the crates.

      "These blueprints are a meta-feature relevant for all your active and future games."
      >> Blueprints respectively the Elite-Units can also be used on already existing cards.

      Figuratively also "AI-Players" are active at several cards.

      Imaginarily some of the most active "AI-Players" meanwhile have the one or other blueprint completed.
      Logical thing insofar.

      And, because the AI plays nor worse than a newbie, it's quite good that so AI countries become a little stronger. :thumbup:
      Better yet, of course, in the crates for the AI also would be a couple of battle plans. ;)

      But, by the way, also in my opinion the crates are basically nonsense      . :thumbdown:

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money ..
      ..... >> more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game <<
      .... .. so beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
      Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D

      The post was edited 4 times, last by Restrisiko ().

    • Crates are intriguing. They appear to be designed to temp you into making an attack or going to war with a new nation whether it is wise or foolish. This is a pretty good simulation of real world complications in that respect, so I am for it.

      AI (called Ministers) also plays for inactive players. I don't think it would be fair for this type of AI player to care over previously accumulated crate right or to inherit them from the inactive player. This is particularly dangerous when the AI controls a playable country which a previous player may have improved a lot before losing interest.

      Conceivably the AI players can play many more game hours than a real player can. If allowed to accumulate crate advantages such as blueprints persisting and growing larger over a large number of games you would expect these player to eventually get very strong. Some limit should be enforced on how much they can keep. Perhaps each round some % chance of losing something should exist so that as it becomes stronger probabilities become stronger that they lose something. Determining stability to keep this within bounds is a mathematical problem.

      AI algorithms actively encouraging an AI player to seek out crates can be beneficial from the standpoint of random AI attacks and new Wars. It just needs to lead to a stable system where AI is not dominant. AI players can be made stronger in other ways such as some finished research at the start and extra troops or buildings or even money to buy resources it does not produce. These additional benefits can be randomized to make it impossible to know how dangerous a particular AI country is. Humans will adapt to additional danger from AI by taking the risk of a nearby AI country more seriously.

      My expectation is that not all versions of the AI program are identical. The adventure of experimenting with AI rules to discover what works best would be hard for me to resist if I was the programmer.