RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> AI Opponent Discussion



Message

herwin -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (8/16/2005 5:58:16 PM)

Actually, an actor-critic approach where the AI learns the player's styles might be the most effective.



Manack -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (8/29/2005 9:38:48 AM)

What would be great for the extreme geeks amongst us would be to have the AI implemented as much as possible via a interperated script which could be user edited. Events instructing the AI to react certain ways in certain conditions, ratios of CVs, BBs, and CA in tasks forces which are assigned different objective. At least be able to have access to variables which weigh how the AI behaves in the game. For example being able to mod the amount of fighters it produces or the land forces Germany guards Frances beaches with.

It would be great if you were able to mod the AI to the extent that you could pursue a different Grand Strategy which might be a bit radical and probably not implemented by Matrix. Such as a German attempt on taking India or US invasion through the Balkans.

That way the user community could continually improve the AI constantly fine tuning it and experimenting. The best changes floating around the forums could always be reabsorbed back into the core release during the patch process.

This would greatly enhance the solo replay value of the game as people trade AI enhancements as well as allow the community to continuing to improve the game way past the time when it's commercially possible for Matrix to do so.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (8/29/2005 7:33:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Manack
What would be great for the extreme geeks amongst us would be to have the AI implemented as much as possible via a interperated script which could be user edited. Events instructing the AI to react certain ways in certain conditions, ratios of CVs, BBs, and CA in tasks forces which are assigned different objective. At least be able to have access to variables which weigh how the AI behaves in the game. For example being able to mod the amount of fighters it produces or the land forces Germany guards Frances beaches with.

It would be great if you were able to mod the AI to the extent that you could pursue a different Grand Strategy which might be a bit radical and probably not implemented by Matrix. Such as a German attempt on taking India or US invasion through the Balkans.

That way the user community could continually improve the AI constantly fine tuning it and experimenting. The best changes floating around the forums could always be reabsorbed back into the core release during the patch process.

This would greatly enhance the solo replay value of the game as people trade AI enhancements as well as allow the community to continuing to improve the game way past the time when it's commercially possible for Matrix to do so.


I gave an answer to another post that applies to what you are suggesting. See #82 in PBEM Standing Orders.



Froonp -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (8/29/2005 9:46:19 PM)

What Manack wrote reminded me the good old SSG games (from the Battlefornt Series to the Carriers at War series), and compelled me to chime in.

These old SSG computer wargames had the best AI I encountered in computer wargames, because it was designed like Manack described.
The whole system was called "Warplans" if I remember correctly.
It ws designed with the user able to input things in it, and with the user ability to design "warplans".
And at that time there was no Internet, no worldwide communication, and the thing worked.
SSG even had a magazine issued (was call Run5) where you had scenarios with warplans you could add to the games.

Having the old SSG chaps working now for Matrix, and having Matrix doing a computer version of WiF FE, I thought that I should at least tell you : Why not ask the SSG guys if they can adapt their "Warplan" AI to WiF FE ?



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (8/30/2005 7:27:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
What Manack wrote reminded me the good old SSG games (from the Battlefornt Series to the Carriers at War series), and compelled me to chime in.

These old SSG computer wargames had the best AI I encountered in computer wargames, because it was designed like Manack described.
The whole system was called "Warplans" if I remember correctly.
It ws designed with the user able to input things in it, and with the user ability to design "warplans".
And at that time there was no Internet, no worldwide communication, and the thing worked.
SSG even had a magazine issued (was call Run5) where you had scenarios with warplans you could add to the games.

Having the old SSG chaps working now for Matrix, and having Matrix doing a computer version of WiF FE, I thought that I should at least tell you : Why not ask the SSG guys if they can adapt their "Warplan" AI to WiF FE ?


There is an English expression "being a wet blanket", which is my role for this idea.

I think it is universally accepted that creating an AI for a wargame is difficult to do, that they are almost always embarrassingly stupid, and that it would be really surprising and quite wonderful if MWIF included a good AI opponent.

At this point in the development of MWIF I think I can write a good AI. Time will tell whether I am right or wrong. However, I have a pretty clear vision of how it will work and that includes having a very good understanding of the nuances of WIF (the rules). These fundamental underpinnings do not lend themselves to review and tweaking by people who are not familiar with how they all tie together. In a nutshell, WIF is complicated and the MWIF AI opponent code/logic/rules/data structures/procedural elements will be too. Designing it for parsing and manipulation by others is not on my task list. And since my task list is already long and quite challenging, it is not going to become part of my task list either. As I said earlier - I am being a wet blanket.



Manack -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (8/30/2005 7:32:18 AM)

I've done a little bit of prolog and it probably shines in my recursive intensive approach to an AI problem. I know this is a little more computer resource intensive than other approaches but I thought I'd throw it into the ring anyhow.

Decision Maker: Admiralty

Problem: Convoy raiding Decision making.

Choices: One or more sea areas in range of a naval unit or plane with naval factors.

Information Needed:

  • Aggression policy on convoy raiding
  • Weather
  • Units available to reach sea area
  • Enemy Convoys in a sea area
  • Convoy utilisation in a sea area
  • Enemy naval escorts in a sea area
  • Enemy air power in a sea area
  • Enemy units able to intercept raiders enroute to convoys
  • Enemy units able to counterattack raiders next impulse.
  • Seabox advantage
  • Available Naval moves


Criteria:
Preferably, the AI should combine the likelyhood of finding an enemy convoy and the predicited damage to loss ratio to derive a value which can be ranked for every possible combination of sea area(s) and convoy raider makeups within the available number of naval moves.

In ranking a attack the AI would need to consider the likely makeup of the opposing sides in a naval battle (multiple if interceptions/counter attacks are likely) and make a prediction about the likely type of battle (sub, surface, air) and the likely outcome of the battle.

This outcome ranking would then be modified by the likelyhood of it occuring with the AI preferencing positive outcome battles with a likely occurance.

If the best ranked combination meets the convoy raiding aggression policy criteria then the order is executed/recomended.

Other:
A utility such as this to test opponent vulnerablility should be part of the decision making process in choosing if a land, naval or combined action should be taken.



Manack -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (8/30/2005 8:02:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Actually, an actor-critic approach where the AI learns the player's styles might be the most effective.


I would love to see a well done actor-critic wargame done one day. But I can see how it could go horribly wrong. An AI that might seem balanced in beta might slowly become irrational once released. Or a bug may surface in the program which can only be reproduced due to a particular evolutionary path of the AI making it almost impossible to debug.

AI actor-critic also only works very well when a action can be measured and there is limited interdependence between the actions. In Wif lots of stuff can't be measured and that's not even counting the actions the AI doesn't attempt which can never be accurately measured. How can you measure something like placement of ground units on the Russian front when interelated factors factors like weather and airpower are what turns the tide.

Lots of effort would be required for fine tuning. What if for example the AI got unlucky and rolled a one 5 times in a row for a 3:1 blitz attacks it might then decide to not try those attacks again. You would need to develop some very robust automated test cases and go over the AI to weed out those problems.

I think in the limited avenues where an actor-critic approach can be easily implemented in WIF would end up being no more effective than a simple rules based/table lookup anyhow. 1:2 attack bad 3:1 attack good.

But still... I'd love to see it done. [:)]




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (8/30/2005 8:33:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Manack
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
Actually, an actor-critic approach where the AI learns the player's styles might be the most effective.

I would love to see a well done actor-critic wargame done one day. But I can see how it could go horribly wrong. An AI that might seem balanced in beta might slowly become irrational once released. Or a bug may surface in the program which can only be reproduced due to a particular evolutionary path of the AI making it almost impossible to debug.

AI actor-critic also only works very well when a action can be measured and there is limited interdependence between the actions. In Wif lots of stuff can't be measured and that's not even counting the actions the AI doesn't attempt which can never be accurately measured. How can you measure something like placement of ground units on the Russian front when interelated factors factors like weather and airpower are what turns the tide.

Lots of effort would be required for fine tuning. What if for example the AI got unlucky and rolled a one 5 times in a row for a 3:1 blitz attacks it might then decide to not try those attacks again. You would need to develop some very robust automated test cases and go over the AI to weed out those problems.

I think in the limited avenues where an actor-critic approach can be easily implemented in WIF would end up being no more effective than a simple rules based/table lookup anyhow. 1:2 attack bad 3:1 attack good.

But still... I'd love to see it done. [:)]


I considered the actor-critic approach an extremely poor idea for WIF. It usually is applied either in games where similar situations arise frequently (e.g. Go) or to a repetitious set of games (e.g., playing 40 chess games in a row). In both cases, the starting premise is that a lot of data is provided by the opponent that can be analyzed. WIF does not give the AI the luxury of a learning period.

If Germany screws up the first two turns of Barbarossa, there is no recovery. The same can be said for almost every other major power in every scenario. The AI has to play well from the very start. Even if the first couple of turns were hardcoded, the AI would not learn enough about the enemy during those 2 turns to predict the enemy's actions during the 3rd. You don't know any of the units he has in production - for just one obvious example. Also the dynamics of the war have great variability. From fighting a 100% land battle in China, Japan turns to building an expansive naval empire. How the AI is suppose to predict this based on the Japanese actions early in the game is beyond my understanding. There is very little that is repetitous in WIF - every thing is in flux.

If you would like to get more involved in designing the AI for MWIF, send me an email (Steve@PatternDiscovery.us)



Froonp -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (8/30/2005 12:21:15 PM)

quote:

There is an English expression "being a wet blanket", which is my role for this idea.

I think it is universally accepted that creating an AI for a wargame is difficult to do, that they are almost always embarrassingly stupid, and that it would be really surprising and quite wonderful if MWIF included a good AI opponent.

At this point in the development of MWIF I think I can write a good AI. Time will tell whether I am right or wrong. However, I have a pretty clear vision of how it will work and that includes having a very good understanding of the nuances of WIF (the rules). These fundamental underpinnings do not lend themselves to review and tweaking by people who are not familiar with how they all tie together. In a nutshell, WIF is complicated and the MWIF AI opponent code/logic/rules/data structures/procedural elements will be too. Designing it for parsing and manipulation by others is not on my task list. And since my task list is already long and quite challenging, it is not going to become part of my task list either. As I said earlier - I am being a wet blanket.

I'm sorry, I do not know what the english expression "being a wet blanket" means [X(]
OK, I must be dumb, I found what it meant [:D]
You're not a wet blanket, I am happy you are making the AI [:D]



Anendrue -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (8/30/2005 8:20:18 PM)

Unfortunately I can not help with your AI due to No Compete and NDA.

Your use of "decision makers will be familiar to all WIF players: Grand Strategist, Commander in Chief, Manufacturing Council, Foreign Liaison (coordination with allies), Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiralty, Air Marshall, and Field Marshalls. Note that there may be several Field Marshalls with different ones assigned to different theaters of operation" seems very similiar to HOI2 and that would be great.

Still for location specific attack and defense values a possible solution might be to create a graduated extract of combat results tables of minimum defense and adding in additional units until max stack limits are reached. This could be extracted into a workable set of tables looking for optimum defense which theater commanders use to assist for specific location defenses.

However this would require the creation of a database containg all the combat/terrain variables and unit statistics iterrated through umpteen millions of combat results storing and averaging results resulting in the graduated tables. Quite a project in and of itself. So unless someone not under a legal hammer could take this on .... [;)]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (8/30/2005 9:05:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562
...
Still for location specific attack and defense values a possible solution might be to create a graduated extract of combat results tables of minimum defense and adding in additional units until max stack limits are reached. This could be extracted into a workable set of tables looking for optimum defense which theater commanders use to assist for specific location defenses.

However this would require the creation of a database containg all the combat/terrain variables and unit statistics iterrated through umpteen millions of combat results storing and averaging results resulting in the graduated tables. Quite a project in and of itself. So unless someone not under a legal hammer could take this on .... [;)]



As you point out, there are a lot of different factors involved in land combat in WIF. Here is a extract from a description of one of the standing orders:
================
The AI Assistant makes an educated guess (if fog of war is being used, a precise calculation can’t be done) of the following attack elements the enemy might bring to bear on the hex:
(1) basic land units,
(2) armor strength,
(3) invasion units,
(4) paradrops,
(5) HQ support,
(6) ground support (artillery and tactical bombers),
(7) defensive shore bombardment,
(8) surprise, and
(9) offensive chits.
=================

This doesn't take into consideration terrain or command conflict. In view of these, I think that rather than table lookups, procedures will be better suited to handle the diversity of elements.



Froonp -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (8/31/2005 12:28:26 AM)

quote:

Unfortunately I can not help with your AI due to No Compete and NDA.

Hello,

I believe you've said either too much or too little.
Could you explain a little further ?
No compete with what ?



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (8/31/2005 12:58:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

Unfortunately I can not help with your AI due to No Compete and NDA.

Hello,

I believe you've said either too much or too little.
Could you explain a little further ?
No compete with what ?


The words "No Compete" is short for a legal document that states the person who signs it will not compete with the other party. In this case, abj9562 is indicating that he has signed an agreement to not compete with another company's product - probably another game about WW II. The NDA is a non-disclosure agreement which is another legal document that requires the person who signs it to not reveal confidential information to people who are not part of the agreement. Taken together, what abj is saying is that he did similar work on another game and is legally prevented from working on the AI for MWIF.



Froonp -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (8/31/2005 1:25:11 AM)

Well, in fact, I understood what he meant with the NDA, because I signed one before being on the CWiF alpha team, but I wondered what the other WWII wargame might be. Thanks you anyway Steve for the patient explanation [:)]
The curiosity of the playser I am is excited by the possibility that there might be another WWII wargame somewhere, that was it basically.



herwin -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (9/2/2005 5:47:08 PM)

I'm currently working on an actor-critic AI for a model of an echolocating bat. The hard problem is that the state space explodes exponentially, so I'm investigating alternative representations--currently either sparse matrices or tree structures. I was not proposing that an A-C system be used for a single game, but rather it be trainable over a series of games at Matrix and the alpha/beta testers and then be frozen for release. It might be even enough to use it to develop an algorithm for player support to extrapolate from the current situation to the game end to see if resignation is in order. It needs to get the flavour of the Japanese Government estimating they had a 40% chance of holding America to a draw and thinking that was better than staying at peace.



Sprocc -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (10/3/2005 3:33:48 AM)

Hi Shannon

I gave up on WiF being finished a while ago - only became aware people were actually getting somewhere today.

I am very experienced in AI techniques. While, I'm waiting for my PhD final marks from an AI thesis, I also lecture KBS (amongst other things). My main areas of knowledge are KBS, ANNs and Reinforcement Learning. I have also been playing WiF since its early days (although not recently as my young kids tend to eat the units [:(] ).

I have had a quick look through this thread (so I am sure to have missed some suggestions) but thought I would offer some ideas. Also if you need any further assistance then please send me a priv msg.

Firstly, I am surprised you would attempt to develop an AI for WiF - It is the most complicated game I’ve seen with an absolutely massive state space. In my view the state space is your primary problem. To be successful you must reduce this through generalisation.

Certainly, the hierarchy of decision makers is the way to go. How these are implemented is the question.
I noticed one suggestion of using actor-critic (I’m assuming this was table based not ANN based as ANNs are too slow for this purpose). Even so A-C is still to slow, requiring many viewings. If using a table then the large state space becomes a problem. Also, unless you use something like CQL you are dealing with a single goal and getting enough training examples would be impossible for most uses. The main area I see for the application of A-C would only be in unit combat (possible including navel and air). Working out which would be the best amount/combination of units. Then you can apply a reward after each combat based n the outcome. This would be aided by the non deterministic nature of combat - where A-C tends to do better. Even given this - I feel a rule based system would be faster and easier to develop – and more importantly easier to directly modify later on.

My personal approach (and I know parts were discussed above) is a points based systems. However, each location with points would require more than one point rating. For instance it would need points for how important a target it is to take a point for how important to defend, etc and the points would need to change throughout the game. It would also be in a hierarchy corresponding to the decision makers. For instance, top level decision makers would have points according to larger based strategies such as countries/regions/convey lines/reducing enemy productivity etc. While the low level decision makers would have points attached to particular hexs etc (only in their particular sphere of activity - if moved to a different front they would get the points for the hexs in this new area). Each decision maker is then simply attempting to maximise points. Each decision maker would have its own set of rules to make a decision. In order to allow each agent to appear to do different things each time a small amount of noise applied to the point system is simplest and would achieve the effect of choosing different but good actions. The amount of noise can be based on the skills of the decision maker. For instance, an aggressive decision maker would tend to have positive noise applied to areas requiring a more aggressive behaviour.

Developing rules for behaviour of complex agents such as these would be incredibly time consuming and difficult. KBS in complex domains can be very difficult to develop with. They also can have difficulty generalising and if the engineer omits some information the agent can behave very oddly. To help in this regard I would suggest the use of a simple methodology called Multiple Classification Ripple-Down Rules (MCRDR) http://www.comp.utas.edu.au/users/bhkang/ .

The advantage of MCRDR is that it is developed through exceptions during maintenance. Therefore, it can be developed through actual game play. Testers play the game against each other they could be told what the AI would currently do - if the player does something different then the MCRDR systems asks why? The tester answers (by selecting differences in the current state space from what it had seen previously) are used to create a new rule (or sets of rules). Therefore, this method does not require people to just sit there trying to think up rules. It can be based on the way people actually play. If rules are based on general details such as points then the rules can be applied more generally – alleviating many of the problems from the larger state space. It tends to develop more robust systems and is well suited to this type of application. There has been some research into using MCRDR specifically for this purpose of game development.

My PhD was not directly in MCRDR but an add-on to MCRDR and could improve the KA process even further - However, at the moment my technique has not been released from an IP agreement so I can't tell you about it - if and when it is release I can detail it further.

As I have written this on the spur of the moment - I'm sure its wrong in places - its really just some thoughts.



Froonp -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (10/3/2005 4:20:19 PM)

I don't understand all what Sprocc said [:D], but reading this, and also knowing that Steve has gathered around him a team of people like Sprocc to design AI, I fairly happy and quite confident that we are on the right way to have one day MWiF installed on our PCs. [&o]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (10/3/2005 6:54:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I don't understand all what Sprocc said [:D], but reading this, and also knowing that Steve has gathered around him a team of people like Sprocc to design AI, I fairly happy and quite confident that we are on the right way to have one day MWiF installed on our PCs. [&o]



And I thought his post would be "intuitively obvious to the casual observer".

[I asked him to fill out a non-disclosure agreement with Matrix and join the group developing the AI.]



Greyshaft -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (10/4/2005 12:36:38 AM)

yeah... what Sprocc said... right on!!!

uh... is that "Mr. Sprocc" with the pointy ears and the tricorder?



Sprocc -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (10/4/2005 1:42:05 AM)

No.

Sprocc is the character in a childrens book by Graham Base. Its one of my kids fav books



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (10/4/2005 4:38:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sprocc

No.

Sprocc is the character in a childrens book by Graham Base. Its one of my kids fav books


Greyshaft: Consider this new knowledge part of your continuing education now that you have become a parent.



Greyshaft -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (10/4/2005 5:10:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Greyshaft: Consider this new knowledge part of your continuing education now that you have become a parent.


I'm certainly learning a lot!!! I could create a whole new color chart based on what I've found in Adam's diapers.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (10/4/2005 5:15:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Greyshaft: Consider this new knowledge part of your continuing education now that you have become a parent.


I'm certainly learning a lot!!! I could create a whole new color chart based on what I've found in Adam's diapers.


More information than I needed to know.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (10/30/2005 8:48:56 PM)

I have been hammering away at designing the AI Opponent so it can play a respectable game (against you!). There is a ton of work to be done to handle all the little decisions that have to be made when playing WIF but I thought you might be willing to help me out at the highest level of the AIO’s design. What I am looking for are grand strategic plans for the AIO.

As I see it, China and France have limited strategic options and Italy has only a few choices because of its geographical position and smaller production and military capabilities. The other 5 major powers, on the other hand, have a lot of choices at the strategic level. I would like to have several strategic plans for each of the big 5 from which the AIO can choose, with a lot of optional little pieces that could be included or excluded. What I have created for the AIO in writing my other war games is an ambiguous starting position and early action choices/movement of units, so the human opponent isn’t sure exactly what the AIO intends to do next.

If you would like to provide me with some advice on strategic plans for any of the major powers, I would greatly appreciate it. If several people choose the same country, that would be fine too, because, after all, I am looking for multiple strategic plans. There are 11 scenarios in MWIF, so if you want to just advise on Barbarossa or one of the other scenarios, that would be great. The obvious starting place is the player notes are the end of the rule book, but here are some specifics that I am looking for:

(1) Victory cities to be taken and/or defended.
(2) Which major powers to declare war on, when, and any associated conditions concerning same.
(3) Which minor countries to declare war on, when, and any associated conditions concerning same.
(4) Which minor countries to align, when, and any associated conditions concerning same.
(5) Expected areas of conflict: with whom, where, type of combat (land, naval, air, convoys).
(6) A master production plan by unit type and/or gearing limits. This does not have to be detailed, just a broad outline.
(7) A time line for the strategic plan’s major milestones.

I have probably forgotten something, so add anything that you believe to be important.

I thank you for your continuing support.

Steve

P.S. I am still looking for people to help on the more detailed aspects of the AIO (Steve@PatternDiscovery.us)



Greyshaft -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (10/31/2005 9:29:54 AM)

I'll have a go for Italy...happy to share the topic if someone wanted to be Il Duce.



Froonp -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (10/31/2005 9:44:27 AM)

I intend to have a try at each major power one moment or the other.
Maybe for the ideas to be organized we should create a thread for each major power so that information is easy to collate ?
A thread named "Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - Italy" for instance for Italy, and then anothere one for each major power.
What do you think ?



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (10/31/2005 11:23:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I intend to have a try at each major power one moment or the other.
Maybe for the ideas to be organized we should create a thread for each major power so that information is easy to collate ?
A thread named "Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - Italy" for instance for Italy, and then anothere one for each major power.
What do you think ?


That's fine by me. However, let's only create the threads when someone has something to post to it (?).



CBoehm -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (10/31/2005 1:01:25 PM)

quote:

If you would like to provide me with some advice on strategic plans for any of the major powers, I would greatly appreciate it.


Im willing to give a go at the CW which happens to be my favorite country exactly because of its multitude of strategic options. - should I post it here or email it to you?

A few detail questions?!
- you state that there will be no "master allied ai" ...does that mean that conditional strategies cannot be designed for the CW, ei. do this if US do that?
- "which VPhexes to garrison" how about other important cities/resource hexes?! (a key hexes are not VPhexes).
- can conditional ai behavior be implemented depending on which optional rules are used?



Froonp -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (10/31/2005 3:16:20 PM)

quote:

Im willing to give a go at the CW which happens to be my favorite country exactly because of its multitude of strategic options. - should I post it here or email it to you?

Please, open a new Thread named Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - Commonwealth (or AI for MWiF - CW).
Thanks



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (10/31/2005 6:58:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

Im willing to give a go at the CW which happens to be my favorite country exactly because of its multitude of strategic options. - should I post it here or email it to you?

Please, open a new Thread named Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames - Commonwealth (or AI for MWiF - CW).
Thanks


Done.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.578125