My beef with turtle is it's over-emphasis of economy over map control early in the game, combined with over-emphasis of exponential base growth in weird directions basically following a pattern of "t3 pgen - t3 fabricator - random experimental or two - repeat). With Rush AIs and their variant the same pattern is slowed down by considerable factory output, which seems most sensible in the case of land AI due to the sheer mass of numbers pretty much neutralising any lone experimental sent by the turtle at that point.
That may be, inability to properly use experimentals (or even build some, like aeon t4 battleship) by combining them with own force seems to be a culprit here. Your GC example is basically a variation of land units spam replaced by insane amount of GCs in cheated economy - GC is about the most idiot-proof, AI-friendly, effect-to-cost unit in the game (spam of monkeylords mass-for-mass would be ten times less effective even if the AI's tactic of using them would be the same).
There was a brief time when I dabbled in modding another game on AI/gameplay project, after many revisions talks have come to a point that with the stock parameters and limitations of hardcoded game mechanics, the AI core we tried to influence has pretty much achieved it's peak performance with the base game, and it was far from satisfying. What I proposed was to start designing the game around AI's limitations instead of designing the AI around current game system, and then create a set of guidelines for other modders to follow on how to design their mods with our AI in mind. The result was a superior experience in terms of challenge, but also a reduction in strategic and tactical choices for the player.
I believe in your effort of brainstorming effectiveness of various AI profiles and designing various teamplay maps you've settled to balance maps themselves around turtle AI performance, given that it was most fail-proof and had no less than 2 factions excelling at it (namely UEF/Aeon for most of the time - I believe Seraphim is worth consideration as well). Similarly, aware of player being able to generally out-smart and out-play the AI the longer the game goes, I'm not surprised you recommend giving the AI at least a mild economic boost and placing it carefully on the map so it builds the economy and functions properly for as long as possible, before it's ineffective economic line-up is no longer able to put up a serious challenge. Surviving a strike of 50 Galactic Colossi surely gives an impression of Tower Defence games I've had over battle.net's warcraft III custom maps, and despite their inherent simplicity of design these were among the most challenging types of gameplay available.
The difficulty here is drawing a line between improving/supporting the core game (whilst aware of it's limitations) while preserving original character of the game (multi-front, balanced, all-tiers-viable warfare with air, sea, water) and actually designing for highest challenge irrespective of the variety of the gameplay provided and original game flavour. These are two schools of design following different philosophy - first assumes the player will employ "house rules" to give him a balance of freedom and challenge, the other that player will be ruthless and abuse every AI handicap or loophole in order to win and thus the system itself needs to limit what the player can reasonably down to the level of AI in a mostly pre-determined setting (guaranteed challenge regardless of house rules). In your example, tinkering with map design, setting cheat/omni multipliers, turtle AI with XYZ factions and ABC rules of AI placement on the map heavily narrow down effective strategies for the player in terms of beating the AI, making a more streamlined experience regardless of player expectations past launching the match with pre-defined settings.
PS: I don't see the problem that Duncane is meant to fix.
Here is a Rush AI vs Rush AI battle, the dreaded Setons, pure Sorian AI. 1000 units limit, unlimited firebases.
AI blobs: units that get produced in the t1/t2 disorganised land spam, then assembled into bigger forces before being sent to the enemy. Size of the group before it's ready to move out is directly proportional to the number of available fire bases, potential fire bases (total limit) and calculated relative own strength to that of the enemy. The more firebases, the thicker enemy defence, the higher enemy tech level and the more even the fight between two opponents, the more likely is the AI to assemble it's "AI blobs" endlessly, effectively freezing them in place instead of hurling at the enemy. In most cases, this loses Rush AI the game vs Turtle AI.
AI battlegroups: very rare, combined t1/t2 formations and all combined t2/t3 formations, that get assembled shortly after leaving factory and then head across the land markers towards enemy base without failure.
What we have here:
A blue blob, one of many, this one sits in the base and does nothing, while mexes in the center of the map have been destroyed aeons ago and enemy is pushing towards main base. AI in the bottom over pure Sorian AI has much less inclination for attack than the top AI for some reason as well, presumably because top AI pushed with it's commander inflicting casualties, increasing the "sufficient strength of blobs before sending them out" threshold for blue AI blobs despite inferior economy, making the blue AI stall blobs even longer than red AI before commencing them to fight, in turn losing game as a result.
Red blobs. Nothing more to say, they sit idly by before their t1 counterparts are self-destructed due to hitting 1000 units limit. They're mostly idle till the decisive battle for blue's main base is mostly over and red's economy has advanced well beyond t3, making organised, not-blobby, combined t2/t3 stacks only.
An example of successful, combined battlegroup of Sorian AI. Most common sight in late game when only organised, combined t2/t3 groups are produced, and "stalling blobs" problem is generally over.
Another battle, turtle AI on bottom rush AI on top. Same map same settings, except this time with Duncane.
A steady stream of rush AI's units. There are small blobs, which unlike pure Sorian AI have internal "timeout/cooldown", which hurls them to the enemy base in loose formation once the timer for "assembling the blob and making it bigger" expires. Essentially, a fail-safe trigger which forces the AI to throw it's idle units at the enemy if they've been idle for too long. This feature is completely absent in stock Sorian AI.
Successful mid-game blob of t1/t2 units at 25th minute mark roflstomping turtle's base. Also, an almost-dead blue turtle commander. Nuff said.
Nighty night, turtle commander. Rush:Turtle, 1:0.
PS. I've also tested games over Duncane-influenced Sorian AI profile, setting rush AI at bottom and turtle at top. Same result, turtle got baked. Markers are not the problem here, they might be idiotic but they don't favour either side of the map in terms of pathfinding. Ineffectiveness of Rush AI is directly related to the "endless blobs" issue.
PS2. Also compare, Rush AI penetrating turtle at 25th minute over Duncane versus Rush AI about to attack main base of "hopelessly blob-stalled" Rush AI at 48th minute over stock Sorian AI. Basically, Rush AI's effectiveness at least doubles just because blobs are gone. On a side note, Rush AI vs Rush AI fights with Duncane tweak are interesting, because they're like tug-o-war between two forces until little, incremental advantages eventually turn the tide of battle.
Statistics: Posted by Demo — 19 Feb 2013, 23:49
]]>