RE: AI- ?? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Desert War 1940 - 1942



Message

Deathtreader -> RE: AI- ?? (3/28/2018 11:32:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nico165b165


quote:

ORIGINAL: spinecruncher

"I did not explain my point sufficiently. The scenario is the Battle of Sidi Barrani. The AI is scripted to do what General Graziani did--sit or run away. That's what I mean by an historical experience. I originally scripted an aggressive Italian AI and the result was not historical--the British get swarmed by a thousand ants. "

Sounds like you got money waiting in the bank re a "What if" scenario: What if the Italian Commander was more aggressive? What if the ITalians really wanted to fight? Like I have written before, depending on the motivations of the designer, there is plenty of room going forward. We are at 1.0 here. 1.friggen 0. I hope the designer gets a solid enough community for addl material and improved AI, scripting etc. The truth is, the Italians moreover had little heart to fight their former allies, the British. El Duce was never really able to garner a lot of high morale in his troops. I bet the common Italian was thinking, "fight the Brits, they took over India no problem and we could barely take Abyssinia, I am outta here first chance I get."


This.

We could end up with something like, for every scenario, 3 options:

- Historical AI: the AI tries to simulate what their historical counter part did, right or wrong.
- Best AI: the AI tries to use the best options with the units it has to counter the player, hindsight included.
- Random AI: maybe the AI does the historical mistakes/good ideas, maybe it tries to do its best regardless of history. Surprise !

Could this be achieved within the same scenario ? Or does it needs different versions ?



I agree with you 100%!!!

This is a great game system and could only be improved by AI options. If taken this would not be the only war-game to have multiple versions of (all) scenarios. My current favourites being Flashpoint Campaigns and Command Ops both of which make considerable use multiple versions or tracks within the scenarios. Why not try it with this game?? And make no mistake, this is a great game!! [&o]

Rob.



Rosseau -> RE: AI- ?? (3/29/2018 1:10:22 AM)

As already stated, we need to drum up support for this game so it doesn't end up abandoned like Brother vs. Brother. I sincerely doubt that it will. Without reading anything, I am easily able to plop down some more Italian units to make things more difficult. But that is a rather coarse solution. Perhaps a patch with a non-historical scenario will be in the offing.

Look at what has been accomplished with The Operational Art of War IV in terms of custom scenarios and modding. IMO, that is a more difficult game to edit, but the game has (over the years) attracted some very skilled scenario designers. That would be our hope here. In the meantime, I will be creating some wildly ahistorical scenarios for my own pleasure, and if any are remotely publishable, I will do it.




spinecruncher -> RE: AI- ?? (3/29/2018 1:54:22 AM)

And since this is a game, after all, the historical accuracy ends when you click the play button, why not expand the Italian TOE to include some decent armor? Why did the Italians create such sucky armor? does anyone have an answer? The Czechs even created armor that was good enough for the Germans to use in their invasion of France and Barbarossa. So, I do not think the Italians will have a change without beefed-up TOE re-armor. The leadership is, of course, a big factor but this title is not about leadership. So yeah this game has super potential. for a 1.0 it is very good. I would presume if the designer put this much time and effort he would be inclined to continue with this gem.



countrboy -> RE: AI- ?? (3/29/2018 2:51:59 AM)

"....why not expand the Italian TOE to include some decent armor?...."

I wouldn't want to see that. Messing with the TOE is going too far. By all means have get the AI to be more aggressive (or less) if desired, but changing the TOE changes the whole nature of the game.



Rosseau -> RE: AI- ?? (3/30/2018 2:30:54 AM)

I understand what you are saying. But things are going to get boring relatively quickly playing the same canned "historical" scenarios. You may also disagree with the scenario designer on some decisions, and the editor allows you to tweak that. Personally, I would not have touched this game without an editor to create new or edited scenarios and give limitless life to the engine.

After 30 years of gaming the same battles, I pretty much live on "what-ifs." But yes, there should be a "historical" scenario that is not touched and always available to play, especially multiplayer.




daj -> RE: AI- ?? (3/30/2018 12:28:06 PM)

I agree with countrboy that the historical setup, number and strength of units should not be changed. But historical accuracy ends at setup. It is not followed in head-to-head, and should not be followed against the computer. As many have suggested give us versions of varying difficulty based on AI aggressiveness (for both sides).

We who play against the computer want a challenge not a walk in the park. It would sell more games.



Rosseau -> RE: AI- ?? (4/1/2018 12:51:59 AM)

Forgive me, I misunderstood.

Somehow we got on historical accuracy, instead of Daj's post #17 on AI programming and competence. Based on his personal experience with those two scenarios, there definitely seems to be some issues. It reminds me (God forbid) of the old HPS AI where the computer would just sit one hex from a VP and not take it. That is not acceptable.

There are a lot of rules in this game, and no "tactical" AI is going to be able to "understand" all of them. I think the 12-year-old SSG series was among the best in terms of tactical AI. In multiplayer, there should be few problems. But I bought the game for single player. This is usually not a problem for me, as I don't study the rules and feel the AI is giving me a "challenge" based on my ignorance. But some of the obvious stuff Daj mentioned needs to be addressed.



Saint Ruth -> RE: AI- ?? (4/3/2018 3:21:15 PM)

Sure, there's the tactical AI and the scripted strategic AI and we intend to put the work in to get them better.
And all this feedback is of great help.
Thanks, Brian [;)]



Phoenix100 -> RE: AI- ?? (4/4/2018 8:18:58 AM)

I support 100% the idea of making the historical scenarios as historical as possible. It's not everyone who wants to play what-if scenarios. I only play against the AI and I really like to play scenarios where the moves reflect the actual moves, because I'm interested in the history, above all. I think many players of this type of game, against an AI, are like that. So don't change that approach! The answer is to provide what-if scenarios as alternatives, as people have suggested. I wouldn't touch the alternatives, but others would, clearly. Also, I think if I wanted a non-historical fight I would go PBEM.

So far, playing this, I'm like others have described themselves above - useless - and hence I've not been noticing many crap AI moves. Seems good to me so far.



Toby42 -> RE: AI- ?? (4/4/2018 12:41:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phoenix100

I support 100% the idea of making the historical scenarios as historical as possible. It's not everyone who wants to play what-if scenarios. I only play against the AI and I really like to play scenarios where the moves reflect the actual moves, because I'm interested in the history, above all. I think many players of this type of game, against an AI, are like that. So don't change that approach! The answer is to provide what-if scenarios as alternatives, as people have suggested. I wouldn't touch the alternatives, but others would, clearly. Also, I think if I wanted a non-historical fight I would go PBEM.

So far, playing this, I'm like others have described themselves above - useless - and hence I've not been noticing many crap AI moves. Seems good to me so far.


I agree!



Solaristics -> RE: AI- ?? (4/5/2018 7:13:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phoenix100

I support 100% the idea of making the historical scenarios as historical as possible. It's not everyone who wants to play what-if scenarios. I only play against the AI and I really like to play scenarios where the moves reflect the actual moves, because I'm interested in the history, above all. I think many players of this type of game, against an AI, are like that. So don't change that approach! The answer is to provide what-if scenarios as alternatives, as people have suggested. I wouldn't touch the alternatives, but others would, clearly. Also, I think if I wanted a non-historical fight I would go PBEM.

So far, playing this, I'm like others have described themselves above - useless - and hence I've not been noticing many crap AI moves. Seems good to me so far.


"Historical" can mean different things to different people. For me, slavishly following historical events is in fact ahistorical. General X did action Y because General A did action B in history. But if you are playing General A and do action C instead, it may well be illogical for General X to do action Y in that circumstance - you are allowing the player to deviate from history, but force the AI to follow it even if it makes no sense? To me this isn't history.

To me, the historical part of historical gaming is giving both players the same resources, spatial dispositions, and other characteristics and restrictions that their historical counterparts had to allow players both to emulate and deviate from the actions of these counterparts. History is not necessarily the way it is, it is only contingency so, therefore forcing the player or AI down tramlines feels wrong to me.

Still, to each their own - that's the other great part of this hobby. Making variations that suit all tastes does not have a huge development overhead in a flexibly designed game.



barkhorn45 -> RE: AI- ?? (4/6/2018 1:45:28 AM)

It's like wite at the historic surrender of the forces at Stalingrad you lose the units wether you attacked Stalingrad or not.



bcgames -> RE: AI- ?? (4/9/2018 4:09:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Solaristics
...the historical part of historical gaming is giving both players the same resources, spatial dispositions, and other characteristics and restrictions that their historical counterparts had to allow players both to emulate and deviate from the actions of these counterparts...

This is a worthy objective.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.359375