Distant Worlds AI

Distant Worlds AI (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series

Message

Icemania -> Distant Worlds AI (6/1/2014 1:19:00 AM)
A cross post from Steam. IMO this subject is important enough to merit more discussion on the official forums. ........ Distant Worlds is the best current Space 4X game. The reason I can't say it's the best Space 4X game ever is because of one reason alone ... the AI. For such a complex game I would say the AI is barely competent but nothing more. I'm not going to be too critical of a one man effort (with great development support from Matrix and ad-hoc others) but the lack of having a full-time AI Programmer in the team shows. Other games provide more of an AI challenge. There were more than a few occasions where the Gal Civ II AI beat me with better strategy. What is missing in the Distant Worlds AI is emulation of good human strategies. Many years ago I studied Advanced Expert Systems and then from time to time have got to build or use them out here in the real world. There is a LOT that could be done with the Distant Worlds AI without breaking current technology... In fact AI tax rates used in a pre-warp start are a classic example. For new colonies all the AI needs to do is simply set the tax rate at 0% until that colony reaches maximum population. Keep the existing algorithm for their original homeworld so that the AI has sufficient money to fund their expansion. Sure it's not optimal still but that one very simple change alone would make a massive difference. Early game I spend a lot of time doing Explorer micro due to how bad the Explorer AI is. The developer could: 1. Change the AI to change exploration targets when the resource is discovered (i.e. with Proximity Arrays). At the moment the AI will waste a huge amount of time going to the centre of the target and only then change targets. When a planet has ruins that need investigating this maybe needed but otherwise it should change missions as soon as the resources are revealed. 2. The AI does not prioritise exploration targets. Early game in nearby systems I may want to explore everything. But after that I focus on exploring planets with ruins, storyline targets (e.g. debris fields, supply outposts etc), planets that may have Super Luxuries (i.e. always certain types) and perhaps also colonisable planets. To improve this we could have an automation window that allows us to turn on or off AI exploration targets by category. This way time is not wasted exploring every useless ball of rock and gas giant in existence. Those two Explorer AI suggestions alone would massively decrease the time required by the AI to explore and find targets of strategic interest. Some Human Players would be more inclined to automate while the AI Empires would also be more competitive. The same for Research AI. And so on. But the reality is all this is probably going to have to wait for Distant Worlds 2. I really hope Matrix put an AI Programmer in the team which sole purpose in life is to challenge the player base. Or follow what Frogboy has in mind for Galactic Civilisations 3 e.g. using Steamworks to monitor player strategies and then use the best of those strategies in AI updates. Now despite all this I'm hooked on the game anyway. My steam profile says I've played a ridiculous number of hours already. I actually have an action plan this week so get back into my other hobby, Running, that somehow mysteriously stopped this last week!!! Just one more day of so much Distant Worlds, I promise!!! Since this is such an addictive game there are other ways to keep longevity: 1. Bump up the difficulty to Extreme. For an extra challenge start the game well behind other Empires. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3343520 2. Rather than cutting the legs off the horse ... see just how quickly you can dominate. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3484200 http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3618435 3. Participate in the Game of the Month. While nothing is yet set-up for Universe, I'm excited to see what is possible with the new Editor and Mod capabilities. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3576551

pycco -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/1/2014 2:35:24 AM)
that is just scratching the surface, the designs and how the ai decides what designs to use/make are the real limit. my ships easily defeat armadas of the ai's. given me an edge so big i can mess up severely and have no backlash at all. even the civilian ships designed by the ai are sub-par there FTL speed mainly is there set back, my civilian ships move double the speed there's do. meaning less shortages and when there is less time to transport the needed resources back, faster settler's movement means my worlds grow in population faster = an even bigger edge. the ai's defensive buildings are also a set back for them, a few ships can take out there defensive positions meaning i can use less ships to hold them in place and expand behind it, giving an even bigger edge. mixed with them not taxing the planets "right" means they are dealt a hand a human player would have a hard time dealing with. there attack's are weak because of there designs, which in turn means that i can defend it easily given me more room to maneuver increasing my edge even more. long story short there designs suck.

Icemania -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/1/2014 3:09:24 AM)
Fully agree on Ship Designs and how the AI's use them as per my posts in the references above.

Timotheus -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/1/2014 6:26:25 AM)
It really IS the ship design. The reason I started to play without automation was because I was totally dissatisfied with my race's ship and base designs. I think that it was a design decision to NOT optimize ship components in AI design/automatic ship design to make the game more flavorful. In my opinion it was a step in the wrong direction. Races should have their own tech trees, with some elements being shared amongst them. And then the races should logically optimize their designs for maximum effectivness (especially shield/armor/firepower up to their maximum size researched). Right now my full manual player designed ships can take on firepower odds of 1:3 or more and just cut them to shreds. Empires with huge firepower ratings are "false advertising" because their ship design is terribly optimized. I find the AI is VERY good in this respect - they use fleets to attack my systems, they use space invasions to take over my planets. But the ship design is a gigantic crutch for them, because while I do optimize my designs they do not. Also, my pet peeve is back - AI does NOT make enough troops to garrison their planets making the OP troop landings too viable of an option. Who cares about defensive stations and port with 3000 firepower and shields up the whazoo, as long as you land 50% of your troops you take over the planet AND the spaceport AND the defensive stations. This has been a problem (too easy for the player) for too many versions of this game. Also, fighters own. They simply own the AI. To the point that you can place a fighter component on each of your destroyers WAY, WAY BEFORE you have researched Carriers and then slap the smallest weapon you can find on it and voila! Instant escort carrier. A fleet of those rips everything in a system.

Sithuk -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/1/2014 7:41:40 AM)
Agree with the comments above. My priorities for AI optimisation are: 1. ship design 2. tax (to maximise population growth) 3. explorer. I'd rather Elliot spent the time on the UI tweaks than the explorer AI though. I play without the story lines and would turn off the "goodie huts" if I could as they tend to produce too much of a non-level playing field for my personal preference. Icemania: would you rather have the ship design templates back, rather than the current design policy orientated approach? The ship design templates were a promising approach that didn't get much traction with the community at time. I recall a few players released their optimised designs, but don't believe the impact was significant on the player base. I think the ship design templates have a lot of promise now that the modding community is growing. Perhaps optimising the ship design AI would cost too much at this late point of DW development. The ship design template code should still exist. Perhaps the easier path is for Elliot to re-implement it as an option?

Bingeling -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/1/2014 8:14:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Timotheus Right now my full manual player designed ships can take on firepower odds of 1:3 or more and just cut them to shreds. Empires with huge firepower ratings are "false advertising" because their ship design is terribly optimized. I rarely if ever play to end game tech, but my fleets do the same with AI designs. More firepower at the correct spot wins the battle. As for slow exploration, I agree on the need to go to the star. I think one can see the possibility to shave seconds of any AI action, for instance in ships always exiting a base and moving a short bit outside before deciding they are done with the refuel. Annoying if you refuel with a queued order and are in a kind of hurry to have them go :) The "park outside" thing is very obvious when observing freighters at a spaceport. They carry their order until parking too, as far as I remember.

Icemania -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/1/2014 8:58:22 AM)
Sithuk, it's been a while but yes my recollection is the same as yours. Ship Design is probably one best suited to enable the community to mod ... similar to opening up the AI to enable AI Research Build Orders to be modded. However, the Tax and Explorer AI are frankly annoying, as there are some simple fixes that could be easily made via patch that would improve AI performance significantly in those areas ... which is why I focused on these in the OP. I strongly encourage others to suggest solutions that would improve the AI in other ways as well.

Bingeling -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/1/2014 1:01:45 PM)
In my AAR game, I have explorers, constructors, research, and design automated. It is easy to see the failures of the exploration AI. In addition to being slow in general, they get stuck at "impossible" systems. There is a main pirate base in the system? Tag it down for "later", there is no need to die over and over again to investigate every rock in the asteroid field. The same in independent systems crawling with pirates. The human player knows that those systems are camped by pirates, the AI should know that too. There is no need going there for neither fuel nor exploration. The construction ship AI is decent but stubborn. It looks for specific things of not massive rarities so hard it can move 7 sectors away to place a mine. No sane human player would do that, unless maybe at the territory of an ally that can control its borders well. I am not so down on the design AI. It follows patterns set in templates. Having some minimalist of things like carriers would do not harm, but it is not the biggest deal in the world. Research is a headache to watch. It is much improved in ignoring the "wrong" weapons, but there is so much left. The trivial thing: You only need 1 kind of shields (or blasters) until the next tier is up for grabs. The main fault of the AI in research though, is the failure to understand the importance of build size early on. And the total lack of relating things to each other. For instance, you will never need hyper deny until you can actually build a ship that will equip it. In the AAR I sit with 2 hyper deny techs, and 300 build size. It can't even put out a decent destroyer, and will according to the template I watch only put them on capital ships (dhayut). It has carriers researched, but the AI has no chance to put fighter bays on anything but bases. It is of course a challenge to make a good research AI without making it extremely scripted. Some randomness is good. But even if you do a good research pathing there are options when it comes to the exact research order. I bug reported it wanting to build carriers without fighter bays, that one is obvious. It is mainly a fault of the designer though, the design should not exist. I find the AI decent, and I have fun games. But that is mostly because I allow the AI to rule in areas where it does mess up a lot. It holds my empire back alongside my enemies.

ASHBERY76 -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/1/2014 2:21:17 PM)
GC2 so called good A.I (which in my view was overrated anyway) is because of the rather simple design in every aspect of that game.When it came to a game with more complexity and real tactical combat ala fallen enchantress the A.I is not any better than DW. Ultimately I prefer DW's gameplay to a bland design like GC2.DW weakness with things like the human tax rate exploit and diplomacy farming could easily be plugged too if Elliot so chooses.

Icemania -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/1/2014 2:40:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76 GC2 so called good A.I (which in my view was overrated anyway) is because of the rather simple design in every aspect of that game.When it came to a game with more complexity and real tactical combat ala fallen enchantress the A.I is not any better than DW. Granted it's a simpler design. However, that is far from the full story. As I've posted before Galactic Civilisations 3 have some interesting ideas here that they have had in mind for a long time. I found the higher difficulties in GC2 a real struggle ... unlike Distant Worlds where it's a cakewalk. Whatever you may think about Frogboy he certainly puts a focus on the AI in his trademark franchise. quote: ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76 Ultimately I prefer DW's gameplay to a bland design like GC2. This is a different topic. quote: ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76 DW weakness with things like the human tax rate exploit and diplomacy farming could easily be plugged too if Elliot so chooses. So come on Elliot ... please at least fix the easy stuff that has been around for years!!!

ASHBERY76 -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/1/2014 2:50:22 PM)
quote: It is of course a challenge to make a good research AI without making it extremely scripted. Some randomness is good. But even if you do a good research pathing there are options when it comes to the exact research order. Indeed.It would be good to be able to script research paths but with random choices every few tech changes.Races could be fined turned to their strengths and victory conditions. The problem is the A.I does not react to what is happening in the game.I see a fair few empires lose ground because they have no planets to colonize and do not tech for more colony types.

Gregorovitch55 -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/1/2014 3:08:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76 GC2 so called good A.I (which in my view was overrated anyway) is because of the rather simple design in every aspect of that game.When it came to a game with more complexity and real tactical combat ala fallen enchantress the A.I is not any better than DW. This is true but i would argue it is pretty much by definition. The more complexity you put in a game and the bigger it is the more intractable it becomes to design AI algorithms to challenge a human player and the more opportunities are presented to the human player to gain the advantage. GalCiv2 is a good example of this: the very simple rock/paper/scissors system of three weapons and corresponding armour types makes switching weapons and armour configurations on ships tractable for the AI and it does so with good effect frequently. It is also noticeable that in GalCiv it can be significantly more difficult to beat the AI on smaller maps. I think this is partly due to option limits, but I also think it is partly because on a smaller maps a single good decision by the AI tends to have a more pronounced and lasting effect on the game than on a large one where the human player has the time and space to gain advantages before swords are crossed and to recover from a certain number of incorrect plays. On the subject of AI scripting and design templates etc, the AI programmer has another problem in that players typically don't like it, they want dynamic unpredictable games for replayability and diversity of outcome. The early version of Hearts of Iron were heavily scripted to re-enact historical events. This enabled the game AI to follow specific national strategies based on predefined scripts to some effect, for example Operation Barbarossa, but it had a number of side effects players didn't like so much. For example the game played much the same each time and the historical event triggers made it difficult for alternate histories to emerge (and sometimes triggered in non-sensible circumstances), Paradox toned this down in HoI3 and it certainly opened up the game to more possibilities but whether it provides a greater challenge than HoI2 is another question.

pycco -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/1/2014 11:16:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76 quote: It is of course a challenge to make a good research AI without making it extremely scripted. Some randomness is good. But even if you do a good research pathing there are options when it comes to the exact research order. Indeed.It would be good to be able to script research paths but with random choices every few tech changes.Races could be fined turned to their strengths and victory conditions. The problem is the A.I does not react to what is happening in the game.I see a fair few empires lose ground because they have no planets to colonize and do not tech for more colony types. i think that its not so much they don't have the techs as they cant hold the ground to colonize. from what i have seen at least.

Shark7 -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/1/2014 11:23:56 PM)
To all of those complaining about the AI, yet designing over-powered ships, I offer this challenge. Play the game with the AI designing your ships and do not design your own. You will fast find out that its not the AI that is the problem, it is ship design. Namely the fact that most players cannot resist the urge to make their own ships so powerful that nothing could stand against them. I made a mod that brought up all AI ships to my typical designs. I get beat routinely...by my own designs. It really does come down to ship design and the undeniable urge to over-design for the player, while the AI is not capable of adapting. The AI is quite capable, when its not competing against a player designed navy that is undeniably over powered.

henri51 -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/2/2014 12:01:36 AM)
There is nothing easier than telling someone else how to design a good AI, and nothing more difficult than actually doing it yourself. The elephant in the room that no none of the above posters have considered is TIME. A good AI that would take into account a reasonable number of factors in real time would slow the game to a crawl. I am not saying that the AI cannot be improved, but I AM saying that a real-time AI that would calculate strategies and tactics for a dozens races, and hundreds of AI units taking into account hundreds of human units, planets and bases dozens of time each second is a pie in the sky. Computer chess programs can now beat any human at standard time levels (about 3 minutes per move), but how good do you think a Houdini 4 would be if it were playing against a dozen humans at a time and had a tenth of a second to calculate all moves on a dozen boards? And chess allows the opponent only ONE move at a time, whereas war games allow each player to make as many moves as he wants. And BTW Houdini 4 on my computer calculaes about 7 million moves per second... Bottom line is that 1) There is NO good AI in ANY complex wargame including space games, turn-based or not). The best to be had is a scripted AI that gives the impression of being smart by forcing or assuming that the human will follow a certain path. 2) Improving the AI significantly would slow down the game to a crawl. Henri

Icemania -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/2/2014 12:27:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: henri51 There is nothing easier than telling someone else how to design a good AI, and nothing more difficult than actually doing it yourself. The elephant in the room that no none of the above posters have considered is TIME. A good AI that would take into account a reasonable number of factors in real time would slow the game to a crawl. I am not saying that the AI cannot be improved, but I AM saying that a real-time AI that would calculate strategies and tactics for a dozens races, and hundreds of AI units taking into account hundreds of human units, planets and bases dozens of time each second is a pie in the sky. Computer chess programs can now beat any human at standard time levels (about 3 minutes per move), but how good do you think a Houdini 4 would be if it were playing against a dozen humans at a time and had a tenth of a second to calculate all moves on a dozen boards? And chess allows the opponent only ONE move at a time, whereas war games allow each player to make as many moves as he wants. And BTW Houdini 4 on my computer calculaes about 7 million moves per second... Bottom line is that 1) There is NO good AI in ANY complex wargame including space games, turn-based or not). The best to be had is a scripted AI that gives the impression of being smart by forcing or assuming that the human will follow a certain path. 2) Improving the AI significantly would slow down the game to a crawl. Henri With respect Henry I think you need to reread the OP. I completely understand what you are saying, because I studied AI 15 years ago, and on various occasions have had the chance to put it into practice since. The tax rate suggestion for example: For new colonies all the AI needs to do is simply set the tax rate at 0% until that colony reaches maximum population. Keep the existing algorithm for their original homeworld so that the AI has sufficient money to fund their expansion. How does this in any way increase computation time and algorithmic complexity?

Icemania -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/2/2014 12:30:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 To all of those complaining about the AI, yet designing over-powered ships, I offer this challenge. Play the game with the AI designing your ships and do not design your own. You will fast find out that its not the AI that is the problem, it is ship design. Namely the fact that most players cannot resist the urge to make their own ships so powerful that nothing could stand against them. I made a mod that brought up all AI ships to my typical designs. I get beat routinely...by my own designs. It really does come down to ship design and the undeniable urge to over-design for the player, while the AI is not capable of adapting. The AI is quite capable, when its not competing against a player designed navy that is undeniably over powered. Is the mod you mentioned available to the community? Are you interested in community feedback to continue to improve them? It's clearly not just ship design though Shark.

henri51 -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/2/2014 12:45:35 AM)
Icemania, I also said the following: "I am not saying that the AI cannot be improved,...". Your particular suggestion indeed would not slow down the AI significantly, but it is not clear to me whether or not it is more optimum than the present AI method. Another question would also be whether "stupid" factions should be intelligent enough to apply optimum strategies (assuming that the AI could implement them), but I guess that is irrelevant to the present discussion. Although I know little about game programming, my ideas on the difficulty of programming a good AI is also strongly influenced by my work in AI, a subject on which I have written many scientific publications. Henri --------------------------------- "I am the only Athenian who knows something, because I am the only one who knows that he does not know anything..."(Socrates)

Icemania -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/2/2014 12:55:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: henri51 Icemania, I also said the following: "I am not saying that the AI cannot be improved,...". Your particular suggestion indeed would not slow down the AI significantly, but it is not clear to me whether or not it is more optimum than the present AI method. Another question would also be whether "stupid" factions should be intelligent enough to apply optimum strategies (assuming that the AI could implement them), but I guess that is irrelevant to the present discussion. Although I know little about game programming, my ideas on the difficulty of programming a good AI is also strongly influenced by my work in AI, a subject on which I have written many scientific publications. Henri --------------------------------- "I am the only Athenian who knows something, because I am the only one who knows that he does not know anything..."(Socrates) Excellent, thanks henri. Anyone who has played Distant Worlds for a while knows that setting 0% tax vastly improves population growth rates. It's a commonly referenced strategy e.g. Easy Win to Always Win So given it adds no computational complexity and given it would vastly improve the AI, I can't see any good reason why it should not be implemented if the developer is interested in improving the AI.

Shark7 -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/2/2014 1:04:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icemania quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 To all of those complaining about the AI, yet designing over-powered ships, I offer this challenge. Play the game with the AI designing your ships and do not design your own. You will fast find out that its not the AI that is the problem, it is ship design. Namely the fact that most players cannot resist the urge to make their own ships so powerful that nothing could stand against them. I made a mod that brought up all AI ships to my typical designs. I get beat routinely...by my own designs. It really does come down to ship design and the undeniable urge to over-design for the player, while the AI is not capable of adapting. The AI is quite capable, when its not competing against a player designed navy that is undeniably over powered. Is the mod you mentioned available to the community? Are you interested in community feedback to continue to improve them? It's clearly not just ship design though Shark. I did it simply so that I wouldn't give myself a huge advantage over the AI. I can compile the files and release them, but its not really a full theme. It would be more like my other releases. And no, any AI is going to have shortcomings, simply because an AI is not a thinking creature like a human.

Icemania -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/2/2014 1:08:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 And no, any AI is going to have shortcomings, simply because an AI is not a thinking creature like a human. The OP focuses on areas which involve simple changes. It does not suggest developing a thinking creature.

Icemania -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/2/2014 1:11:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 I did it simply so that I wouldn't give myself a huge advantage over the AI. I can compile the files and release them, but its not really a full theme. It would be more like my other releases. I'm not a modder but happy to work together on this to review and propose improvements. Would be great if some others can join us so we can develop the best we can for the current engine.

Shark7 -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/2/2014 1:13:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icemania quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 I did it simply so that I wouldn't give myself a huge advantage over the AI. I can compile the files and release them, but its not really a full theme. It would be more like my other releases. I'm not a modder but happy to work together on this to review and propose improvements. Would be great if some others can join us so we can develop the best we can for the current engine. OK, give me a couple of days to get it all compiled and I'll post it in the modding forum.

pycco -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/2/2014 1:18:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icemania quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 I did it simply so that I wouldn't give myself a huge advantage over the AI. I can compile the files and release them, but its not really a full theme. It would be more like my other releases. I'm not a modder but happy to work together on this to review and propose improvements. Would be great if some others can join us so we can develop the best we can for the current engine. i really don't think the "ai" is the problem its the designs, the zero tax thing. the zero taxes shouldn't be to difficult to change.

Icemania -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/2/2014 1:48:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icemania quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 I did it simply so that I wouldn't give myself a huge advantage over the AI. I can compile the files and release them, but its not really a full theme. It would be more like my other releases. I'm not a modder but happy to work together on this to review and propose improvements. Would be great if some others can join us so we can develop the best we can for the current engine. Cheers Shark let's see where it goes. To work best we should also increase the proportion of larger ship sizes which can be done now in the policy files. And ideally we also need the ability the mod the AI Research Build Order (another request that Erik has advised he will look into). There is no point ensuring they have a fantastic Laser Weapon attack ship if the AI is wasting time on other technology that adds little or no value. That's why I didn't mention ship design in the OP, seems a bit harder to significantly improve. Also note Erik has responded on the equivalent Steam Forum to advise they will have another look at how the AI handles tax rates ... so thank you Erik!

Icemania -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/2/2014 1:59:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 To all of those complaining about the AI... Just to supplement, we are not complaining, we are constructively proposing improvements focused on areas of high value add that are relatively simple to implement. [8D]

MartialDoctor -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/2/2014 3:46:17 AM)
Icemania, You beat me to this topic :) Since I started playing Distant Worlds again, I still have the issue of finding a really challenging game. Ship design, tax rate, and exploration are all big issues for the AI. The diplomacy issue is another whole can of worms... In terms of AI, though, I'd say there are other issues that would also need addressing: 1) The AI hordes too much money. There's not much reason, in this game, to save up money. I've been able to easily take out empires with a much better economy than myself for this reason alone. 2) The AI doesn't focus enough on ships. It spends too much on ground troops and static defenses. At least, it used to (I'm assuming this hasn't changed). 3) The last one would take a good deal of time to work on but would be worthwhile. If the AI would stop attacking in waves and attack together, it would make a huge difference. It's quite easy to take out waves of fleets, even against a superior opponent. However, if the AI were to attack one target with multiple fleets, all at once, or multiple targets, all at the same time, it would make the AI much more competent. #1 and #2 would be fairly easy to implement. #3 obviously wouldn't, but I wanted to point it out anyways :) I'd be one happy camper to see improvements to the AI.

MartialDoctor -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/2/2014 3:46:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 quote: ORIGINAL: Icemania quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 I did it simply so that I wouldn't give myself a huge advantage over the AI. I can compile the files and release them, but its not really a full theme. It would be more like my other releases. I'm not a modder but happy to work together on this to review and propose improvements. Would be great if some others can join us so we can develop the best we can for the current engine. OK, give me a couple of days to get it all compiled and I'll post it in the modding forum. Sweet! Thanks, Shark. I'm also looking forward to using it [:)]

OzoneGrif_slith -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/2/2014 4:25:44 AM)
I think the Tax system is the problem, not the AI using it. The growth shouldn't be increased so much when taxes are at 0%.

Tanaka -> RE: Distant Worlds AI (6/2/2014 4:29:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 quote: ORIGINAL: Icemania quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 I did it simply so that I wouldn't give myself a huge advantage over the AI. I can compile the files and release them, but its not really a full theme. It would be more like my other releases. I'm not a modder but happy to work together on this to review and propose improvements. Would be great if some others can join us so we can develop the best we can for the current engine. OK, give me a couple of days to get it all compiled and I'll post it in the modding forum. Awesome I was wondering if this would be possible and how to do it. I would love to give the AI my designs and watch it bloom. Look forward to your mod and seeing how you do it and would love to contribute as well!

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.671875