jcorbin
Posts: 17
Joined: 6/28/2007 Status: offline
|
Guys, I've been looking over several of the posts and I think it's time for everyone to face the music: It's a real SOB to create a really good AI opponent for these types of strategy games. Consequently, it sounds like we are literally years (if not decades) away from a developer ever being capable of creating a really good AI opponent for said games. Someone in another thread mentioned the "Hearts of Iron" series, which I own, and is in its zillionth iteration, dating back to the initial Hearts of Iron 1.0 release. And they still can't get it right, even when the computer player is allowed to dramatically cheat. And don't even get me started on the "Civilization" series, which has some of the worst AI I've ever seen, and relies almost entirely on its pedigree, combined with tons of chrome, to continue to sell millions of units. Meanwhile, the "Rome: Total War" series is only marginally better at maneuvering stacks of infantry on its rather handsome strategic level map. (I think all of the eye candy in these latter two games is specifically designed to mask the fact that the AI is rather mediocre, at best.) I just think this stuff is simply too difficult to program to the level that the typical 25-year armchair general demands, due to an overwhelming number of variables that must be taken into consideration. I've been in software development as a technical writer for 15 of those 25 years and I have known literally hundreds of developers, including several in the computer entertainment field. I don't envy their task at all. Coding Deep Blue to eventually beat Kasparov at chess in 1997 is one thing; coding a superlative AI at this level of strategic gaming, with literally hundreds of units on the board and thousands of variables on any given turn, is entirely different. Now add to this the pressures of releasing a product on schedule, so the people who put up the money can attempt to realize, at the very least, some marginal return on their investment within a reasonable amount of time, and you have the present state of affairs. I remember the "old days" where I couldn't find anyone locally to play games like "The Longest Day" and "Third Reich." They'd take one look at the Rule Book, then a second look at the hundreds of unit counters, and promptly run away with their hair on fire. And so, I would end up personally playing out various scenarios as the Axis and then the Allies. It looks like I might be doing the same with this game, or finally break down and carve out enough time to play some MP. Someone find me a game where a strategic level AI is genuinely capable of: 1) Launching a coordinated large-scale amphibious invasion. 2) Effectively responding to a large-scale amphibious invasion. 3) Changing a nation's military unit production to counter what is actually occurring on the battlefield. 4) Changing a nation's technological research path(s) to counter what is actually occurring on the battlefield. ...and I might change my mind. (There are dozens more; I'll stop here.) I've also been following the World in Flames thread, which is one of my favorite board games of all time, and will purchase in its PC incarnation when it eventually arrives. Years ago, when they got started with the computer port, there was some speculation in an Australian Design Group thread regarding whether a computer player AI was even necessary--that the game could conceivably stand on its own two legs as a pure multiplayer game. Obviously, they're presently trying to code an AI for WiF, having long since realized that the game would not sell in sufficient numbers without a single player mode. Maybe someday we'll have what we all want in single player mode for our favorite hobby. But, it would appear, it's going to take an AI programming genius with lots of caffeine to get us there...
|