RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III



Message

ralphtricky -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/6/2014 3:11:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
But some of Elmers' basics lack, and I think this might create difficulties in getting a decent Strategic Elmer. I have no programming education so I can't speak intelligently on AI theory, but if everything that a human player sees can be transformed into math, I don't see why a PO can't reach a reasonable conclusion to situations. A human player can look at the front line and see where the weakness is, then can make adjustments. Overall this decision is based on mathmatical calculations of unit strengths. A program ought to be able to make the same calculations and arrive at reasonable conclusions, I would think. But Elmer often likes to overstack and not protect unit flanks. This degrades many scenarios into an excersise of denying supply to the PO in order to reduce its units, as opposed to being an excersise in strategy and tactics.

It can, there is a thing called 'Influence maps' that lets you do analysis like that, but those are really more at the strategic level and not just the formation, which is part of where Elmer lacks.

He should not be overstacking, I'll look at that and the flanking. Part of that is that he can be much less cautious depending on the formation stance.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/6/2014 4:40:09 PM)

quote:

He should not be overstacking, I'll look at that and the flanking. Part of that is that he can be much less cautious depending on the formation stance.


Part of it is also the design of a scenario. Formation size, unit size and objective locations can all be changed by the designer in order to gain better results. Its the time it takes to do these things that seems to be a big detriment to designers, along with the apprehension of doing something they haven't done before.

Maybe we should pick a scenario to use as a tester which might also serve as an instructor. I might be able to do an AAR type thread to illustrate. This might help designers become familiar with PO aspects, and it might help Ralph see real world examples.



governato -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/6/2014 4:48:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

He should not be overstacking, I'll look at that and the flanking. Part of that is that he can be much less cautious depending on the formation stance.


Part of it is also the design of a scenario. Formation size, unit size and objective locations can all be changed by the designer in order to gain better results. Its the time it takes to do these things that seems to be a big detriment to designers, along with the apprehension of doing something they haven't done before.

Maybe we should pick a scenario to use as a tester which might also serve as an instructor. I might be able to do an AAR type thread to illustrate. This might help designers become familiar with PO aspects, and it might help Ralph see real world examples.


I think that is an excellent idea, and perhaps it could be used as a 'benchmark' to test new PO features?



ralphtricky -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/6/2014 4:57:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

He should not be overstacking, I'll look at that and the flanking. Part of that is that he can be much less cautious depending on the formation stance.


Part of it is also the design of a scenario. Formation size, unit size and objective locations can all be changed by the designer in order to gain better results. Its the time it takes to do these things that seems to be a big detriment to designers, along with the apprehension of doing something they haven't done before.

Maybe we should pick a scenario to use as a tester which might also serve as an instructor. I might be able to do an AAR type thread to illustrate. This might help designers become familiar with PO aspects, and it might help Ralph see real world examples.

That would help. It would also let me give feedback about WHY Elmer does some of the stupid things he does. Not that I'm admitting that he does anything stupid of course[:'(]



golden delicious -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/6/2014 9:09:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The PO, so far, has more or less been a black hole down which limitless code can be pored without any real improvement.


The PO has got better- thought it's still not great. However...

quote:

The cost of pursuing the more elaborate of these will be in fewer actual game features. We don't have infinite coding time.


...nevertheless I agree. The PO is not a priority for me in terms of Ralph's time.



governato -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/6/2014 10:02:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The PO, so far, has more or less been a black hole down which limitless code can be pored without any real improvement.


The PO has got better- thought it's still not great. However...

quote:

The cost of pursuing the more elaborate of these will be in fewer actual game features. We don't have infinite coding time.


...nevertheless I agree. The PO is not a priority for me in terms of Ralph's time.



I respectfully disagree with my esteemed colleagues [:)]. I suspect that most people play wargames against the PO (this was mentioned several times by the developers on the WITE forum). A better PO would certainly help selling the game, which in turn would support further developments for the game engine. Win win.
For scenario developers: having a better PO to test the event chain or the late stages of a scenario without having to play it over and over again is pretty invaluable, eventually producing better scenarios, which again creates a positive cycle. I trust the developers to divide their finite resources in the most efficient way!




Falcon1 -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/6/2014 10:35:01 PM)

I second that and even take it a step further. I would wager that the vast majority of wargamers never play online or by email. If it weren't for solitaire players, no war games would ever be developed. Many people feel otherwise only because online players are always over-represented on internet forums.



Telumar -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/6/2014 10:44:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: governato


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The PO, so far, has more or less been a black hole down which limitless code can be pored without any real improvement.


The PO has got better- thought it's still not great. However...

quote:

The cost of pursuing the more elaborate of these will be in fewer actual game features. We don't have infinite coding time.


...nevertheless I agree. The PO is not a priority for me in terms of Ralph's time.



I respectfully disagree with my esteemed colleagues [:)]. I suspect that most people play wargames against the PO (this was mentioned several times by the developers on the WITE forum). A better PO would certainly help selling the game, which in turn would support further developments for the game engine. Win win.
For scenario developers: having a better PO to test the event chain or the late stages of a scenario without having to play it over and over again is pretty invaluable, eventually producing better scenarios, which again creates a positive cycle. I trust the developers to divide their finite resources in the most efficient way!




I'm absolutely with Governato. +1



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/6/2014 11:55:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The PO, so far, has more or less been a black hole down which limitless code can be pored without any real improvement.



I respectfully disagree with my esteemed colleagues [:)]. I suspect that most people play wargames against the PO (this was mentioned several times by the developers on the WITE forum). A better PO would certainly help selling the game, which in turn would support further developments for the game engine. Win win.
For scenario developers: having a better PO to test the event chain or the late stages of a scenario without having to play it over and over again is pretty invaluable, eventually producing better scenarios, which again creates a positive cycle. I trust the developers to divide their finite resources in the most efficient way!


I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying that an improved PO wouldn't be a good thing. I was saying that it is close to a pipe dream. It would be a really good thing to win the State Lottery. But should I be blowing my paycheck on State Lottery tickets? What if we made all these improvements to the PO and it turned out not to be much better than it is now? Or what if few if any designers used the new improvements? (Check how many scenarios have been designed without a single track on either side programmed).



ralphtricky -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/7/2014 1:40:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying that an improved PO wouldn't be a good thing. I was saying that it is close to a pipe dream. It would be a really good thing to win the State Lottery. But should I be blowing my paycheck on State Lottery tickets? What if we made all these improvements to the PO and it turned out not to be much better than it is now? Or what if few if any designers used the new improvements? (Check how many scenarios have been designed without a single track on either side programmed).

Let me try to set expectations.

Don't expect Elmer to be able to suddenly turn a flank, devastate your rear lines, surround the remaining units then withdraw gracefully from your reinforcements this release. I do want to spend as much time as I can in doing other things.

A great AI will take at least 1-2 years of development. The formation AI is a start. The current AI is a bit overly ambitious in some ways in how it tries to guess the stance it should be in which may make things worse, and definitely more confusing. I like the idea of a master panel as a step that would be simple to implement and provide value. Unit flanking and overstacking should be simple. Supply and rotation can be improved. I may try to do something like see where the formations are on their objectives compared to adjacent formations and do something based on that.

I'll start on the strategic AI, but it's got to be juggled with other tasks. I should be able to start but I don't expect to finish it this year.

If I can get the UI and functionality where I want them, I might consider an enhanced solo mode or something where the PBEM opponent would be responsible only for the AI settings. That isn't anything I've put any thought into, but it might make for interesting gameplay where some judges administer solo games.

Once I figure out how much time everything is going to take I'll be able to make plans.



ralphtricky -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/7/2014 3:40:49 AM)

quote:

I do want to spend as much time as I can in doing other things.

I mean in the AI other than the strategic layer.



Martin_Goliath -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/7/2014 7:13:26 PM)

Ralph,
I think I remember you talking about using A-star search to improve AI movement a long time ago. By chance, I came across a report at work where they use the same method to let an AI select the best operational plan http://www.foi.se/rapport?rNo=FOI-R--3635--SE. Of course, those guys simulate tens of thousands of cases, and that would turn TOAW into a CPU-eating monster. However, there might be something in it that can move us beyond objective tracks without increasing computing needs excessively.
Regards,
Martin



governato -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/7/2014 7:23:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarGol

Ralph,
I think I remember you talking about using A-star search to improve AI movement a long time ago. By chance, I came across a report at work where they use the same method to let an AI select the best operational plan http://www.foi.se/rapport?rNo=FOI-R--3635--SE. Of course, those guys simulate tens of thousands of cases, and that would turn TOAW into a CPU-eating monster. However, there might be something in it that can move us beyond objective tracks without increasing computing needs excessively.
Regards,
Martin


Again, with an eye firmly on time and resources constraints, I'd be happy to play with different levels of PO 'smartness', or having to wait a few minutes for the PO move in larger scenarios. And computers are a lot faster than when TOAW (or even v3.4) came up.



ralphtricky -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/7/2014 8:00:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
Again, with an eye firmly on time and resources constraints, I'd be happy to play with different levels of PO 'smartness', or having to wait a few minutes for the PO move in larger scenarios. And computers are a lot faster than when TOAW (or even v3.4) came up.

Much as I wish that were true, any one core of a computer really isn't all that much faster. To really speed up parts of TOAW, they need to be rewritten for multi-core CPUs. Those same pieces can also have their core routines rewritten to new algorithms, which is much simpler.

Chess is one area where throwing more hardware at is has made the AI unbeatable. Go and many other games really need smarter algorithms, just adding more cpu power doesn't help a lot.



ralphtricky -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/7/2014 8:40:40 PM)

Here's a good talk about the difference between 'good' and 'fun' AI. Eventually, I also want to add 'personality' to the AIs, some might be more aggressive, some might be more passive. Usage of armor for breakthroughs, different levels of reserves might be kept, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJcuQQ1eWWI&feature=sub



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/8/2014 2:39:03 AM)

Thanks for the link. It seems he might allude to 'strategic' level stuff at the 54 minute mark.

TOAW is obviously far more complex than chess or checkers. I don't know anything about Civilization so I don't know how TOAW compares to that, but it seems TOAW is much simplier (no Temple building or Tech Trading).



Foggy -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/8/2014 1:17:40 PM)

I always PBEM - PO playing is just wasting time. I don't think the majority of TAOW play the PO except for scen tweaking or deciding on a scen [8|]



tcarusil -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/8/2014 3:22:50 PM)

Speaking for those of us who are not 5 star generals, PO playing provides me with my only chance of success.[;)]
quote:

ORIGINAL: Foggy

I always PBEM - PO playing is just wasting time. I don't think the majority of TAOW play the PO except for scen tweaking or deciding on a scen [8|]


TomC



ralphtricky -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/8/2014 3:37:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
Thanks for the link. It seems he might allude to 'strategic' level stuff at the 54 minute mark.

TOAW is obviously far more complex than chess or checkers. I don't know anything about Civilization so I don't know how TOAW compares to that, but it seems TOAW is much simplier (no Temple building or Tech Trading).

It's both from an AI standpoint. It's more complex in that it has several different systems and a random map. You also want to stage units behind the line for an assault which I haven't seen a lot of in TOAW. In TOAW, people replay scenarios and want different results. In addition, it should follow the historic path is some scenarios which isn't always the 'best' path.



Lobster -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/8/2014 5:44:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Foggy

I always PBEM - PO playing is just wasting time. I don't think the majority of TAOW play the PO except for scen tweaking or deciding on a scen [8|]


I would hope this is not true. If it were then this game is in a very sorry state in regards to how many play. Looking at the opponents wanted at several different sites it would then seem only about two dozen or so actually play the game according to your 'the majority' statement.

What you don't see on this site as well as the others are the number of people who might be playing and do not bother posting because they play the PO. I prefer to think there is a large silent majority and the posters are only the tip of an iceberg. Otherwise it would be rather depressing thinking so few think this great game is worth bothering with.



golden delicious -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/8/2014 6:32:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Here's a good talk about the difference between 'good' and 'fun' AI. Eventually, I also want to add 'personality' to the AIs, some might be more aggressive, some might be more passive. Usage of armor for breakthroughs, different levels of reserves might be kept, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJcuQQ1eWWI&feature=sub



IF year = 1900 AND playerwinning = "Yes" THEN DOWHuman()

Wow.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/8/2014 7:56:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Foggy

I always PBEM - PO playing is just wasting time. I don't think the majority of TAOW play the PO except for scen tweaking or deciding on a scen [8|]


I don't share the same opinion. For example, if I consider there are 200 players enjoying their Saturday by playing TOAW, I can't imagine there are 80 pbem matches going on while only 40 play solitaire. I would think the numbers would be reversed.

In that video, the Civ developers stated that 95% of their players play solitaire. I would bet that TOAW has a number similar to that. I'm not lobbying for one experience being 'better' than the other, I'm saying that its more difficult to find an opponent than it is to play solitaire.



Rodwonder -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/8/2014 8:03:58 PM)

I'm part of that silent majority... [;)]



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/8/2014 8:06:55 PM)

quote:

... several different systems and a random map.


The Map ! I remember seeing a show about robots negotiating terrain on their own. It looked very impressive until they put the robots on an unfamiliar course. They quickly started running into stuff. And poor Elmer, he has no video eyes to see our maps, how can he play at all ??

quote:

... stage units behind the line for an assault which I haven't seen a lot of in TOAW.


Me either, and it annoys me. Along with playing with no reserves. I haven't come to a conclusion if this is a fault of scenario design or TOAW in general.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/8/2014 8:13:14 PM)

quote:

IF year = 1900 AND playerwinning = "Yes" THEN DOWHuman()

Wow.


Yes Ben, the computer CHEATS !

I KNEW IT !! [:@]



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/8/2014 8:48:35 PM)

quote:

He should not be overstacking, I'll look at that and the flanking. Part of that is that he can be much less cautious depending on the formation stance.


I just realised that changes may have been made since 3.4 or early 3.5, so I may be using an outdated Elmer. Sorry about that.



golden delicious -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/8/2014 9:02:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I don't share the same opinion. For example, if I consider there are 200 players enjoying their Saturday by playing TOAW, I can't imagine there are 80 pbem matches going on while only 40 play solitaire. I would think the numbers would be reversed.


Well;
a) it's probably more like 20 and
b) otherwise you're factually correct. Even I've started more matches vs. PO than I have PBEM. However, a clear majority of the fun I've had has been from PBEM.



golden delicious -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/8/2014 9:11:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Me either, and it annoys me. Along with playing with no reserves. I haven't come to a conclusion if this is a fault of scenario design or TOAW in general.


Ok;
1. Staging units behind the line before an attack
a) I like to have units staged- but all over the place with inconspicuous deployments. If they just sit right where the offensive is going to be, the other guy is going to figure out what you're doing and move HIS reserves accordingly.
b) TOAW in general doesn't feature a lot of prepared attacks on static lines. Where these happen they happen at the beginning of the scenario and everything is laid out for you. Thereafter it's a lot more rewarding to exploit than it is to prepare a new attack.
c) I have the impression that, in the scope of a half-week turn, units won't be all nicely lined up together for more than a brief moment.

2. Reserves
a) Obviously in any small scenario units which aren't fighting for a prolonged period are a bit of a waste. If something goes wrong there are normally spare units on the line you can juggle around. A unit might come off the line, sure, but next turn it'll go back in.
b) In large scenarios I do routinely see reserves used and use reserves myself when acting on the defence. An excellent example of this is my recent AAR of Fall Grau v2.9. I used armoured reserves pretty effectively both to make counterattacks and to create a fear of counterattacks- although admittedly I lost the match.
c) If one is in the process of attacking, you shouldn't really be holding anything back. Units might be a couple of hexes behind because they're not needed for assaults this round- but they should be ready to go in as soon as they're needed. If you're making two prongs and you're not sure which one will need the reinforcement, you're probably better off swapping units between the prongs when matters become clear than weakening one or both from the outset.



golden delicious -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/8/2014 9:13:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Yes Ben, the computer CHEATS !

I KNEW IT !! [:@]


I knew the computer cheated- the production multipliers he talks about are pretty well known, and in Civ2 the AI cheats in some pretty brazenly obvious ways.

But that line of code he described is just outrageous. I guess in 1991 that's what game design was like.



governato -> RE: Strategy 101 resources wanted (2/13/2014 3:40:35 AM)



Ralph,

There is an hour long lecture from Dave O'Connor, (Arjuna), the developer of Command Ops here:

http://www.wargamer.com/hosted/dropzone/articles/index.html

You are probably familiar with the description of the game, but the audio file on the AI algorithms is quite interesting and the short articles are hopefully useful to improve the AI a bit.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.21875