An AI Player's AE Concerns (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

DD696 -> An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/8/2007 6:13:49 PM)

PBEM only players, this is not for you.

As an AI only player, I am profoundly impressed with the latest round of changes that are being made to this game. The database expansion hopefully will be more than adequate years after it has been released. The order of battle is being greatly improved upon. The scale of the map will be improved and greater detail available. Many good things to drool over and shout about. And maybe one that isn't.

Reading through the new threads (land, air, naval, map, and general) it appears that virtually any question can be answered - except those that ask anything about how the AI will be improved. To those questions there is a universal theme of "It's being looked at". We can get specific answers to questions about midget subs, oil production, fuel refineries, aircraft performance, etc., but no one will say how the AI will be enhanced. One project member says they have been secretly working on this project for two years. Another says a year and a half. If it has been worked on for this long, then any project leader will tell you that they would have detailed plans drawn up for working on all aspects of the project and that all tasks are laid out, step by step (and yes, I have been a project leader as a Senior Systems Analyst in the data processing environment). It should be known what they are going to do, if anything, otherwise I wonder if anything truly good could come of it. If it is known, why no answers?

I think very specific questions need to be asked regarding AI behavior. For example, will a ship that has been torpedoed proceed to the nearest port of refuge (and not into an area under port attack) or will it continue upon it's merry way across thousands of miles of ocean until it sinks? Will the AI continue to send carrier task forces up against impossible land based air forces until they have been sunk? Look at what the Japanese AI does with its carrier task forces in the Milne Bay/Port Morsby area? It is possible to sink a good portion of Japanese naval assets there with a few squadrons of A-24's and B-25's (operating from at least 10,000 feet). Will the AI actually use it's assets in the latter part of the war? Could Yamato (if still afloat) sortie against forces invading Okinawa? Has the been changes made to the AI behavior so that the Japanese AI is not deathly afraid of six PT boats stationed at Guadacanal? I used to use them there and wondered why the AI would never contest me at Guadacanal. Then I stopped using them there, and elsewhere, and the AI did make some effort against those bases. Will the AI still only send one lone submarine to cruise around Colombo for one solitary cruise? Will the AI lose the vast majority of it's submarines off the coast of eastern Austrailia in it's effort to build up the Great Barrier Reef? Can a player have any hope of encountering enemy AI controlled combat task forces after 1942? Or is the war going to be limited to 1941 and 1942? Will the Japanese economy still be able to collapse for some indetermined reason when it does have adaquate oil, resources and shipping available? Will there be some variety to it's actions? Why could it not have options? Will the AI have some reaction to a player's actions? If I capture Marcus Island in 1942 I would think that Tojo might take some notice of that fact. Will the AI make a random stab at the Alaskan territory? Will the AI always stop at Guadacanal? Note that my questions always come as an Allied player. I am sure those who play as the Japanese against an allied AI will have many of their own.

I seem to recall that when WITP was first released that it was touted that the AI had the capability to take different paths. For example, it may attempt a Solomons strategy, or go for the Indian Ocean, or try for the eastern Pacific area, or try for Austrailia. I recall that there were to be four different opening gambits for it to try, but I could be wrong. I have only seen one. The game was hyped as having a capable AI. After the games release any time anyone suggested improving the AI they were hooted at, snickered over and poo-pooed at, which will happen to me (just note what happened with Herwin's suggestions in the AAR section).

So, the question I raised in the General AE discussion thread still remains unanswered - who is the advocate for the AI players? Who is attempting to address the concerns of the AI player? Where is the AI thread? Who is programming the AI? What are the plans to do so? Who do we ask questions of regarding AI behavior and the improvement thereof? I feel that anyone who is interested in improving the behavior of the AI needs to speak up now and let their specific concerns be known, or else these concerns are going to be lost amongst all the gasping and googling over the pretty new art, aircraft characteristics, ship improvements, and land units (of which the effort make on is truly commendable). Can the same be said of the AI? Speak up now, or wonder why later as you kick yourself in the posterior. I know that I am not the only one who is concerned by this. It is time, now, for your questions and concerns.



Erik Rutins -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/8/2007 6:59:04 PM)

Well, we've responded to a few of your questions already, but I understand you want specifics. We can't give specifics yet - when you embark on this many changes, it's almost like building a new game. The AI is generally the last piece to be put back together after all the other changes (which it needs to adapt to) have been completed. WITP already has a working AI, but we are still in the process of updating it and finding out how it deals with all the new stuff. Our absolute minimum goal is that the AI be no worse than it currently is. I hope it will be better, but testing and development between now and Summer 2008 will determine that. I also expect that most of the many great improvements in the game in non-AI areas will make the game play out much better against the AI as well.

As far as advocates for the AI player, well we all pretty much are (or I'd suspect about 70% anyway). I can say however that the project leadership is very much aware of the remaining AI work to be done and that we all want to see an AI that is as good or hopefully better than that in WITP, along with all the additional improvements.

So, the simple reason you haven't had any concrete answers on AI specifics yet is that the AI is the last piece to finalized and re-tested and so that area is very much "under construction". Feel free to post suggestions and concerns, but realize that the AI is not a low priority, we're just at a point in the project where the other areas are much more solid and can be more easily discussed.

Regards,

- Erik



Buck Beach -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/8/2007 7:07:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

PBEM only players, this is not for you.

As an AI only player, I am profoundly impressed with the latest round of changes that are being made to this game. The database expansion hopefully will be more than adequate years after it has been released. The order of battle is being greatly improved upon. The scale of the map will be improved and greater detail available. Many good things to drool over and shout about. And maybe one that isn't.

Reading through the new threads (land, air, naval, map, and general) it appears that virtually any question can be answered - except those that ask anything about how the AI will be improved. To those questions there is a universal theme of "It's being looked at". We can get specific answers to questions about midget subs, oil production, fuel refineries, aircraft performance, etc., but no one will say how the AI will be enhanced. One project member says they have been secretly working on this project for two years. Another says a year and a half. If it has been worked on for this long, then any project leader will tell you that they would have detailed plans drawn up for working on all aspects of the project and that all tasks are laid out, step by step (and yes, I have been a project leader as a Senior Systems Analyst in the data processing environment). It should be known what they are going to do, if anything, otherwise I wonder if anything truly good could come of it. If it is known, why no answers?

I think very specific questions need to be asked regarding AI behavior. For example, will a ship that has been torpedoed proceed to the nearest port of refuge (and not into an area under port attack) or will it continue upon it's merry way across thousands of miles of ocean until it sinks? Will the AI continue to send carrier task forces up against impossible land based air forces until they have been sunk? Look at what the Japanese AI does with its carrier task forces in the Milne Bay/Port Morsby area? It is possible to sink a good portion of Japanese naval assets there with a few squadrons of A-24's and B-25's (operating from at least 10,000 feet). Will the AI actually use it's assets in the latter part of the war? Could Yamato (if still afloat) sortie against forces invading Okinawa? Has the been changes made to the AI behavior so that the Japanese AI is not deathly afraid of six PT boats stationed at Guadacanal? I used to use them there and wondered why the AI would never contest me at Guadacanal. Then I stopped using them there, and elsewhere, and the AI did make some effort against those bases. Will the AI still only send one lone submarine to cruise around Colombo for one solitary cruise? Will the AI lose the vast majority of it's submarines off the coast of eastern Austrailia in it's effort to build up the Great Barrier Reef? Can a player have any hope of encountering enemy AI controlled combat task forces after 1942? Or is the war going to be limited to 1941 and 1942? Will the Japanese economy still be able to collapse for some indetermined reason when it does have adaquate oil, resources and shipping available? Will there be some variety to it's actions? Why could it not have options? Will the AI have some reaction to a player's actions? If I capture Marcus Island in 1942 I would think that Tojo might take some notice of that fact. Will the AI make a random stab at the Alaskan territory? Will the AI always stop at Guadacanal? Note that my questions always come as an Allied player. I am sure those who play as the Japanese against an allied AI will have many of their own.

I seem to recall that when WITP was first released that it was touted that the AI had the capability to take different paths. For example, it may attempt a Solomons strategy, or go for the Indian Ocean, or try for the eastern Pacific area, or try for Austrailia. I recall that there were to be four different opening gambits for it to try, but I could be wrong. I have only seen one. The game was hyped as having a capable AI. After the games release any time anyone suggested improving the AI they were hooted at, snickered over and poo-pooed at, which will happen to me (just note what happened with Herwin's suggestions in the AAR section).

So, the question I raised in the General AE discussion thread still remains unanswered - who is the advocate for the AI players? Who is attempting to address the concerns of the AI player? Where is the AI thread? Who is programming the AI? What are the plans to do so? Who do we ask questions of regarding AI behavior and the improvement thereof? I feel that anyone who is interested in improving the behavior of the AI needs to speak up now and let their specific concerns be known, or else these concerns are going to be lost amongst all the gasping and googling over the pretty new art, aircraft characteristics, ship improvements, and land units (of which the effort make on is truly commendable). Can the same be said of the AI? Speak up now, or wonder why later as you kick yourself in the posterior. I know that I am not the only one who is concerned by this. It is time, now, for your questions and concerns.


I know the questions are not directed at me and I know nothing from nothing. Having said that, let's think about it. None of us have heard (I don't think) of any great strides in any games AI improvement. We are just not there. The complexities of WITP were more than the AI (for the lack of a better term) could handle. AE is double or triple the game and complexity of WITP.

DD696, the silence is deafening and I can feel that Matrix (et al) don't want to say the obvious. And, I think you may be looking for answers you really don't want to hear. If you want me to say it "AE is for PBEM"

Hope and pray that I am wrong and that miracles happen, but I think not.
I am an AI only player.

I see you do have a response from Matrix now and I guess my post is unnecessary. However, my nature is pessimistic and I don't see much of a future of me being able to enjoy much of the great things in this new addition. I could always play HEAD TO HEAD, but I can hardly keep up playing one side.



AW1Steve -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/8/2007 8:39:49 PM)

[:)] How ever it works out Erik , thanks. We know you guys are trying your best. We always wish you luck , and you should know that we are your biggest fans.    My only request , and please don't take this as anything critical, is if you can take the time away from this monumentous project for an occassional update to your progress , we would all be very ,very greatfull. Thanks again...[&o][&o][&o]



Captain Cruft -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/8/2007 9:48:02 PM)

I think it might be better to just admit that it's impossible to make an AI for something as complex as this that isn't utterly useless. Then we could have the thing earlier.

That won't happen of course. Although this is a real labour of love, it's still a commercial venture. Though for how much longer this industry can keep selling something that doesn't exist I'm not sure. As long as people keep buying I guess ...



wworld7 -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/8/2007 9:55:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

I think it might be better to just admit that it's impossible to make an AI for something as complex as this that isn't utterly useless. Then we could have the thing earlier.

That won't happen of course. Although this is a real labour of love, it's still a commercial venture. Though for how much longer this industry can keep selling something that doesn't exist I'm not sure. As long as people keep buying I guess ...



They will do the best they can. Earlier is often not better. Rushing creates an increase in things missed. So no rushing...please.



Captain Cruft -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/8/2007 10:05:36 PM)

I meant ditch the AI. Or just keep the existing one, which will still be in the code though doubtless it would perform even worse.

That would make it arrive earlier.

Don't worry I have no expectation that this will actually happen.



Captain Cruft -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/8/2007 10:07:19 PM)

BTW in case anyone think's I am an ardent PBEMer that's not really true. I have spent far more time playing the AI than PBEM, and though PBEM is inherently better the gamey aspect stopped me playing that too.

I just can't see the point of pretending that you can make a good AI that's all. Though to be fair Erik's last post doesn't really do that. So you might say that in this specific case, where it's not a new game and everyone knows how to play it, that working on the AI is indeed pointless. Just release the thing for PBEM only.



Mike Scholl -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/8/2007 10:18:18 PM)

Something for all you AI players to consider. As long as the game is built on 2by3's original code it's doubtful there CAN be any big improvement in AI performance. Your real hope will be WITP II with new and more flexible code..., and that's still years off.

But with the advent of the "Admiral's Edition", EVERYONE is going to be in "the same boat" skill and experiance wise. Good time to try out PBEM..., everyone will be on a level playing field. And with so many "AI only" players coming out to comment now, you can also find some opponants who have the same type of time constraints you do and are willing to play a slower and somewhat spasmatically timed game.

I'd love a really challanging AI myself for playing whenever I feel like it (I'm retired and keep odd hours). But I don't see how with 2by3's kludgy hard-coding it's going to be possible in this incarnation. My hope is that some of the shorter scenarios which can handle heavy "scripting" will provide a better "solitaire" challange. But in the big campaigns it would seem impossible for the AI to meet the needs of AI-only gamers.



wdolson -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/8/2007 10:56:45 PM)

I understand the explanations about the AI.  One of the programmers weighed in the other day in the AI thread before the announcement.  From what he was saying, it sounded like he had been looking at the AI lately.

One of the biggest limitations with modifying the AI is how much time it takes to do its tasks.  It is technically possible to make the AI much smarter, but players aren't going to be happy if it takes an hour or more to process a turn.  The new computer requirements are one indication of how much more computing overhead there is now, before changes to the AI.  It sounds like the code for all the AE changes is being done right now.  Nobody knows yet how much more time the new routines are going to eat up and how much overhead will be left for the AI to do its thing.

Once the timing issues are known, the team can look at how much smarter the AI can be made.  I've worked on a lot of real time systems.  There are situations when you aren't completely sure how much time various routines are going to take until you write them and test them out.  You can usually get an estimate of how long things will take, but won't know your timing budget until some parts are working. 

I think the reason the development team is being vague is that they don't want to promise something they can't deliver, so they are not saying anything concrete until they have more data.   It may be frustrating to hear, but I understand it.

Bill



mjk428 -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/8/2007 11:02:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Our absolute minimum goal is that the AI be no worse than it currently is.


If this absolute minimum goal is not met, will you please do this AI player a favor and release it as a PBEM expansion only. I know I'm not going to be able to resist this if there's even the slightest chance that the game is at all playable against a computer opponent.

I only raise this because with the additional features, it seems plausible that the AI's is going to start off even worse. IMO, it's going to take some expertise and effort to bring it back up to the disheartening, albeit understandable, minimum goal. If not PBEM only, maybe with a disclaimer that the AI aspect is beta & unsupported.

Finally, thank you for being so upfront about this aspect of the game. I might buy it even if only to play head to head solitaire - just for the opportunity to move around the pieces.



Erik Rutins -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/8/2007 11:12:04 PM)

It seems to me that there's a lot of pessimism around without much basis. Can I please ask for some patience? We're not about to release AE right now, so there is still plenty of time for us to finish AI and balance work and give you some progress reports. The fact that we're not ready to discuss the AI now does not mean that there will be no AI - there will be an AI, we're just still working on it.

I'm going to move this into the sub-forum so that it will be next to the rest of the AE FAQ threads, since AI seems to be a big question area.



aztez -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/8/2007 11:42:35 PM)

I already said DD696 that the comments about this issue were harsh and utterly pessimistic.

Oh, ..and I'am not PBEM only player by no means. If they can improve the AI than good if not than so be it. I really doubt it is an easy task to do.

Keep your fingers crossed and hope for the best. As the development team stated they need to do other stuff first before they can tangle the AI. So, I doubt you are going to see much "specific" answers yet.

Witp is a huge game... and with those add onns revealed is going to be gigantic wargame.



Feinder -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/9/2007 12:07:42 AM)

I'm sorry, but how can you (3rd person, no one particular) possably complain a release that, hasn't even been released yet?  It's just a discussion of new features and couple of screen shots.

I'll hand it to Erik and the rest of the design staff.  These guys have busted their @sses to offer a major update and they're proud of it.  And yet there's already folks lining up with criticisms.

It's kind of like the a group that criticizes the movie without ever having seen it.

Criticism is fine, it makes for a better product.  But I'm thinking, maybe wait until there's actually a product before trashing it?

-F-



Erik Rutins -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/9/2007 12:19:54 AM)

Before this spirals out of control - all I'm asking for is some patience. The AI is a priority for us as well and we will keep you all posted. I don't feel anyone is trashing the game, I think these are just concerns, but I don't see that there's any basis for assuming that we will either release without an AI or with one that's much worse than WITP. Just give us the benefit of the doubt and we'll let you know how it goes.



mjk428 -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/9/2007 12:22:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

It seems to me that there's a lot of pessimism around without much basis. Can I please ask for some patience? We're not about to release AE right now, so there is still plenty of time for us to finish AI and balance work and give you some progress reports. The fact that we're not ready to discuss the AI now does not mean that there will be no AI - there will be an AI, we're just still working on it.

I'm going to move this into the sub-forum so that it will be next to the rest of the AE FAQ threads, since AI seems to be a big question area.


Just trying to manage my expectations. I dearly would love to be completely wrong in my expectations. Which are still cautiously optmistic despite my best efforts to tamp them down. :)

Again let me add that I appreciate your willingnes to discuss the subject at all. Thank you for that. I really, really mean it.



juliet7bravo -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/9/2007 12:25:39 AM)

Probably the biggest issue confronting the AI are the (to me) game breaking bugs and kludges inherent in WitP.  Human players can use "work arounds", "house rules" ect. to get around many of them...the poor AI can't, is basically porked, and has never had a chance.

However, if you look at the PR release, they're addressing most (all?) of the major (and many, many minor) issues we've collectively found, all the way back to UV release.  If these issues are "fixed", then even without an AI "upgrade", it'll be a great stride forward.  It isn't just the additional chrome and the game features we've begged for (for years), or even Brady's midget subs (major though they may be)...it's getting the game "working as designed".

Remember that one yammerhead front man for Matrix, whatszizname, with his "working as designed" BS?  Well, if they get the game "working as designed", the AI may have a fighting chance.  That'll effectively be an AI "upgrade".

Though I'm not holding my breath since no one evidently knows half of what goes on under the hood of WitP.  Hopefully there'll be a little less "working as designed" toeing the party line amongst the playtesters this time around, and a little more "this is FUBAR, let's re-look it".  Though I am very optimistic since all these guys are serious WitP players.



pad152 -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/9/2007 12:30:28 AM)

I too have concerns about the AI or lack of but, when I see there are now more people working (long time players, mod community members) on WITP AD then on the original WITP I have hope the best is yet to come!



Erik Rutins -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/9/2007 1:21:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo
However, if you look at the PR release, they're addressing most (all?) of the major (and many, many minor) issues we've collectively found, all the way back to UV release.  If these issues are "fixed", then even without an AI "upgrade", it'll be a great stride forward.


I think this is an excellent point and I hope it will indeed end up effectively improving the vs. AI game as well, but that remains to be seen.

Regards,

- Erik



Ian R -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/9/2007 2:38:51 AM)

Bill said:

"One of the biggest limitations with modifying the AI is how much time it takes to do its tasks.  It is technically possible to make the AI much smarter, but players aren't going to be happy if it takes an hour or more to process a turn. "
 
Bill are you hinting that  another development path could have been a simpler (ie less, rather than more units/data/"ants" such as 60 foot barges) game but using the exe with bugs fixed, which would make it more likely that the AI (or PO or whatever you want to call it) could be improved and work in a timely way?



Buck Beach -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/9/2007 2:41:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo
However, if you look at the PR release, they're addressing most (all?) of the major (and many, many minor) issues we've collectively found, all the way back to UV release.  If these issues are "fixed", then even without an AI "upgrade", it'll be a great stride forward.


I think this is an excellent point and I hope it will indeed end up effectively improving the vs. AI game as well, but that remains to be seen.

Regards,

- Erik



My pessimistic outlook for the new AI game is not based on it improving. I enjoy playing the current product with all its faults. My doubts are if you can maintain even the current level of performance with all the new goodies. If you can't then the new goodies are of no use to us (collectively speaking), but you can only do what you can do and I wouldn't blame Matrix or the developing group.

Having said that, I would hope that if and when the outcome is negative for the AI while being the PBEM game from heaven, then Matrix belly up to the bar and admit it can't be done and not hype it to the large percentage of us who play the AI. Then we can make an intelligent decision as to buy it or not.


Edit: Now that I read some of the previous posts, I see this has somewhat been said.



Buck Beach -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/9/2007 2:48:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognerd

Erik:
I have all the patience in the world. And I have confidence that the AI will be improved over existing.
After all there are alot of faithful WITP gamers on your team they have the passion to get it as best it can be.
I've often waited years to get games after the announcements, so for me this is a short wait.
You guys have done tremendous work here, absolutely!

PS Since I'm an older gamer, some day I'll wait for a game and die first, that will tick me off!


Coincidentally, I have thought about this (I swear it's true). Now this deserves a real "Get a life" response.



DD696 -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/9/2007 3:32:51 AM)

Erik, since any discussion that attempts to question the AI process and seeks to improve the gaming experience of the AI player is unacceptable to many and causes the usual responses, I request that you please lock this up.

Captain Cruft, I sincerely hope you get exactly what you wish for.

Aztec, no comment required.

Grognerd, I'm afraid that a PBEM game runs at too slow a pace for me. By the time a turn arrived I'd have to spend a day trying to figure out what it was that I had last done, and by not having a method to correct data errors and/or errors caused by code it just seems like a futile project to get involved in.

I sincerely apologize to all for any attempt at discussion to improve this game. I will strive not to do so again.

Please, lock it up and let it die.



Andy Mac -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/9/2007 4:08:31 AM)

I am going to jump in here because I am doing a lot of the strategic speccing thinking on the AI at present just as James is doing the programming we need to get a single module running to see the issues and we are doing a lot of work on it.

We have NOT lost sight of the AI but it was impossible to do anything until we had a stable build because there is no way to test it.

My no.1 focus after testing is the AI.

If we can get it working with the new feature and I think we will we will then try to make it sneakier - it will always be a scripted AI but within that boundary I want to make it as nasty and treacherous as we can but I can make no promises at this stage



Erik Rutins -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/9/2007 4:08:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696
Erik, since any discussion that attempts to question the AI process and seeks to improve the gaming experience of the AI player is unacceptable to many and causes the usual responses, I request that you please lock this up.


I really don't understand how you reached that conclusion. I've been nothing but honest about where we are and what we can really say at this point. I'm keeping this thread open for obvious reasons, the AI is an important area for AE and there is obviously more than one customer interested in these same question. As I said, it's too early to say anything definitive about it, but we'll post when we have some news.



juliet7bravo -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/9/2007 4:41:48 AM)

"My no.1 focus after testing is the AI"

Here's a suggestion from the peanut gallery...set a "housekeeping" routine for the AI to automatically run periodically, say once every 3-4 game months.  A total blatant cheat where it stops the game and goes through and cleans up any widows and orphans, breaks up any logjams of ships, teleports them back whence they belong, re-balances resources/supply, refresh minefields, ect., and re-thinks its strategy.  Kind of like "re-setting" it so it doesn't keep getting all jackered up as time progresses.  What the human player does constantly...



wdolson -> RE: An AI Player's AE Concerns (12/9/2007 4:46:47 AM)


Bill said:

"One of the biggest limitations with modifying the AI is how much time it takes to do its tasks. It is technically possible to make the AI much smarter, but players aren't going to be happy if it takes an hour or more to process a turn. "


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R
Bill are you hinting that another development path could have been a simpler (ie less, rather than more units/data/"ants" such as 60 foot barges) game but using the exe with bugs fixed, which would make it more likely that the AI (or PO or whatever you want to call it) could be improved and work in a timely way?


I didn't think I was hinting at anything. Though your point is valid, a simplified game would run faster.

I like most of the new features being proposed. The unit granularity combined with the scale is the one thing that makes this game virtually unique among computer games. I don't want to see any of the new features go away.

I am an AI only player, so the quality of the AI is something I am interested in. I was just sort of putting on my professional hat and thinking about the issue from a system design point of view. I don't exactly know where the team is in development. It sounds like quite a bit of work has been done. However, the programmers may just now be getting into the code and making the necessary changes. I know two of the programmers mentioned are the same people who have been working on the patches for WitP, so they have not been dedicating all their time to the project for the last year plus. I also don't know how many people are working on this full time and how many are doing it as a hobby in their spare time.

Until all the new code for the changes is up and running, they just won't know for sure how long it will take to process a turn. In the thread about the AI recently, one of the programmers said that one major limit on what the AI could do originally was how long it took to process a turn. If the AI thought took too many things into consideration, it slowed down significantly. Adding a variable rarely just adds linearly to the complexity, it can get complex geometrically.

They can probably make a ballpark guesstimate now on timing now, but I know from experience that making that too public will cause more problems than benefits in the long term. Until all the other code is up and running, their guesstimate could be off by a factor of 2 or 3, which will cut into their per turn time budget for the AI, or may be a big boon of the guess was off the other direction.

It sounds like the worst case will be the AI will be about as capable as it is now and the goal is to make it as good as possible within their technology limits. Requiring a 2 Ghz processor and recommending a 3 GHz is going to begin to limit the potential market for this game, at least until those machines become more common. Many players have said that they play WitP on older "beater" computers the rest of the family have abandoned. Unless they can convince their spouse to upgrade their computer, they won't be able to run this game, no matter how much they want it.

I think it's probably possible to make the turn processing code more efficient and free up more time for everything (and maybe even relax the processor requirements a bit), but it also sounds like digging that deep into the engine is being put off for future development. There is only so much that can be done at one time. This is already the biggest change to WitP to date.

Bill



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.544922