AI Development and Our Hobby (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Commander - Europe at War Gold



Message

jcorbin -> AI Development and Our Hobby (6/28/2007 5:18:31 PM)

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...



YohanTM2 -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/28/2007 6:08:05 PM)

Very well said, the issue is many players do not play agianst other humans and in order to sell viable quantities of a game you must have an AI.

As one of those players who never really plays the AI after one pass and the tutorials I would much prefer the development time and effort being spent on a better TCP/IP and most importantly PBEM. You need things like a solid replay and heavy anti-cheat provisions including some of the new online die rollers.

But, economics rear their ugly head except for the War in Europe effort.



Warfare1 -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/28/2007 6:32:48 PM)

jcorbin:

Very thoughtful insights.

I know that Strategic Command 1 does indeed have large Allied invasions of France when I play as the Axis.

AI development (or Programmed Opponent) is slowly gaining ground. But as long as graphics and chrome dominates PC games, then few developers will invest the time and money to improve it (which can be done if the will is there).

I am always surprised when I see games shipped without campaign/scenario/unit/tech editors. Since a gamer would be able to use these editors to make up for many AI faults.

Anyone familiar with Civ2's event scripting will know just how versatile and useful this editor is in creating some truly tough user scenarios. Anyone who has played Nemo's Red Front v1.4, for example, will experience some awesome game play using the game's original 1996 AI. Nemo pushed the game engine to its limits by exploiting all of the game's easy to use events and editors.

No game, and no developer, especially when it comes to making strategic games, can possibly cover all the areas that impacts the AI. That is why these types of games NEED editors, with the ability to mod and tweak every facet of the game.

It is not as though we live in a vacuum. Hundreds of games have come before our present time. We should learn what made the great games, great; incorporate their useful ideas, menus and interfaces; and finally, build into present games some of the same types of editors that made those classic games so playable.



O`Connor -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/28/2007 6:34:07 PM)

quote:

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.


Civilization IV.

OK, it's not a wargame, but it has a lot to deal with (more factors I would suggest than a number of wargames). In its latest incarnation, and (especially) modded with the Better AI mod, you can't take anything for granted. You definitely have to keep an eye on the coastline. And if there is a counter to your force, the AI will find and use it.



Dave Ferguson -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/28/2007 6:35:03 PM)

I applaud Decision games decision NOT to include a AI in the upcoming war in europe, the game mechanics are simpler than CEAW and even so a competent AI would be almost impossible to develop. It seems I prefer playing wargames ON a computer rather than computer wargames, I must be one of a small number who do so.

Dave



jcorbin -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/28/2007 6:45:31 PM)

Very good points, Yohan. I don't do much MP gaming, since I never seem to have enough time to hook up with other gamers, but I should probably start heading in that direction...



IainMcNeil -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/28/2007 6:45:55 PM)

One of the issues with AI is that they tend to be developed for a specific game. Virtually nothing from CEAW would be any use in another game, even one that used the same basic mechanisms.

E.g. if you make a change that starts to charge a reasonable PP cost for units loading on to amphibious transports. This sounds like a trivial change, but the AI has to now know that it must save production points for an amphibious attack. This means it has to prioritise this versus other things like extra rail moves, research, recruitment and repair. If you weight any one of these badly you end up with the AI being screwey. It can a long time to get one tiny change like this balanced and this time is of zero value in any other game.

Now think about the AI required for weather, politics etc.

I think this is the problem - you can't build up a nice AI code base and the vast majority tends to be so game specific it's of no use in anythign else and is thrown away at the end of each game.



jcorbin -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/28/2007 6:49:25 PM)

You're right. Editors can make a difference. For example, I've used the "Hearts of Iron: Doomsday" editor extensively and incorporated some AI mods. This combination has certainly improved gameplay, but we're not there yet...



jcorbin -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/28/2007 6:54:17 PM)

I haven't tried the Better AI mod yet for Civ IV, but I will certainly look into it. Of course, it's not a wargame in the classic sense, but I am a fan of the series dating back to the original. I enjoy taking a break from some of the more realistic/historical games to do the "beer and pretzels" thing...



jcorbin -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/28/2007 7:04:23 PM)

Great to see the game's developers responding to posts here.

Excellent point. The AI has to be game-specific. That means solid sales must drive continuing investment in that one product via point releases and, later on, sequels, in order to advance the AI. I wish you guys very robust sales.

Again, I give you guys all the credit in the world for tackling such a difficult task. And I never even bothered to mention play balancing in the original thread. It's not enough to create a competent AI; you then have to play balance.

Existing AI issues aside, you appear to have a terrific start here. I hope the product does well. We need more developers like you to continue to push the hobby, or we will all eventually end up with nothing but "Chrome Wars: Part X" from the publishing behemoths...



jcorbin -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/28/2007 7:17:05 PM)

No AI? I was unaware. Now that's interesting. Most dev firms wouldn't even consider traveling down that bumpy road, due to the presumed negative impact on sales in forcing one to exclusively go the MP/PBEM/Hot Seat route.

So scrap the AI and put all one's emphasis on a terrific UI and ironclad MP options, eh?

Never mind interesting, that's downright ballsy...



targul -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/28/2007 7:56:40 PM)

Computer War in Europe has never had AI didnt in the last version and wont in the next.  Game of that scale would be near impossible to write AI code.  Decision made that decision because he doesnt hire people to make his computer games he gets them to make he game and then he puts it out.  I believe he then gives some money to the designer but that was never made clear by the writer of CWIE 1. 

Game is very good but it is a historical port of the original War in Europe so it is really a 70's game on a computer without much advancement in gaming tech.  I love the game and still play it regularly. 

SC2 has extremely good AI if you play historically.  Most players tend to try to find the flaws in the AI and then abuse them.  They then state the AI is broken.  Personnnally I think the player is broken but that is for another discussion.

CivIII conquests has the best AI of any game of its like I have ever or probably ever will see.  It is very competitive and seems to have alot of inititive.

I too am awaiting World in Flames but that has been going on for many years and I am at the point that I doubt its actual release ever.

This game has good AI in Russia.  But if it has AI in the Med it has the worst of any game I have seen in many years.  Tried 3 games and it still has not invaded France or even tried so I hear there is a landing but it must be very rare. 

Anyway adequate AI can be written but if you want it to do everything it will not.  It can be written to recreate many WWII actions but players who avoid history it will never be able to beat because you cant program against odd actions only preceived actions.



IrishGuards -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/28/2007 8:07:45 PM)

What's and AI [8|]
IDG



targul -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/28/2007 8:11:16 PM)

An AI is the thing we are not using in our games.



Zakhal -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/28/2007 8:32:54 PM)

Galactic Civilizations 2 has a really tough nonscripted AI that doesnt cheat (only little in the very last AI level). There are like 10+(?) AI levels in it and I was only able to beat like first 5 of them. The game doesnt even have multiplayer and they continiusly patch the AI to be even more better (not like it allready is almost unbeatable).

The difference is that the whole series is built with AI in mind. Game doesnt even have features that would be hard to code for AI to use (allthough they have managed to do som like beliavable AI diplomacy and there are planetary invasions). Also space is easier for AI as gameboard because the only units that move in it are spaceships and they can go anywhere.

As for pbem the only game I really enjoyed it was VGA planets. That was mostly because:
(1) You always got a set amount () of gameturns per week. Whether som player wasnt able to deliver his moves the host still made a new turn.
(2) There could be up to 11 players and players could quit/be replaced with zero disruption to the game.

Longest vga planets game I had going lasted like 1 1/2 years with 9-11 players.

Steel panthers is a great example of good TCP/IP gameplay. I have always enjoyed it. I hate to do like one turn and then wait for 28 hours for another turn. Life is too short for that.

I think the optimum multiplayer system would be:
(1) More than two players
(2) Has both TCP/IP and pbem
(3) Ability to switch multiplayer type every turn. If you have pbem game and want to do several turns today through TCP/IP all you have to do is change the mp type. Later on you can change back to pbem.



pad152 -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/28/2007 9:28:43 PM)

You know what you call a wargame without an AI? a board game.[8|] I think developers need to include some way of allowing users to edit the AI? WITP is a great game, but the AI is scripted and ends up doing the same thing in every game. It's tuff enough to create a good playable game let alone a good AI.

It's been said many times there are only three types of AI; dumb, cheats, and (dumb + cheats).




Warfare1 -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/28/2007 11:52:50 PM)

I've done a lot of modding of games, and some pretty old ones at that. And with only the use of editors, and with no additional tweaks to the AI, I have turned out some tough scenarios to play.

My general feeling is that I don't think the AI can play on an even playing field with a human player - cheats ARE needed - but make them subtle.

For example, if I want the AI to invade somewhere, and if it has to decide how to use PPs between rail, tank movement, and unit builds, etc, then, I would allow the AI to invade without the need to use PPs. Simply make AI invasions FREE.

A cheat yes - but the important thing is to get the AI moving... After all, the USA in the real war had virtually unlimited resources and it was supplying war material for the war in Europe AND the Pacific (say "100 aircraft carriers by 1945" 10 times fast).

AI invasions in a WWII European game are far too vital and important to be left to the whims of the AI and its resources. Remember, we are talking about American and Canadian production.

While AI scripting is game specific - the editors that are created with the game are also game specific.

Let's take an example of what happens in games that are scripted but have NO editors.

For example Uncommon Valor. It is a great game, but it has virtually NO editors (well there is sort of one but I won't go there for now). It has invasions but these are tightly scripted - you can't change them. Forces are historic, and once used up, that's it.

Now, what would happen if it had a decent editor along with additional force pools? Well, the player would be able to select a land hex, select units to be included in an invasion force (including ships and troops), select the experience levels, then select a date or turn number for the invasion to occur for that scenario, and then press the "save" button. Do this a few times, and the player will now experience multiple enemy AI invasions throughout the scenario at the locations he selected.

Unfortunately, scripted games without editors have virtually no user created scenarios available.

On the other hand, games such as the original Strategic Command does come with a great editor and there are currently more than 100 user created campaigns. A game not tough enough? Open the editor, make a few tweaks, and presto-chango, the difficulty goes up.

As long as an AI is competent, good editors can do the rest...



targul -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/28/2007 11:56:02 PM)

Why do you care if the AI cheats?  I certainly do not.  I only care if the AI is good making the game fun and playable.  If it must cheat to give a good, fun, playable game do it.  I will buy it and it will be fun.



ijontichy -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/29/2007 10:57:30 AM)

CEaW will give you a great and fun game in the eastern front. No doubt about that. It's just in some of the strategic aspects where the AI looks really stupid. I would say the developers need to focus their efforts on improving the sea-land invasion AI, and the Mediterranean needs to be looked at as well. Other criticisms of this game I would give to all computer games: not enough innovation (hey, that's why we have board games, right? [;)])



Marc von Martial -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/29/2007 11:34:14 AM)

I think the problem is also that some wargamers expect they get an AI that is as capable as their best wargaming buddy (that does not cheat). This is nonsense and way to high expectations. Scientists burn billions each year to let a robot do things a 2 year old could do better, and no the robot does not do it on his own too [;)]

If a game AI "cheats" that is no bad thing at all. You can not copy human cheating over to computer cheating. Human cheating is negative, for sure. Computer "cheating" is necessary. Computers only do what you tell them, they do not do the thinking.
Right now the main problem with computer game AIs is that they hardly "learn from mistakes", unlike humans. Your MP buddy will do this. Once we are at a stage where computers game AIs can learn certain things we will see better artificial opponents.

There is certainly room, sometimes a lot of room for improvement with some games AIs, but the expectations should not be set too high too. We have had also several cases where gamers simply did not bother to raise the difficulty level and then complained about a bad AI when they play on "easy level". Some people are extremely good at finding patterns of behavior within games and thus have no problems to defeat the AI even when it cheats extremely. It will be extremely hard to please these people with a good AI until scientists and coders have developed a real AI that has human patterns of thinking and learning



pzgndr -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/29/2007 3:25:06 PM)

quote:

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.


Well, SC2 has these features right now. The combination of a good generic AI plus scripted events (including customized events for Allied or Axis AI) plus scripted AI behavior based on game conditions allows a modder with sufficient patience to develop a challenging computer opponent. For better or worse, SC2 with its comprehensive editor does in fact do all these things. Not perfectly of course, but one needs realistic expectations for playing against a dumb machine.

SC2-WaW is even better. Several improvements to the generic AI make it noticeably better. A few changes to some script structures provide some more flexibility. And the editor is more comprehensive than it was before, allowing modders to adjust many game parameters that were previously hardwired. Keep an eye out for this to be released soon.

In retrospect, it's taken several years since SC was first released for Hubert Cater to grow his game and get the game and AI to this point. CEAW will likely experience similar growing pains on its own path to success. While many basic features of both games are similar, there are enough differences to make each game unique. And we should all encourage this! There may be a natural tendency for SC2 to become more CEAWish and for CEAW to become more SC2ish over time, but we do not want or need two exact same games where one has hexes and the other has tiles. (As if. [8|]) Allow the game developers to be creative and impress us with new wonders. [8D]

quote:

Right now the main problem with computer game AIs is that they hardly "learn from mistakes"


Another problem is programming/scripting the AI to focus on a particular grand strategy that integrates planning with research and production priorities. That would be nice. And yet another "problem" is getting the AI to perform feints and other deceptive maneuvers as deliberate actions. (AI bugs don't count!) Maybe someday we'll see a cunning computer opponent worthy of the title "grand strategist."



Warfare1 -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/29/2007 4:17:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

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.


Well, SC2 has these features right now. The combination of a good generic AI plus scripted events (including customized events for Allied or Axis AI) plus scripted AI behavior based on game conditions allows a modder with sufficient patience to develop a challenging computer opponent. For better or worse, SC2 with its comprehensive editor does in fact do all these things. Not perfectly of course, but one needs realistic expectations for playing against a dumb machine.

SC2-WaW is even better. Several improvements to the generic AI make it noticeably better. A few changes to some script structures provide some more flexibility. And the editor is more comprehensive than it was before, allowing modders to adjust many game parameters that were previously hardwired. Keep an eye out for this to be released soon.

In retrospect, it's taken several years since SC was first released for Hubert Cater to grow his game and get the game and AI to this point. CEAW will likely experience similar growing pains on its own path to success. While many basic features of both games are similar, there are enough differences to make each game unique. And we should all encourage this! There may be a natural tendency for SC2 to become more CEAWish and for CEAW to become more SC2ish over time, but we do not want or need two exact same games where one has hexes and the other has tiles. (As if. [8|]) Allow the game developers to be creative and impress us with new wonders. [8D]

quote:

Right now the main problem with computer game AIs is that they hardly "learn from mistakes"


Another problem is programming/scripting the AI to focus on a particular grand strategy that integrates planning with research and production priorities. That would be nice. And yet another "problem" is getting the AI to perform feints and other deceptive maneuvers as deliberate actions. (AI bugs don't count!) Maybe someday we'll see a cunning computer opponent worthy of the title "grand strategist."


Very well said!

I have noticed that in modding scenarios in Panzer General 1 (yup - from 1993), that if I give the AI more recon units (I also increase their movement, spotting and fuel levels), the AI tends to make smarter decisions.

In large strategic games such as these devise ways to give the AI "eyes".



Warfare1 -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/29/2007 4:20:03 PM)

Slitherine just released info related to what will be included in the first patch:


We wanted to keep everyone up to date with our plans for Commander. Here is a list of issues we are planning to investigate in the short term. We can't promise these will all make it in as you can't tell how difficult some things will be until you start trying to do them, but we'll do our best!

* PBEM saved game names
* PBEM password protection
* PBEM feedback on opponents turn
* Chat in TCP/IP games
* AI for DDay landings
* AI on normal difficulty setting
* Manpower levels for the UK
* Scroll speed
* Map centering before combat
* Nationality & leader icon clarity to show who has moved
* Zoom level during the AI turn
* Turn summary message issues
* Destroyer & battleship graphical mix up
* Editor
* Screen mode issues, failing to set up 1024x768 on some machines
* Oil abundance in Africa

There are lots of other things we'd like to look at, but these are the ones we think we can get done quickest and that will have the most benefit for the first patch. We're estimating this will be ready for mid July.

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3624



Warfare1 -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/29/2007 4:26:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

I think the problem is also that some wargamers expect they get an AI that is as capable as their best wargaming buddy (that does not cheat). This is nonsense and way to high expectations. Scientists burn billions each year to let a robot do things a 2 year old could do better, and no the robot does not do it on his own too [;)]

If a game AI "cheats" that is no bad thing at all. You can not copy human cheating over to computer cheating. Human cheating is negative, for sure. Computer "cheating" is necessary. Computers only do what you tell them, they do not do the thinking.
Right now the main problem with computer game AIs is that they hardly "learn from mistakes", unlike humans. Your MP buddy will do this. Once we are at a stage where computers game AIs can learn certain things we will see better artificial opponents.

There is certainly room, sometimes a lot of room for improvement with some games AIs, but the expectations should not be set too high too. We have had also several cases where gamers simply did not bother to raise the difficulty level and then complained about a bad AI when they play on "easy level". Some people are extremely good at finding patterns of behavior within games and thus have no problems to defeat the AI even when it cheats extremely. It will be extremely hard to please these people with a good AI until scientists and coders have developed a real AI that has human patterns of thinking and learning



Absolutely agree.

The AI simply cannot think like a human. Doubt it ever will.

The AI will always need help. Gamers expecting games where the AI does not "cheat" will never have a very playable game.

Thus, the game creator/designer can then use his knowledge of devious tactics and tricks and program them into the AI side. This, added to subtle forms of AI advantage (such as free invasions, more troop levels, spotting advantages, etc), along with good editors will give any wargamer a challenging game.




dinsdale -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/29/2007 5:12:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

I think the problem is also that some wargamers expect they get an AI that is as capable as their best wargaming buddy (that does not cheat). This is nonsense and way to high expectations. Scientists burn billions each year to let a robot do things a 2 year old could do better, and no the robot does not do it on his own too [;)]

I think you're overestimating the demands Marc. I don't think anyone will expect a Big Blue equivalent for wargaming anytime soon, but simply a competent opponent. There's a huge problem in claiming "AIs can't be as good as humans" when the AI in question (and I am not commenting on CEAW) is unable to execute the most basic calculation-driven "intelligence."
quote:


If a game AI "cheats" that is no bad thing at all.

It is if it destroys suspension of disbelief. It can in the extreme cases, render rules irrelevant and strategy worthless. For example, if an operational Napoleonic AI suffers no fog of war, then the potential subgame of cavalry screens skirmishing would be pointless. AI cheats are of course necessary, but they need to be well thought out and part of an existing competent set of rules, not a x10 resource bonus because the AI is unable to cope with attrition or inflation.

Cheats should not be a crutch, they should work with the AI as aid for it's weakpoints. That can't be achieved very well if the AI in question is rubbish to begin with. (Again, not talking about CEAW in particular.)

quote:


Right now the main problem with computer game AIs is that they hardly "learn from mistakes", unlike humans. Your MP buddy will do this. Once we are at a stage where computers game AIs can learn certain things we will see better artificial opponents.

We're not really going to get there though are we. Not unless wargaming is able to reuse breakthroughs researched elsewhere. FPS and RTS are less dependent on AI smarts as the PC is able to out-compete the human in reaction time and calculation, two areas which can dramatically improve the appearance of an AI in a real time game or sim. So with the major market not needing the depth of decision making and learning, where is wargaming going to get the money together to get to the stage you say?

--------

While there are some interesting points in this thread, it contains the usual strawmen thrown out whenever Ai is mentioned

1) "There isn't even a chess AI which can beat humans and that's a simple game." Sorry, but what utter rubbish. 90% of chess players can be consistently beaten by chess game AIs. They do it without giving the PC 4 Queens and respawning bishops. Further, the skill level of a wargamer, playing a game for perhaps a few months, cannot be close to even home chess players who have been playing the game since childhood.

2) AI's can't be reused. Not wholesale they can't, but let's not pretend that code/design/algorythym reuse between games is impossible because frankly it's insulting. There may be market issues which prevent leveraging technology or building upon reusable components, but there's no technical barrier which would have prevented code and techniques in Chariots of War to have been built upon for subsequent Slitherine releases and reused in this game.

3) Tactical and Strategic are so dramatically different that one can never have a good AI. Again, untrue. There's no difference between strategic games and tactical when it comes to movement and combat. While forward planning and managing strategic options is a different kettel of fish, strategic is the same as tactical on the board.

The greatest impediment to AI development though is cost. Wargaming in particular is victim of one-man-bands: games where one or two programmers do everything. Would anyone expect their mechanic to come plumb-in a toilet? Just because two people use a wrench, it doesn't make their jobs equal, and it is the same in programming. AI (and UI for that matter) are highly specialized disciplines which are unlikely to be mastered by programmers who have to do everything.

Thus it should be no surprise that AI and UI are typically the very worst facets of most wargames. It's less to do with impenetrable research boundaries and more to do with expertise.

Finally, IMHO the second greatest problem with AI development is us. There's simply not enough of a selling point when a game has a better than average AI. If it were, Panther games and SSG would outsell everything else by Matrix 10:1. We do not buy games because the AI is good, we buy games and hope. So in all fairness, why should Slitherine cut back on features or spend money on AI which is unnecessary to sell their games?



IainMcNeil -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/29/2007 5:24:19 PM)

Just to clear up one fact - we do not use any of the AI from Chariots of War in our games. That AI is dead and buried and will never be returned to. AI is so game specific anything other than generic route finding algorithms are useless to other games and route finding is not even really what you woudl call AI.



Warfare1 -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/29/2007 5:30:13 PM)

quote:

Finally, IMHO the second greatest problem with AI development is us. There's simply not enough of a selling point when a game has a better than average AI. If it were, Panther games and SSG would outsell everything else by Matrix 10:1. We do not buy games because the AI is good, we buy games and hope. So in all fairness, why should Slitherine cut back on features or spend money on AI which is unnecessary to sell their games?


Hi :)

Overall in your post you made some valid points.

I wonder if game sales in our hobby isn't also related to the type of game being offered?

SSG games to date may have excellent AI, but I am less interested in para operations or single scenarios, then I am in large strategic level games, such as the one by Matrix (UV), Slitherine (CEaW) and Battlefront (SC).

It seems that a majority of wargamers prefer the larger strategic level games. This has less to do with AI, and more to do with game preference.

If SSG decides one day to apply their AI expertise to a large strategic game of WWII, then they will no doubt garner even more attention.

For some reason I like the simplicity of the CEaW and SC game designs....



Joe D. -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/29/2007 6:18:26 PM)

Overall, some very thoughtful -- and very long -- posts.

BoA has a decent AI, but it abstracts many features and gives the user fewer tactical options. However "Athena" -- its AI -- works well; there's even an extended AI time feature that's very effective, not unlike the "think on opponent's time" option on my Kasparov Chess Computer, which I set to beat me most every time (think Mr. Spock on that old Star Trek episode).

Also, I think it's easier to mod ball and musket and other primitive warfare -- i.e, no air, subs, etc., -- than most modern conflicts.

Some time ago I bought the original Superpower , a modern sim that boasted a neural net AI that was not pre-scripted and supposedly learned; the result was that the oddest pairs of nations went to war w/each other, always ending in WWIII.

Sid Meir's Civ AI usually got my goat, whether I won or not.



jcorbin -> RE: AI Development and Our Hobby (6/29/2007 6:53:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

Finally, IMHO the second greatest problem with AI development is us. There's simply not enough of a selling point when a game has a better than average AI. If it were, Panther games and SSG would outsell everything else by Matrix 10:1. We do not buy games because the AI is good, we buy games and hope. So in all fairness, why should Slitherine cut back on features or spend money on AI which is unnecessary to sell their games?



We wargamers obviously represent a very small portion of the overall strategy gaming market, especially when you factor in so many RTS titles. But when you look at the sales for the turn-based segment of this same market--in particular the "Civilization" series and the "Rome: Total War" series--these titles clearly indicate that we have a segment that might be willing to crossover into wargaming if the following things occurred:

1) Wargame developers received enough funding to improve their presentation. For example, I am currently playing Strategic Command 2 for the first time and the very first thing I noticed is the poor UI design. The game is definitely fun, despite it's many abstractions, but the UI is not fun at all--in particular the non-intuitive toolbar running along the right side of the screen. Of course, you seem to have one guy (Hubert Cater) doing all of the programming, undoubtedly on a shoestring budget, so this is probably to be expected. One drools at the possibility of an investor throwing money at a small company like Fury Software in order to improve the game's presentation. Meanwhile CEAW has the classic hexagon look. Many young non-wargamers will take one look at this presentation and say "Now that looks like a wargame my father used to play back in the seventies. I'm not really interested." SC2, as I understand, changed its look from the classic hexagon to isometric tiles. Is it flashy? Obviously not. Does it differ from the traditional look? Yes. Would the non-hexagonal look appeal more to non-wargamers? My guess would be yes.

2) Wargame developers created products that mainstream gamers would find more appealing. An obvious example would be more streamlined play. This appears to be what CEAW has attempted. What worked so well for the Panzer General series years ago might, in a 21st century incarnation, work even better now. Time will tell. Certainly the "Hearts of Iron" series suffers from its initial complexity (until you figure out all of the game's nuances) and, in so doing, only caters to the niche market.

3) Wargame developers created better AI. And now we're back to the reason I started this thread. Marc's point above is well taken, but I strongly believe that a really good AI will always remain a clear selling point, especially when coupled with points 1 and 2. Slitherine certainly knows this, judging from the references on the following patch candidate list, which has a few proposed AI fixes:

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3624




dtx175 -> Decades of Development (6/29/2007 8:31:26 PM)

To get some insight in the difficulty of programming AI to "think" and "see" a game board like a human, I recommend "How Computers Play Chess."  It's ideas are applicable to computer wargames as well. 

AI can't "see" the map - it only "knows" what the programmer has assigned as numerical representations on a map (everything a computer "knows" is numeric -ultimately just 0s & 1s).  Similarly, each unit on each hex of the map represent a different number. 

To give some sense of this, one of the programmers for Big Blue (the IBM supercomputer that played world-class chess) did his entire PhD thesis on the value of a knight in the center 4 squares of the board.  Wargame maps and their units are far more complex than a chess board and we unfortunately don't have people doing PhD theses calculating the value of a invading division in the hexsides of the coast of France.

Also, the programming for computer chess began in the 1960s and chess programs of today benefit from these decades of development.  Chess pieces and chess boards remain the same and the computer algorithms can be steadily refined.  In contrast, wargame maps and their pieces constantly change. 

As I play entirely against the computer, I always want better AI - but I accept that better AI is a huge challenge.   



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.5