RE: Does it always go like this?? (Full Version)

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



Message

Speedysteve -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 6:47:22 PM)

Well said Nik.

Steveh11Matrix - I have thought exactly as you have. I was whipping the AI as Jap in 41 campaign so I have just decided to start a 43 campaign as Jap vs AI. Should be more challenging.............

Regards,

Steven



mlees -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 6:53:10 PM)

I'm sorta new to the game, can you clue me in on how the AI "cheats"?



Nikademus -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 7:39:05 PM)

when set to "Very Hard" the AI is allowed to peak at your dispositions. It also gets combat bonuses. The "Hard" level just gives the AI bonuses in terms of logistics. (unless cut off from supply...it can be starved in those situations)



moses -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 8:19:52 PM)

As a very confirmed solitare only player I finally decided to go PBEM for one reason. I believe it is impossible to produce an AI that can stay in this game for a 3 or 4 year campaign against any competant player. Not with a game this large and complex.

This is not a hit against the programers. I think it is amazing that the AI is as good as it is. I just think if you want to have a good solitare game you have to go with smaller scale games.



Tophat -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 8:23:56 PM)

So how good a player is amy?



Nikademus -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 8:31:30 PM)

realistically i doubt the AI can ever be made to 'seriously' challenge a player. correcting the most glaring deficiencies such as AI ship massing and such is more what is being aimed at. I just recently started a late 42 test game (hstrical midway) as Japan to see how things would go. Its nov 42 now.....i've trashed 5 BB's, 2 carriers and sent another back to the states. Port Morosby, and all of New Gunieau are mine as is Lunga. Japan is at high tide.

On a good note, the AI made a strong bid for Akyab and nearly took the base due to my overestimating the abilities of the div i had sitting there. China is pretty much the same. AI simply cannot deal with flanking attacks. The AI also has a weakness in that it does not react well to having it's strongly populated airfields attacked by a similar force. I quiety massed the JAAF in Burma and attacked a very strong AI air force at Dacca and have now staged 3 attacks and destroyed over 200 planes on the ground. I have little fear at this point of having my own vulnerable airforce done similarily

In the end a solitaire player will have to restrain him or herself in order to get a more enjoyable experience.



ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 8:47:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

As a very confirmed solitare only player I finally decided to go PBEM for one reason. I believe it is impossible to produce an AI that can stay in this game for a 3 or 4 year campaign against amy competant player. Not with a game this large and complex.

This is not a hit against the programers. I think it is amazing that the AI is as good as it is. I just think if you want to have a good solitare game you have to go with smaller scale games.


Its just not economically feasible to provide a really optimised AI. Game AI's, even turn based AI's seldom employ any capability to remember much about what has transpired to date (thus the very common death spirals most turn base wargame AI's can get stuck in), because to do that you have to probably use the disk, via some sort of structured file system, something all gamer developers are loathe to do. AI's also typically do not employ a lot of strategic sanity checks. This alowys exploitive players to easily fool most AI's be engaging in very non-standard behavior the AI is not coded to recognize. But this requires a lot of extra coding. I remember in my days of working on Cold War Era Warsaw Pact invasion simulations, over 80% of the codebase was AI code. I'd venture to guess the AI code amounts to less than 10% of WitP's codebase, maybe less than 5%.

And finally, many AI's are not usually designed to use the most optimum expert tactics and strategy of experience players for fear of overly discouraging players. For some reason, if you've followed the forum long enough, you may have read about most of Mogami's methods for playing Japan. Don't know why the AI was never coded to conduct itself is the exact same fashion he does (in terms of properly preparing forces for invasion and conducting those invasions in terms of recon, surface and air bombardment, target prep, and air cover). For instance the Japanese AI in taking Rabaul, does not really use recon at all to see if the Allied player has spent all his political points to move one or two Australian Divisions to shore it up before the Japs get there, and if he has to either employ massive, long term bombardment and air assault, and/or call off the invasion until suitable force is available to take it, or call an alternate routine to bypass and cut off the base using an end-run tactic. Instead it just blindly sends small SNLF/NLF/NavGd after small SNLFNLF/NavGd units there, one or two after the other, to get repeatedly slaughtered until it's all out of them and the whole thing fails.

Bottom line, the developers, as some of the betas have said in the past, developed the AI as pretty much a tutorial aide, best use to practice and prepare for the real focus of the game, PBEM, play. Alas, until significant technical strides are made in the art of AI developement are combined with ever more processing power, AI's will continue to mostly suck.



Xargun -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 9:28:52 PM)

One of the biggest problems with AI is computing power... The designers wanted as broad a market for this game as possible, therefore they had to appeal to those who have less than normal computers - I was one until July when I went from a 500 MHz to a 2.7 GHz.. I bet a large portion of the people who have WitP as running it on machines under 1.2 GHz and a lot are still using Win 98 - which is OLD...

In order to raise the AI level it requires a lot of programming - which would slow the turn processing down a lot on machines below 3.0 GHz and possibly not even run on those old machines using 98 still... So its a compromise between making the AI good enough to play against AND making the game still be able to be run on older machines... BUT the best part (IMO) is PBEM which doesn't matter how fast your computer is (except for running turns) as both sides are human and offer the best game for your money... It will be quite a while yet before AI can seriously challenge a competent human without resorting to cheats..

Xargun



steveh11Matrix -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 9:56:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I'm a beta tester and i prefer AI play so i feel for the guys who complain about the AI's issues. You wont ever hear me simply say "Just play PBEM" PBEM is nice but as others have already stated, PBEM has it's own sets of limitations...the biggest for me is that i like to sit down and do dedicated WitP sessions....and dont like having to wait for a turn to be sent to me.
However having been involved in the patch work, i can tell you that Gary has worked very hard on improving the AI, a task which i akin to trying to roll a boulder uphill. I know some will view this as "just another excuse" but thats the simple truth of it. WitP is a massively complicated game with thousands of lines of code devoted to the AI alone. I dont expect the AI to be einstein but its also not unreasonable to expect it to not sail unguarded convoys past massive enemy airbases.

So keep the faith. We are working to improve the worst of the AI's fobiles

Thanks for that, Nik.
Steve.



Oliver Heindorf -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 10:04:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dpstafford


I can't understand why anybody would waste their time playing against the AI. Even if the AI were good. (Which I don't think it can ever be in a game this complex).


Hey dpstafford,

THIEF !

THIEF


THIEF

[:D] hehee


ok, back to topic, I wont say anything about the AI. Why ? becasue the arguments had been already exchanged here in the past and we are going to nowhere.



steveh11Matrix -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 10:12:55 PM)

Keeps popping up, though, doesn't it? [;)]

There do seem to be two distinct populations of players here. I don't mind, just as long as "Play PBEM" doesn't become the default answer! [:)]

Steve.



Nikademus -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 10:45:21 PM)

no problem. [;)]



Banquet -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 11:15:26 PM)

It's good to hear from Nik that the A.I is taken seriously and that we have a like minded soul on the beta team [:)]

I imagine discussions like these will continue as long as people like the originator of this topic continue to (rightly) highlight problems with the A.I. A day will come when no more can be done but I'm hopeful that there will be a good game to be had from the A.I before the final curtain.

In another life I'll be an AI programmer.. I find the whole thing fascinating, more so than any other aspect of computer gaming.. but in this life I'll just be the lazy dreamer that I am, hoping for 'the few' to provide me with my entertainment while I plan my next move in the Pacific campaign [:)]



dpstafford -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/29/2004 7:34:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oliver Heindorf
THIEF

It was too good to pass up! (The banner that is!)



Captain Cruft -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/29/2004 1:35:22 PM)

I remain convinced that "user scripting" is the only way this AI issue is going to be satisfactorily addressed. The problem with WitP is that is a closed monothilic lump of code that is extremely difficult/impossible to "plug in" to.

How to enable "plugging in", in order of desirability:

1) Embedded interpreter (scripting language). Relatively cheap to code but possibly quite difficult to retro-fit to existing code base.
2) Client-server architecture, allowing the use of proxy servers. Like FPS "aim bots" but with an honourable purpose. Fundamental architectural change, needs to be designed in from the start.
3) Faux PBEM opponent. Given the format of the game save files it should be possible to write an external program that acts as a computer opponent but via the PBEM mechanism. Would require exiting the game program for each turn. No coding required by developers, just a willingness to document the game save file format.

So, it looks like option 3 is the only one that might ever happen in the real world of WitP ...



RevRick -> RE: I would imagine.. (10/29/2004 1:48:06 PM)

that there are a lot of people who play the AI for reasons such as mine - I can't play every day, there are others in the house who use the computer (one of the being my wife, who is also a pastor) and my time is limited to about one turn a day at best. I seriously doubt any player would like to have an opponent who could, in reality, disappear for a few days because of a problem with which he/she must deal. For me, it would be a serious hospitalization, or a death in a parish family, for example. So, for me, the AI is the best alternative because it is available when I have the opportunity to play.



ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/29/2004 4:15:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

I remain convinced that "user scripting" is the only way this AI issue is going to be satisfactorily addressed. The problem with WitP is that is a closed monothilic lump of code that is extremely difficult/impossible to "plug in" to.

How to enable "plugging in", in order of desirability:

1) Embedded interpreter (scripting language). Relatively cheap to code but possibly quite difficult to retro-fit to existing code base.
2) Client-server architecture, allowing the use of proxy servers. Like FPS "aim bots" but with an honourable purpose. Fundamental architectural change, needs to be designed in from the start.
3) Faux PBEM opponent. Given the format of the game save files it should be possible to write an external program that acts as a computer opponent but via the PBEM mechanism. Would require exiting the game program for each turn. No coding required by developers, just a willingness to document the game save file format.

So, it looks like option 3 is the only one that might ever happen in the real world of WitP ...


What makes that kind of facility possible is 1) use of a structured disk file system such as a RDBMS and/or 2) "User Exits" aka, pluggable .dll's. They publish an API and others can write "plugins" to that API and they get bound in as player dlls. The AI is a great place for a third party plugin dlls. I think there might be some other areas that would make good candidates.

The the system has to be coded from the ground up to provide that kind of facility. And this one isn't.



Thayne -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/29/2004 10:50:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dpstafford
Consider,

(1) There are no loopholes to speak of in WITP. And if there were I would prefer that he support crew spend their time erasing them rather than working on a hopeless AI.

(2) PBEM. By e-mail. Your mail will wait until you have the inclination to open it.

(3) Even if your human opponent isn't up to your skill level, he is still better than the AI. And in the far more likely case, that you aren't up to his, well, you will learn alot in your defeat.

(4) You got me there. Quitter!

(5) Nobody really cares about your DAR's, especially if they are against the AI.

I can almost guarantee that once you play your first couple of PBEM turns, you will never want to play the AI ever again.


I have never written that there is no merit in PBEM, and I am confused by those who say that "those who do not enjoy playing the game as I do are insulting us by doing so."

People enjoy doing different things, and the things that I enjoy cannot be captured in a PBEM game.

(1) There are loopholes in every simulation. They simulate the actual war more or less accurately, and the 'loopholes' that I speak of are simply those parts of the program that are less accurate, allowing options that simply would not have been considered in the actual war.

(2) Only if my opponent has emailed a turn between the last time that I sent something. When I play the AI, I have a 100% chance that I have the next turn waiting for me, even if I want to move immediately from one turn to the next.

(3) What would I learn? I look at a lot of descriptions involving PBEM games and virtually all of them involve 'learning' the types of tricks I mentioned in (1) above. I have no interest in learning the best exploit of a simulation database. I have less interest in a contest to see if I can come up with a better exploit than my opponent. With the right type of opponent, this would not be a problem (and I have no qualms against two people with similar mentality enjoying a game together -- all that matters is that they are having fun). But, I have no interests that are compatible with this type of game.

(4) I have X number of hours between birth and death, and no interest in wasting any large quantity of them doing something I hate, when I could just as easily be spending them doing something that I enjoy.

(5) Actually, even if this is true, it is a mean-spirited comment. However, given the number of hits I get on my DAR each day, I have reason to believe that it is not true. To be honest, I think that pushing little electronic ships across an electronic map is a massively trivial way to spend one's time. Creating something that others enjoy, on the other hand, has a bit more merit.

Let each person pursue what, to them, is fun, so long they do so in a way that does not harm others. Some people's interests simply cannot be satisfied in a PBEM game -- depending what they like. For those of us, any improvement in the AI would be appreciated.



Frank W. -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/30/2004 2:40:57 AM)

quote:


Let each person pursue what, to them, is fun, so long they do so in a way that does not harm others. Some people's interests simply cannot be satisfied in a PBEM game -- depending what they like. For those of us, any improvement in the AI would be appreciated.


[sm=00000436.gif]



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125