Question on AI difficulty

Question on AI difficulty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

ZOOMIE1980 -> Question on AI difficulty (4/9/2004 8:24:03 AM)
Long time reader, seldom poster. But I have one question concerning AI difficulty settings. Having played countless computer wargames over the past 20 years, it seems that increasing AI difficulty usually means the computer player's weapon systems simply get a greater than 1 multiplier. Even in Uncommon Valor it seems that the AI really isn't any smarter or uses more aggressive tactics or uses smarter tactics, but just has more effective combat resolution. So what's the deal with this game's AI. If I smack the hell out of the computer AI player at "historical" difficulty, will increasing the difficulty just make the AI's weapon systems more effective? Or will it play "smarter" or more aggressively? As a case in point in UV. I noticed, for instance, the AI seldom places more than two carriers and a light carrier in a TF. All I have to do is mass my carriers in a 4 heavy carrier TF and I'll knock out any carrier TF the computer ever throws at me! And the Japanese used six heavy carriers in the Pearl Harbor raid and had 4 at Midway, so that is a historical Japanese tactic. I noticed playing the #18 scenario in UV, the one where the Japanese seem to have the most forces available the quickest, all I have to do as the Japanese player is wait until I have at least four main carrier and I can wipe out any American carrier TF they ever send at me, regardless of AI difficulty setting. Same thing the other way around. As the American, I wait until I have four or five carriers, mass them together, and go after the Japanese because they never seem to send more than two heavies and one or two lights at me, not matter what. So I just mass my carriers, and then pick off the enemy carrier TFs one at a time until the enemy had none left, and then start my landing assaults with full air superiority. And the only thing increasing the AI difficulty seems to do is to make their weapons more effective. Pretty lame actually. And the AI almost NEVER faints? What's with that?

Mike Scholl -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/9/2004 8:55:17 AM)
Before you get too depressed, take a good look at some of the other AI's out there. I've played ground combat games where the dumb thing couldn't even follow the game's own road net. Given that this one has to try and emulate air, sea, land, supply, and multi-tasking cooperation between them, it's amazing it even works at all. Short of a major breakthrough in computer technology, it's not going to get a lot "smarter". Just view it as a learning aid for games with real opponants. It will be a better opponant in smaller scenarios where it can have a more complete "pre-programmed" set of options, but as a strategic opponant it will never be the kind of challange you want.

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/9/2004 9:10:12 AM)
Actually, I have written combat simulations for all three service branches over the years. The AI code in almost every case was over 80% of the total lines of code in each project. But like the long winded discussion about the various portages at Pearl and what was "realistic" and what was not about the results, you only have so much room in the budget for stuff if you ever want to release something. But for me, I'd give up graphics, detail, and some depth for a really intelligent AI. But then, I seldom play e-mail or hot-seat games.

DoomedMantis -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/9/2004 9:18:48 AM)
I highly recomment playing PBEM. If time is an issue there are still players willing to play, just state it at the start

pertsajakilu -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/9/2004 12:12:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DoomedMantis I highly recomment playing PBEM. If time is an issue there are still players willing to play, just state it at the start But that is not the point. I personally want to play whenever I like or can, online ( or pbem ) playing is not same thing. I have a real life outside and I don't like to be tied at the puter because of games or because there is a precice time when You have to play because it suits Your pbem companion.. these are only games. Not life. What I am afraid of is because of online there will be much less resources in development of AI in future games. TV. Pertsajakilu

crusher -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/9/2004 6:04:09 PM)
i really hope that it will have at least a fair A.I. because here in the P.I. it is almost impossible to play on line or pbem due to internet connections are bad or even impossible for long periods of time due to power failures and lousy dial up connections

Mike Scholl -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/9/2004 6:11:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pertsajakilu But that is not the point. I personally want to play whenever I like or can, online ( or pbem ) playing is not same thing. I have a real life outside and I don't like to be tied at the puter because of games or because there is a precice time when You have to play because it suits Your pbem companion.. these are only games. Not life. What I am afraid of is because of online there will be much less resources in development of AI in future games. Pertsajakilu Find an email opponant who doesn't demand instant turn-around. Then you can do your turn at your convenience. But in a game this complex, the AI would have to be programed with a response for each of millions of potential actions on your part to provide the kind of game opponant you want---and the CD would need to be 4 feet in diamater. It's a nice dream..., but it ain't gonna happen any time soon.

pasternakski -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/9/2004 6:13:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pertsajakilu What I am afraid of is because of online there will be much less resources in development of AI in future games. It remains true that the vast majority of computer wargames are played solitaire. Someone on one of the UV threads mentioned that he starts scenario 17 as the Japanese, then switches to the Allies later on when the force levels begin to shift in their favor. I suspect, also, that there is a lot of head-to-head solitaire play out there in parallel to what guys used to do (and probably still do) with the old paper-and-cardboard games. If AI development does not parallel improvement in game design, it may well kill this hobby. The market for PBEM and online players is just not that large. Some developers have decided that this is so (most notably Brad Wardell over at Stardock) and are trying to develop ways of making the AI more creative and competent. I can only say this. Most of the successful games in terms of sales in recent years have been the ones that were designed specifically with the solitaire player in mind (the best examples being Galactic Civilizations and the Civilization series). A concerted effort by developers may lead to breakthroughs in AI design. While my preference is playing against humans, I would welcome such a development and would probably increase my solo playing time as a result (not to mention spending more money on games that pay attention to serious AI design than on games that do not). There are times when your own head is the only place to be. This is one of the reasons the world became so computer-centric: it used to be a boy and his dog could get away from the world, then it became a boy and his pooter. A hobby that seeks to survive needs to take into account the characteristics of its intended audience and satisfy the desires of those potential customers. I know that a lot of this is non-verifiable conclusory crapola, but it's what I think I see out there (of course my high school English teacher warned me that I would always have to be careful about seeing the emperor's new clothes, too).

Mike Scholl -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/9/2004 7:35:56 PM)
PASTERNAKSKI I would guess that in the long run you are basically right in many of your conclusions..., but it's going to limit the kind of games you can play for a while yet. A grand strategic effort like WITP just has too many variables and interactions for the level of programming and capabilities of home computers. Even the ones you mentioned that were really good at providing competition (Thank God for Sid Meier) were still eventually "sol- vable" and became a "rote exercise". Only a human opponant can currently provide the "unexpected, off-the-wall" efforts that really tax your brain. So my feeling is that email is still the best available choice. You don't have to "schedule" playing, and you can have several games going at once if you want. And the "connection and speed problems" that plague online games can usually be gotten around through compression software. I'm all for designers striving to create better AI's (and down on some that never seem to try to improve (John Tiller comes to mind), but if you want big intricate games we're just going to have to settle currently for an "acceptable" AI---and we all have to define that term for ourselves.

byron13 -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/9/2004 8:40:52 PM)
Pasternatski, what you say about the AI is absolutely a bunch of non-verifiable conclusory crapola, and I absolutely agree with every word of it. Playing solo is about the only thing you can do these days that is not dictated by some kind of schedule. Schedules at work, schedules at movie theaters - heck, even tv is dictated by a schedule. It's nice just to play at my own pace. PBEMs are unbeatable for challenge, but there is inevitably a divergence between the (gack!) schedules of the players. There is nothing so frustrating as being one turn away from delivering the master stroke attack and your opponent suddenly has a large project at work that will take two weeks to complete. Or, you lose interest in a game - not because things are going poorly, but just because you're suddenly in the mood to play a modern or classical strategy, sports, or fantasy game. Against the AI, you just shelve the game for a year; against a PBEM opponent, you're pretty much forced to continue against your druthers. Pasternatski's right. The AI industry-wide must improve. PBEM or on-line gaming will surely increase, but solo gaming will always be there. And, yes, Tiller's AI is awful. I'm not sure his Panzer Campaigns have an AI much more sophisticated than moving units to a predetermined location. You can play those games about twice on each side before the only challenge is to beat the time it takes to obtain an absolute victory.

pasternakski -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/9/2004 8:52:26 PM)
I think what you say is exactly true, given the current state of AI art. Still, it seems to me that fruitful avenues of further development have yet to be taken. In UV, for example, the "level of difficulty" setting hasn't advanced at all from the days of Carrier Force or Solomons Campaign. I can't believe that, with all the memory available, more flexibility and at lest simulated creativity ("Hey, let's build in a surprise twist that triggers on certain predetermined circumstances"). I just hate to think that AI design is a dead end, that's all.

Damien Thorn -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/9/2004 10:02:50 PM)
Does anybody remember the game "Archon" back in the Atari 800 (and maybe Apple II) days? It was a chess-like gmae with tactical combat. The AI was very good, both in where to move and the execution ofthe combat phase as well. All that in a 48k game.

Joel Billings -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/9/2004 10:12:23 PM)
We have removed combat cheats from the hard level. At the "historical level", the AI has a few rules it does not have to follow (due to it doing things differently than the human player. At the hard level, it gets various benefits like increased production, better pilots, etc., but it does not get a combat formula cheat. At the very hard level, it gets everything at hard level (sometimes with more benefit) and it gets some combat cheats (but less than in UV). I suggest everyone play at hard level after their first game (very hard once you really know the game well). You will not notice the benefits the AI gets, but it will help the AI out. The AI does not get smarter at any level. These games are so complex that the smartest we can make the AI is still dumb compared to any decent player after their first game.

Capt. Harlock -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/9/2004 11:36:32 PM)
A suggestion: at higher difficulty levels, the AI should get better intelligence. Since giving the computer more in quantity and quality is non-historical anyway, why not give more insight into what the human player is doing and where? I don't think there needs to be perfect knowledge of all TF's (although some past games have had that), but making the AI harder to surprise might well have the apparent effect of making seem more intelligent.

Damien Thorn -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/10/2004 1:53:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock A suggestion: at higher difficulty levels, the AI should get better intelligence. I'd rather give the computer more stuff than get jumped everytime I turn around because the computer knew exactly where I was going.

pasternakski -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/10/2004 2:44:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn I'd rather give the computer more stuff than get jumped everytime I turn around because the computer knew exactly where I was going. But, see, that's the whole problem. If there is an AI, it shouldn't need more stuff or better intelligence. It should work better with what it has.

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/10/2004 4:09:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pasternakski I think what you say is exactly true, given the current state of AI art. Still, it seems to me that fruitful avenues of further development have yet to be taken. In UV, for example, the "level of difficulty" setting hasn't advanced at all from the days of Carrier Force or Solomons Campaign. I can't believe that, with all the memory available, more flexibility and at lest simulated creativity ("Hey, let's build in a surprise twist that triggers on certain predetermined circumstances"). I just hate to think that AI design is a dead end, that's all. Problem with AI advancement is the current economic model is centered on "eye candy" even in turn based wargames. A lot of bleed over from the RTS and First Person Shooter genres. Very "pretty" maps, animations, obsessiveness with minutia and historical accuracy. Plain and simple, AI's don't sell games these days. And you start a company to write wargames and make money, not as a hobby. There actually is quite a lot going on in the world of artificial intelligence in places like NASA, the US Military, home electronics ("smart applicances"), and on college campuses, and a lot of it is available in the public domain and runs on higher end PC's a lot of gamers already have. 500GB of HD space and 1GB+ RAM are all fairly common these days with gamers. So computing capacity isn't the problem. Maybe when game shop finally realize top end AI's can sell as good or better than the eye candy, they'll actually hire the expertise and put in the man hours. I can see from this thread I am not alone in wishing that a new state of the art wargame come with a state of the art AI engine.

byron13 -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/10/2004 4:09:44 AM)
Yes, high AI levels ideally would do nothing more than dial up the competence of the opponent so that it makes better use of its resources; make it more experienced, if you will. The problem is developing relatively cheap AI that either (i) learns by itself or (ii) is provided with "intelligence" by providing an enormous amount of logical decisions. Hasn't been done yet, and Matrix is not going to be the one to do it. I think giving the AI more intelligence on your movements at a higher setting would also be relatively expensive to code. Of course, I have no idea how the computer "sees" you now or reacts to units seen. But I'm not sure it is as easy as doubling its search range. In any event, just "seeing" that you are massing troops and carriers in the South Pacific as opposed to the Central Pacific may or may not be sufficient to trigger a response - depends on how the AI is already coded. Or, if it "sees" that all of your carriers are damaged and sitting in San Diego, does this trigger a response? I simply don't know how they've limited the AI when it is suffering from the Fog of War. This would determine what would happen when the fog is lifted. The easiest way to dial up the competition is simply to give the computer more stuff or cheat on combat results, and that's what they do.

pasternakski -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/10/2004 4:17:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: byron13 The easiest way to dial up the competition is simply to give the computer more stuff or cheat on combat results, and that's what they do. Laziness - that's how Detroit lost the battle of the sedan to the Japanese.

byron13 -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/10/2004 4:22:16 AM)
Yeah, but you really can't expect a company with resources as limited as Matrix has to be the company that designs the first intelligent AI. I'm just wondering if there is a kind of generic intelligent AI that can be developed that could be adapted to almost any game - or any strategic game. That way, one company could develop it and then license it. But, I admit I don't know - unless I'm arguing with mdiehl. [:'(]

pasternakski -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/10/2004 4:34:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: byron13 Yeah, but you really can't expect a company with resources as limited as Matrix has to be the company that designs the first intelligent AI. I'm just wondering if there is a kind of generic intelligent AI that can be developed that could be adapted to almost any game - or any strategic game. That way, one company could develop it and then license it. But, I admit I don't know - unless I'm arguing with mdiehl. [:'(] Does the word "consortium" ring a bell? All stand to profit from this area of mutual endeavor. BTW, if you need help setting this up, I know where you can get a lawyer cheap (not to be confused with a cheap lawyer).

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/10/2004 4:36:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joel Billings We have removed combat cheats from the hard level. At the "historical level", the AI has a few rules it does not have to follow (due to it doing things differently than the human player. At the hard level, it gets various benefits like increased production, better pilots, etc., but it does not get a combat formula cheat. At the very hard level, it gets everything at hard level (sometimes with more benefit) and it gets some combat cheats (but less than in UV). I suggest everyone play at hard level after their first game (very hard once you really know the game well). You will not notice the benefits the AI gets, but it will help the AI out. The AI does not get smarter at any level. These games are so complex that the smartest we can make the AI is still dumb compared to any decent player after their first game. Well, that's kind of what I was afraid of. The AI just gets more and better stuff at harder level. Too bad, really. Not everything that makes an AI better has to be hard. For instance, instead of having one broad, general strategy with generally fixed reactions to the typical things a player does, one can randomly choose from about a half dozen quite different strategies. Take the Japanese attack strategy after Pearl Harbor. One AI path follows the historical path. Another forsakes a drive into the Solomons and New Guinea and puts everything into Burma in an all out attempt to take India and force the British complete out of the game. Or China. Or another that attempts to actually take Pearl Harbor by stealing divisions from Manchuria that were just sitting out the war watching the Russians. And so on. Maybe on the harder level, the Japanese simply get even more aggressive with their carriers and spend much of the last half of 1942 hunting down what's left of American carrier force, sink it, and then attack Midway and actually attempt to take Pearl Harbor using their entire carrier fleet, before Amercian production kicks in. Or hard level strategy II is to take Australia. Maybe the Japanese actually switch tactics at harder level and attack American transports in force. Different sub deployment strategies, etc.... Basically simple stuff. Tedious and time consuming programming, but not particularly technically difficult, requiring Doctorate level theory. And a random set of shorter term tactics instead of the same general tactic every time. I'm willing to bet there is not a dedicated AI developer on this project. One who's sole purpose of employment is to create the AI. A game this grand seemingly would have warrented as much effort put into the AI as was put into the historical accuracy and combat resolution engine.

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/10/2004 4:50:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: byron13 Yes, high AI levels ideally would do nothing more than dial up the competence of the opponent so that it makes better use of its resources; make it more experienced, if you will. The problem is developing relatively cheap AI that either (i) learns by itself or (ii) is provided with "intelligence" by providing an enormous amount of logical decisions. Hasn't been done yet, and Matrix is not going to be the one to do it. I think giving the AI more intelligence on your movements at a higher setting would also be relatively expensive to code. Of course, I have no idea how the computer "sees" you now or reacts to units seen. But I'm not sure it is as easy as doubling its search range. In any event, just "seeing" that you are massing troops and carriers in the South Pacific as opposed to the Central Pacific may or may not be sufficient to trigger a response - depends on how the AI is already coded. Or, if it "sees" that all of your carriers are damaged and sitting in San Diego, does this trigger a response? I simply don't know how they've limited the AI when it is suffering from the Fog of War. This would determine what would happen when the fog is lifted. The easiest way to dial up the competition is simply to give the computer more stuff or cheat on combat results, and that's what they do. Maybe "smarter" is the wrong term. I'm thinking that "smarter" is actually nothing more than a bit less predictable. I remember back in the Mid 1980's when SSI came out with North Atlantic 86 for the Apple. Great game back then, but after a couple of runs through the game, all I had to do was place all my missle launching subs up north of England, pull out my Exocet equipped surface ships from my British fleet at Iceland, send the rest to America for later use, and then just wait for the inevitable Soviet amphibious assault on Iceland, all the while putting all my best planes (Tomcats, Tornadoes, and Eagles) on Iceland, maximize supplies and three days before their landing start moving in 25,000 new troops. Worked every time because the AI did the same exact thing every time. A simple little additiion of having the Soviets randomly launch an all out, unsupplied Airborne assault in Iceland on turn 1 instead would have added infinetly to the unpredictability of the solitare version of the game. And added only about 400 lines of Applesoft Basic code! hell even two or three random paths by the amphibious assault TF's instead of the one they always used so you couldn;t just mass your subs at one spot. I just don't want an overly predictable AI. Quite frankly, the AI in UV is no better than the AI in the 1985 version of North Atlantic 86. And that's a sad comentary on the state of AI development in gaming these days.

mogami -> AI (4/10/2004 4:59:50 AM)
Hi, The AI would have to be able to form it's own long range plans and then know when and how to modify them in reaction to what the human player did. It has taken years to program an AI to play chess to where it can compete with human grand masters (but only at the fast time controls) Thats a game with 16 pieces and 64 squares. Each move in chess can be calculated out depending on time allowed and speed of processor. (looking 10 moves ahead takes all night) In war games the vast majority of opposing pieces are out of sight. In chess one human advantage is knowing which possible future series of moves are worth further study and which can be discarded with only a second or two of thought. The computer must calculate each and every possible tree and assign a numerical value to each and when out of time use the move accorded the highest score. What I'm hinting at here is to get an AI that could compete with a knowledgeable human it would need to spend several days on each turn. (just thinking) AI's tend to do things that don't make sense because they are not following a plan or reasoning things out. They are following instructions programed into them ("Capture Rangoon, defend Truk") These instructions may have nothing to do with the actual events taking place in the game. And humans learn the AI habits and then exploit them and then complain the Ai is too stupid. Once you learn the AI only sends Tf's with 2 CV and maybe 1 or 2 CVL stop fighting it with 6-8 CV. (Try to capture Truk and defend Rangoon) Don't place a surface combat TF in the hex the AI always uses when moving it's transports. (pretend you don't know what and how the AI is doing ) But really you can't eat your cake and have it too. If you want to play a fast game play the AI on hard settings. If you want a tough challanging game find a human. This is not a real time game. You are going to want to spend a lot of time doing your turns so you have to allow your oopponent to do the same. I think 1 turn of WITP per day is a lot of WITP. To really spice things up start 1 from each side with the same player. Then you just trade turns and your always busy.

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/10/2004 5:02:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pasternakski quote: ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn I'd rather give the computer more stuff than get jumped everytime I turn around because the computer knew exactly where I was going. But, see, that's the whole problem. If there is an AI, it shouldn't need more stuff or better intelligence. It should work better with what it has. It just needs to be less predictable. Do the Japs always have to move, enforce, into the Solomons? Do the Americans really need to always counterattack so forcefully in Solomons, vs putting more effort into getting to the Mariana's fast and cutting Rabaul and Solomons complete off, earlier? Obviously on Historical settings you want historical strategy, but even within the Historical settings the AI can be less than totally predictable. What's wrong with the AI making a surprise Carrier attack on Brisbane, for instance, or have the Japanese feint into Darwin or Cairnes to maybe lull the Americans to mistakenly commit a "loaner" division to Austrailia and screw with their timeline on Guadalcanal? Or the same in the Burma theator. Maybe on the hard or very hard setting the Japanese fient into India with a surpise landing of sacraficial division into Dacca or even Calcutta to get the British and Indian forces to panic and pull a division or two out of Burma. And if they they don't panic, turn it into a REAL end run assault to totally flank the whole theater? That's the kind of stuff I expect out of crafty AI.

mogami -> AI (4/10/2004 5:04:34 AM)
Hi, Always give the AI the easiest side. (the defending side normally)

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: AI (4/10/2004 5:24:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, The AI would have to be able to form it's own long range plans and then know when and how to modify them in reaction to what the human player did. It has taken years to program an AI to play chess to where it can compete with human grand masters (but only at the fast time controls) Thats a game with 16 pieces and 64 squares. Each move in chess can be calculated out depending on time allowed and speed of processor. (looking 10 moves ahead takes all night) In war games the vast majority of opposing pieces are out of sight. In chess one human advantage is knowing which possible future series of moves are worth further study and which can be discarded with only a second or two of thought. The computer must calculate each and every possible tree and assign a numerical value to each and when out of time use the move accorded the highest score. What I'm hinting at here is to get an AI that could compete with a knowledgeable human it would need to spend several days on each turn. (just thinking) AI's tend to do things that don't make sense because they are not following a plan or reasoning things out. They are following instructions programed into them ("Capture Rangoon, defend Truk") These instructions may have nothing to do with the actual events taking place in the game. And humans learn the AI habits and then exploit them and then complain the Ai is too stupid. Once you learn the AI only sends Tf's with 2 CV and maybe 1 or 2 CVL stop fighting it with 6-8 CV. (Try to capture Truk and defend Rangoon) Don't place a surface combat TF in the hex the AI always uses when moving it's transports. (pretend you don't know what and how the AI is doing ) But really you can't eat your cake and have it too. If you want to play a fast game play the AI on hard settings. If you want a tough challanging game find a human. This is not a real time game. You are going to want to spend a lot of time doing your turns so you have to allow your oopponent to do the same. I think 1 turn of WITP per day is a lot of WITP. To really spice things up start 1 from each side with the same player. Then you just trade turns and your always busy. I think you're making it harder than it really has to be. I'm mostly talking about some fairly basic, simple, stuff to make things a little less predictable at higher AI difficulty levels. For instance, take the AI playing the Japanese. There's not a great deal the human player can do to the Japanese before late summer 1942. The American and British just don't have much to work with until production sets in. But by May 1942, the Japanese have their pre-war planned defensive line set up. They cut the Burma road, have most Eastern, coastal Chinese cities under control, Singapore, The East Indies with their oil, Rabaul and the North coast of New Guinea, the Marianas and Wake and Tarawa. All that is fine. The historical model moves from there, historically. The Japanese choice from there is 4 carrier thrust at Midway with a following assault force for the base, and thrust south in the Solomon's and a feeble attempt at rounding the east end of New Guinea to get to the south coast. That's where a "smarter" AI could take over on the hard or very hard level. Instead of the more and better, how about an alternate strategy. Have the AI add two more carriers and another division to the Midway assault and forget the southward thrust in the Solomons. Or forget Midway and put everything into taking Port Morseby. Or have the AI grab many of those Manchurian Divisions and make an end run assault on Dacca ala McArthur at Inchon a few years later. Or use them to finish off China once and for all. And have a relatively random chance at which tact it takes so the human player is caught off guard sometimes. Or something as simple as massive eight carrier 2nd Pearl Harbor attack in Aug of 1942 or something shocking like that (at the hard or very hard level). Or have the Japs make a surprise attack on American Somoa and really screw with the Australian supply line. And make it random, so you're not sure if they are ever really going to do it. Stuff like that.

brisd -> RE: AI (4/10/2004 8:09:04 AM)
I understand where you are coming from. By AI, you are referring to the pre-programing instructions of the computer player, not an vastly improved computer player able to 'think and learn'. I believe in classic Pacific War the computer player would have random grand strategies pre-programed in. I think both UV and WITP too will have what you want. It is just after a few plays, the average and above player will figure out what's up. I too like to play solitare and want a decent computer player. Against a real live opponent via pbem is the true challenge. And I remember playing North Atlantic 86 too! Ah, we are so spoiled these days with our pcs and games like WITP. [8D]

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: AI (4/10/2004 8:34:44 AM)
Yea, just a degree of randomness, so you can't just sit in a predicted hex and wait, or massively fortify a particular position knowing full well the AI is going to attack right there, each and every time.

Capt. Harlock -> RE: Question on AI difficulty (4/10/2004 5:49:38 PM)
quote: I remember back in the Mid 1980's when SSI came out with North Atlantic 86 for the Apple. Great game back then, but after a couple of runs through the game, all I had to do was place all my missle launching subs up north of England, pull out my Exocet equipped surface ships from my British fleet at Iceland, send the rest to America for later use, and then just wait for the inevitable Soviet amphibious assault on Iceland, all the while putting all my best planes (Tomcats, Tornadoes, and Eagles) on Iceland, maximize supplies and three days before their landing start moving in 25,000 new troops. Worked every time because the AI did the same exact thing every time. A simple little additiion of having the Soviets randomly launch an all out, unsupplied Airborne assault in Iceland on turn 1 instead would have added infinetly to the unpredictability of the solitare version of the game. And added only about 400 lines of Applesoft Basic code! I remember the game as well: in fact I managed to print out the "source code". (It was uncomplied Applesoft BASIC.) 400 lines was not possible; remember we're talking about a program that must fit into 48K of RAM, and come from a 143K floppy. But now we have huge amounts of RAM and hard disk space available, so we should be able to have a genius-level AI, right? Well, no, we still have major limits in the ability of the programmers to produce a game in a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost. However, let me elaborate a little on my idea of giving the AI better intelligence. There comes a point in the game when the Japanese side needs to switch to playing defense, and the Allied side should switch to offense. Perhaps the higher level AI could be given a more accurate calcualtion for when that time is.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.046875