RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

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

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

Message

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (10/31/2005 7:03:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CBoehm 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? One of the elements of the AIO is a decision maker who is tasked to coordinate with allies. Here is his prospectus. =============== 3.2.4 Foreign Liaison The Foreign Liaison (FL) is charged with the responsibility of coordinating with allies on the strategic allocation of resources and operational and tactical deployment of units in the field. One way of thinking about the separation of powers between the Commander in Chief and the Foreign Liaison is the CC deals with countries that are enemies and the FL deals with those that are allies. Lend leasing and trade agreements are the purview of the FL. Making sure that necessary actions are accomplished but not performed redundantly are also part of the FL’s job. Mostly, the Foreign Liaisons of two friendly counties act as the linkage between their respective Admiralties, Air Marshals, and Field Marshals. This frequently comes up for joining naval forces, protecting convoys, transporting units and resources, and working side by side along a joint front line. Joint air operations are another area that requires the FL’s gentle touch. Arguably the most important task the FL performs is making recommendations to the Grand Strategist about US entry choices concerning: China, the Commonwealth and France, Atlantic convoys, and the USSR. These recommendations require the FL to assess how well the war is going for all current and potentially future combatants. Since those assessments cover the entire globe, all units of all branches of service, all national production capacities, and the territorial holdings of every major power, this is both an enormous and very detailed task. It is essential information for the Grand Strategist when reviewing and choosing the grand strategic plan. The Foreign Liaison has no direct subordinates and reports to the Grand Strategist. ===================== Feel free to include crucial hexes beyond those of victory hexes in the strategic plan. The AIO has to deal with the optional rules all the time, so conditionals concerning same are to be expected.

wfzimmerman -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/1/2005 7:24:53 PM)
The AI's mastery of gambits is an important issue. I would define gambit as a particular operation or series of operations which, if not guarded against, can decisively tip the course of the game. A lot of the fun of playing games like WiF is to try out gambits and have them tried out on you. The AI should be smart about looking for the opportunity to carry out gambits against the player. It should punish you severely if you leave yourself open. However, it may be worthwhile to provide a slider control that makes the AI a little less adept at gambits for players who like a gentler trip up the learning curve.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/1/2005 8:44:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman The AI's mastery of gambits is an important issue. I would define gambit as a particular operation or series of operations which, if not guarded against, can decisively tip the course of the game. A lot of the fun of playing games like WiF is to try out gambits and have them tried out on you. The AI should be smart about looking for the opportunity to carry out gambits against the player. It should punish you severely if you leave yourself open. However, it may be worthwhile to provide a slider control that makes the AI a little less adept at gambits for players who like a gentler trip up the learning curve. I agree with you about 'gambits' for MWIF. However, my background is in chess where the word gambit has a very well defined meaning. In chess, a gambit is a sacrifice of material for some temporal advantage, with no guarantee that the material will ever be recovered. Essentially the player gives away one or more of his men/pieces for a positional advantage. In chess a gambit is always a risk with an uncertain outcome. As you use the term, I believe you are refering to tactical opportuniites. If you read Patrice's posts on AI for Germany in this forum, you will find that he recommends garrisoning all capitals all the time; Patrice is very concerned about defending against invasions and paradrops. The Commonwealth leaving Malta undefended, Italy having its whole navy in a major port without a land unit to defend it from invasion, paradrops behind the enemy lines in Poland that cut off all supply to the frontlines, are examples of tactical opportunities. In more common terms "Oops!" [actually more forceful explicatives are commonly used by players experiencing these events]. I would classify a Commonwealth invasion of Denmark in 1941 as a gambit. The USSR declaring war on Turkey might be another one. In any event, your point about keeping a keen eye out for opportunities for unexpected, dramatic, tactical attacks on vulnerabilities is excellent. I am compiling a list of them for the AIO to run through every impulse. I also liked your idea of having the AIO play at various levels of skill. I detest giving the AIO any capability/advantage that the human player doesn't have (e.g., change the combat tables, or cost of building units, or anything like that). This means that I am somewhat in a quandry as to how to mitigate its skill smoothly. Since getting the AIO to play well is an awesome task, I have given the problem of degrading its skill level virtually no thought at all. I am open to suggestions.

Froonp -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/1/2005 11:05:36 PM)
quote: If you read Patrice's posts on AI for Germany in this forum, you will find that he recommends garrisoning all capitals all the time; Patrice is very concerned about defending against invasions and paradrops. Well, not all the time, only when threatened, or soon being threatened. [:)] Threatened meaning there's a threat within striking range.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/1/2005 11:39:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: If you read Patrice's posts on AI for Germany in this forum, you will find that he recommends garrisoning all capitals all the time; Patrice is very concerned about defending against invasions and paradrops. Well, not all the time, only when threatened, or soon being threatened. [:)] Threatened meaning there's a threat within striking range. I apologize for the misquote. Garrisoning Washington DC isn't usually warranted.

Greyshaft -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/2/2005 10:22:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Since getting the AIO to play well is an awesome task, I have given the problem of degrading its skill level virtually no thought at all. I am open to suggestions. To degrade the AI, I suggest make it more human [:D] * Leave every nth enemy unit out of your calculations <akin to a careless player not noticing the enemy dispositions> * miscalculate the gearing limits <haven't we all done that far too often!> * indulge in riskier attacks <ooops!! overlooked that extra TAC factor I could have thrown into the battle!> The possibilities are endless...

Neilster -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/2/2005 10:25:47 AM)
quote: Since getting the AIO to play well is an awesome task, I have given the problem of degrading its skill level virtually no thought at all. I am open to suggestions. If the AI generates several possible courses of action and then selects the "best" one semi-randomly, we could increase the probability of picking a lower-rated one. Other than that, we could introduce "noise" into the AI's calculations, inversely proportional to the skill level. This reminds me of something I considered ages ago. As well as a skill level for the AI, what about an aggression level? This would add a significant amount of interest and replayability to the game. For example, an aggressive Wallies might attempt an invasion of GER in 1939 to assist Poland. An aggressive Axis might attempt a "France first" strategy, try risky Gib assaults or a Sealion. A less aggressive Axis might attempt a Med strategy rather than Barbarossa. The aggression could be handled in a similar way to my first suggestion. Possible courses of action are rated for risk and at a high aggression level the riskier actions are more likely to be selected. I think the interplay between skill and risk would be interesting. Historically the Wallies were pretty risk-averse whereas the Baddies took a lot of risks early in the war. Cheers, Neilster

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/2/2005 11:02:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Since getting the AIO to play well is an awesome task, I have given the problem of degrading its skill level virtually no thought at all. I am open to suggestions. To degrade the AI, I suggest make it more human [:D] * Leave every nth enemy unit out of your calculations <akin to a careless player not noticing the enemy dispositions> * miscalculate the gearing limits <haven't we all done that far too often!> * indulge in riskier attacks <ooops!! overlooked that extra TAC factor I could have thrown into the battle!> The possibilities are endless... Maybe. This doesn't strike my fancy - why not, I don't know.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/2/2005 11:09:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster quote: Since getting the AIO to play well is an awesome task, I have given the problem of degrading its skill level virtually no thought at all. I am open to suggestions. If the AI generates several possible courses of action and then selects the "best" one semi-randomly, we could increase the probability of picking a lower-rated one. Other than that, we could introduce "noise" into the AI's calculations, inversely proportional to the skill level. This reminds me of something I considered ages ago. As well as a skill level for the AI, what about an aggression level? This would add a significant amount of interest and replayability to the game. For example, an aggressive Wallies might attempt an invasion of GER in 1939 to assist Poland. An aggressive Axis might attempt a "France first" strategy, try risky Gib assaults or a Sealion. A less aggressive Axis might attempt a Med strategy rather than Barbarossa. The aggression could be handled in a similar way to my first suggestion. Possible courses of action are rated for risk and at a high aggression level the riskier actions are more likely to be selected. I think the interplay between skill and risk would be interesting. Historically the Wallies were pretty risk-averse whereas the Baddies took a lot of risks early in the war. Cheers, Neilster This suggestion has more promise but the emphasis on choosing a poor strategic plan seems excessive. Perhaps operational missteps, such as not building enough of an important unit type - pick almost any unit type you want. Or tactical miscues, such as leaving convoys poorly defended or making stacking mistakes leaving open the possibility of very effective ground strikes. After a whole 6 or 7 seconds of reflection, I think maybe intentional mistakes in deciding where to deploy units could cover just about everything. If the human is clever enough to notice the holes that are created by the AIO's poor positioning, he can make progress quickly and painlessly.

Neilster -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/2/2005 11:29:58 AM)
quote: This suggestion has more promise but the emphasis on choosing a poor strategic plan seems excessive. I wasn't thinking strategic; probably more operational or tactical. What do you think of adding noise to the calculations? What about my suggestion of an aggression level? Cheers, Neilster

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/2/2005 5:48:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Neilster quote: This suggestion has more promise but the emphasis on choosing a poor strategic plan seems excessive. I wasn't thinking strategic; probably more operational or tactical. What do you think of adding noise to the calculations? What about my suggestion of an aggression level? Cheers, Neilster Noise doesn't give me the control I want in the degradation of performance. It may impact the results or it may not. Against a novice, I want the program to definitely give the player openings to exploit. Changing the aggression level is very dangerous. If it is too high, for example, Germany can destroy its entire army against mediocre USSR defenses in a couple of turns. The human player doesn't really have to do anything, just wait for the AIO to vanquish itself. As I see it that would not provide much of a learning experience for the novice. I want the beginner to have a lot of opportunities for success, not be punished rigorously for every mistake, and become a better player after each game he plays. Yeah, I know, it's ambitious. But bad choice of builds + bad positioning + failure to exploit every tactical mistake can do that; or at least I think it can.

c92nichj -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/2/2005 6:02:51 PM)
I know that you will not like this suggestion but I think that the AIO should have a higher likelyhood of rolling good die rolls. I wouldn't want ito always get +1 to the land combat rolls but maybe it should have 5% instead of 10% chance of rolling a 1. I would not like it to have increased production or cheaper units, but wouldn't mind it to be a litlle bit luckier than I am.

wfzimmerman -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/2/2005 6:14:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: c92nichj I know that you will not like this suggestion but I think that the AIO should have a higher likelyhood of rolling good die rolls. I wouldn't want ito always get +1 to the land combat rolls but maybe it should have 5% instead of 10% chance of rolling a 1. I would not like it to have increased production or cheaper units, but wouldn't mind it to be a litlle bit luckier than I am. why?

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/2/2005 7:30:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: c92nichj I know that you will not like this suggestion but I think that the AIO should have a higher likelyhood of rolling good die rolls. I wouldn't want ito always get +1 to the land combat rolls but maybe it should have 5% instead of 10% chance of rolling a 1. I would not like it to have increased production or cheaper units, but wouldn't mind it to be a litlle bit luckier than I am. Please visualize me making the sign of the cross and muttering Latin incantations to ward off evil. I will pray for you, my son.

Froonp -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/2/2005 11:06:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: c92nichj I know that you will not like this suggestion but I think that the AIO should have a higher likelyhood of rolling good die rolls. I wouldn't want ito always get +1 to the land combat rolls but maybe it should have 5% instead of 10% chance of rolling a 1. I would not like it to have increased production or cheaper units, but wouldn't mind it to be a litlle bit luckier than I am. Please visualize me making the sign of the cross and muttering Latin incantations to ward off evil. I will pray for you, my son. Same. I would hate it. anyway, I intend to play TCP/IP versus my best friend. Cheers !

pak19652002 -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/2/2005 11:24:38 PM)
Nicklas' admirable, but ultimately futile trial balloon underscores player sentiment that the AI will be...how to put this delicately..."peformance challenged" despite best efforts to the contrary. I was surprised by the feedback posted on this topic on the Online WiF board. Peter

SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/2/2005 11:37:39 PM)
I have been following the posts about the AI for quite some time. I also have been following the posts in the Yahoo WIF group about the same subject. I have a few comments. First, do NOT listen to the naysayers!!!!! THEY said man could not fly. THEY said man could not reach the moon. THEY said a computer would never beat a grandmaster at chess. THEY WERE WRONG. And now they are saying that a computer will NEVER be able to play a good game of WIF. We will never know until it is tried. I hope that the first complaint you get about the game is "The AI CHEATS" or The AI is too hard". I hope that you are bombarded with questions about what free help you have given the AI. I hope you succeed and I am pulling for you. It is a daunting task. Of that there is no doubt. But, as a professional programmer with 20 years experience, I can tell you this. I would not have dreamed that Windows and the internet would accomplish what they have. The only think it took was willpower and money. Perhaps this is the time for WiF. Go for it! Write a kick a$$ AI and make them run with their tail tucked between their legs. I believe! [&o] Dean

Froonp -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/3/2005 12:01:26 AM)
Yeahhhhh Samurai !!!! Well said !!! Go go go Steve !!!! [&o]

terje439 -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/3/2005 12:41:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer I hope that the first complaint you get about the game is "The AI CHEATS" or The AI is too hard". I agree with you on the wish for a "The AI is too hard"-comment, but I certainly would not want a "cheating" AI. If I loose a game because the AI is good/me not good enough that is great, that means I will go back and try again and again until I get it right. A cheating AI on the other hand is something I truely hate, to loose a game because the AI can build cheaper units in a shorter time as an example is something that would make me play the game once.

SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/3/2005 12:47:37 AM)
No, I don't want an AI that cheats either. What I meant was that they do such a good job at creating the AI that everyone is convinced it is cheating. Hope this helps.

terje439 -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/3/2005 12:54:36 AM)
ah my bad then :) hmm guess I agree 100% with you then :D

pak19652002 -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/3/2005 2:04:45 AM)
I hope you're right. Upon reflection, I think I would probably want to keep a game going against a worthy AI to try new things and kill time between moves from human partners. I'm in favor of it. Peter

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/3/2005 3:02:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer I have been following the posts about the AI for quite some time. I also have been following the posts in the Yahoo WIF group about the same subject. I have a few comments. First, do NOT listen to the naysayers!!!!! THEY said man could not fly. THEY said man could not reach the moon. THEY said a computer would never beat a grandmaster at chess. THEY WERE WRONG. And now they are saying that a computer will NEVER be able to play a good game of WIF. We will never know until it is tried. I hope that the first complaint you get about the game is "The AI CHEATS" or The AI is too hard". I hope that you are bombarded with questions about what free help you have given the AI. I hope you succeed and I am pulling for you. It is a daunting task. Of that there is no doubt. But, as a professional programmer with 20 years experience, I can tell you this. I would not have dreamed that Windows and the internet would accomplish what they have. The only think it took was willpower and money. Perhaps this is the time for WiF. Go for it! Write a kick a$$ AI and make them run with their tail tucked between their legs. I believe! [&o] Dean I thank you for your vote of confidence. It is somewhat like making a great iron shot into the green and leaving yourself with a four foot putt for birdie - the pressure is on to achieve the desired result. "Don't screw it up now!". Of course I am optimistic; I am a programmer. Only a person with overwhelming self-confidence can program for a living, believing that each time he/she writes code it will compile cleanly and execute perfectly on the first try. This despite an awesomely large history of having NOT achieved that result. Occasionally things work right the first time and every one is stunned. I maintain my past successes in clear focus before me and pass over my failures as merely part of an astonishingly long learning curve. I find it helps to have Swedish ancestry - my father's side of the family is stubburn about seeing things through to completion to the extent that they are borderline psychotic. Thanks again for the pompoms and all.

dhatchen -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/3/2006 2:18:38 PM)
I have a couple of ideas for the AI in general, some of which seems to have been at least briefly referred to. Bear with me if I repeat the obvious. Following the idea of Gambits, I think that every national AIO should have a list of gambits to pull out of the hat once in a while. They would have various grades of low priority for implementation but would keep the AIO fresh after several playings. The Denmark in '39 I mentioned in the USSR AIO topic could be one of these. Of course, you will get many more ideas than could possibly be handled, but the inclusion of the best and a handful of rare ones will cut down AI predictability. A possible way to dummy up the AI for the lesser skill levels is to increase the chance of the AIO playing the riskier options. Some of these gambits rely on a multi nation course of action. The potential interaction is tremendous and unprogrammable, but with a restricted list the AIOs would signal each other the intent to try a gambit to see if the allied AIO agrees. If denied, the AIO would have to decide to carry on alone or abandon the idea. This brings me to my last point. I would like to see a way for a human player to ask allied AIs for certain actions. The AI can always say no, but the effect of asking would at least cause a deliberation and potentially increase the chance of the action. In some cases there will be an immediate answer and in others you will just have to wait and see. Asking an ally for a DoW would be a example of this. Germany ALWAYS seems to want an early Italian DoW, so this would have little weight, but it the CW wants to go after Italy early, French participation would be nice. Another important action request would be for the USA to play a certain entry option. The compliance with the request would have to be weighed out based on the US Strategic Plan and the map situation. It could be limited to the available options that effect the asker. The CW could ask for help in the Atlantic or to garrison the NEI, but couldn't ask for the Bearn to be interned. Asking for paticipation in a multi-nation gambit is difficult to implement, but maybe the more important, common ones could be included. Just some thoughts.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/3/2006 4:39:23 PM)
I lilke almost all your suggestions here. The interaction between the AIOs for the individual major powers has not been worked out in detail. But they have a little more flesh on their bones based on what you just posted. Supporting the relationship between a human player and an AIA (Assistant, to keep it distinct from Opponent) has a lower priority for me than the AIO code proper. However, I need to design a fluid, flexible, and robust way for the AIOs to cooperate with each other and there is no reason not to make that design support human - AIA cooperation too. I would like to have as many different action plans (strategic, operational, and tactical) for the AIO to choose from as possible, but make the selection of the more riskier ones rare. For dumbing down the AIO, I still prefer just simply having it make poor choices about what unit types to build and where to deploy them. Though that doesn't sound like much, I believe it can drastically reduce the AIO's ability to attack and defend on land, sea and in the air. It can also affect its ability to interfere with enemy production and maintain its own production. The reason I have less inclination for using risky planning to achieve the same effect has to do with teaching the game to newbies. It is hard to learn how to play better if your opponent is running around doing crazy things. Instead of focusing on basics, the newbie would get swept up in trying to solve of the bizarre problems/possibilities of WIF that are tangential to playing well. An unimaginative AIO, who is a little slow about getting its act together, offers the newbie a chance to be in charge of what happens where and when. If the newbie can't force a win under those circumstances, then he has a lot to learn. As the level of difficulty increases, then tossing in the odd screwball seems more appropriate.

dhatchen -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/3/2006 11:36:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets For dumbing down the AIO, I still prefer just simply having it make poor choices about what unit types to build and where to deploy them. Though that doesn't sound like much, I believe it can drastically reduce the AIO's ability to attack and defend on land, sea and in the air. It can also affect its ability to interfere with enemy production and maintain its own production. The reason I have less inclination for using risky planning to achieve the same effect has to do with teaching the game to newbies. It is hard to learn how to play better if your opponent is running around doing crazy things. Instead of focusing on basics, the newbie would get swept up in trying to solve of the bizarre problems/possibilities of WIF that are tangential to playing well. An unimaginative AIO, who is a little slow about getting its act together, offers the newbie a chance to be in charge of what happens where and when. If the newbie can't force a win under those circumstances, then he has a lot to learn. As the level of difficulty increases, then tossing in the odd screwball seems more appropriate. I agree with you totally here. I thought of the post later and realized that newbies will, to some extent, model their play after what looks good from the AI. I really like the idea of slow reactions and openings for lower skill levels. It teaches the player how to capitalize on opponent's errors and slows the pace a little.

hakon -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/4/2006 10:16:48 AM)
While dreams of an AI that is so good it will have to be "dumbed down" to be beatable by players are indeed nice, i doubt that this will be an issue except against players that dont yet know the rules. In fact, the whole concept of "dumbing down" the AI worries me a bit, for two reasons. First off, I am worried that "dumbing down" the AI will increase the complexity of the code, resulting in longer development time and possibly more bugs. Second, I am concerned that the game will be so easy on single player, that there will be no point in playing vs the AI at all. I dont want to sound pessimistic, but how many games are there out there of this kind of complexity that is even remotely capable of challenging a capable human player without being given some kind of an advantage? Making an AI for this kind of game is (in my understanding) immensely harder than for, say, chess, and I dont think there are resources behind this project compareable to those IBM had for making Deep Blue. Personally, I prefer to give the AI some production advantage (in the range of +10% to +50%), as this allows the tactical AI to be unchanged on all levels. At least for me, multiplayer WiF will probably still be done on top of a table, so unless single player is decent, I am afraid the game will be reduced to a solitaire trainer.

Froonp -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/4/2006 11:43:23 AM)
quote: Personally, I prefer to give the AI some production advantage (in the range of +10% to +50%), as this allows the tactical AI to be unchanged on all levels. Arrrgghhhh, Steve, the cross, the cross !!!!!!! [sm=00000612.gif] The devil is here again !!!!

hakon -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/4/2006 12:23:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: Personally, I prefer to give the AI some production advantage (in the range of +10% to +50%), as this allows the tactical AI to be unchanged on all levels. Arrrgghhhh, Steve, the cross, the cross !!!!!!! [sm=00000612.gif] The devil is here again !!!! I dont see how being this religious about not giving the AI some advantage helps the game being a success. Throw away the cross, and name one computer game simmilar to wif in complexity, where the AI is on par with a good human player.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/4/2006 12:40:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hakon While dreams of an AI that is so good it will have to be "dumbed down" to be beatable by players are indeed nice, i doubt that this will be an issue except against players that dont yet know the rules. In fact, the whole concept of "dumbing down" the AI worries me a bit, for two reasons. First off, I am worried that "dumbing down" the AI will increase the complexity of the code, resulting in longer development time and possibly more bugs. Second, I am concerned that the game will be so easy on single player, that there will be no point in playing vs the AI at all. I dont want to sound pessimistic, but how many games are there out there of this kind of complexity that is even remotely capable of challenging a capable human player without being given some kind of an advantage? Making an AI for this kind of game is (in my understanding) immensely harder than for, say, chess, and I dont think there are resources behind this project compareable to those IBM had for making Deep Blue. Personally, I prefer to give the AI some production advantage (in the range of +10% to +50%), as this allows the tactical AI to be unchanged on all levels. At least for me, multiplayer WiF will probably still be done on top of a table, so unless single player is decent, I am afraid the game will be reduced to a solitaire trainer. I do have some experience in writing AI programs. In college (1968) I wrote a program in Fortran on an IBM 1130 that played 3 dimensional tic-tac-toe (4 by 4 by 4) that beat all its opponents except the math majors. I wrote the AI opponent for Chickamuaga (Atari 800 in assembler - 32 kb of memory) in 1982 that was awarded strategy and tactics war game of the year by Family Computing magazine. Its AI opponent was difficult to beat. I started studying AI professionally in 1976 and have a lot of experience in industrial applications using a variety of methodologies. True, WIF is a complicated game. But I play it extremely well (8 years of experience, 6-8 hours every week). I also am receiving some excellent help from other very knowledgeable players. Though it might come as a surprise to many, my main motivation for working on MWIF is to write the AI opponent. I find the other work involved a lot of fun to do too, but it is creating the AIO the really drives me here. Whether I succeed or not in developing a worthy AI opponent remains to be seen. I certainly have a lot of doubts myself, but I will give it my best shot.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.4375