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

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



Message

hakon -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/4/2006 1:31:36 PM)

This sounds very promising. Maybe I am a bit prejudiced when it comes the feasibility of creating a real AI opponent that can play as well as a human.

Still, I think it would be a good idea to include the possibility to give the AI some kind of advantage at the higher difficulty levels. If the AI can beat the strongest human players without "cheating", these extra levels of diffuculty can always be disabled/hidden. I guess it will become clear during playtesting how stong the AI will be.



stretch -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/4/2006 4:29:35 PM)

I'm trying to keep this in perspective. Writing an AI for WiF at all will be a gargantuan task. Making one that is any good may prove to be a Sisyphean task. Look at War in the Pacific for example. Apparently Gary Grigsby beat himself to death for months working on the AI for that game, yet it can be beat easily by a first timer learning the game as he goes along (i.e. me, winning the war far ahead of historical schedule).

I would argue that coding a competent AI for WiF will be a harder task than for WiTP.

Still, this AI in WiTP has provided me countless hours of fun playing the game solo. I know if I want more of a challenge, I need to play a human. The main purpose of the AI to me was providing an opponent against which I learned how to play at a basic level.

If an AI is written for WiF that accomplishes that task, given the complexity, I think it has to be considered a success.



hakon -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/4/2006 5:14:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stretch

I'm trying to keep this in perspective. Writing an AI for WiF at all will be a gargantuan task. Making one that is any good may prove to be a Sisyphean task. Look at War in the Pacific for example. Apparently Gary Grigsby beat himself to death for months working on the AI for that game, yet it can be beat easily by a first timer learning the game as he goes along (i.e. me, winning the war far ahead of historical schedule).

I would argue that coding a competent AI for WiF will be a harder task than for WiTP.

Still, this AI in WiTP has provided me countless hours of fun playing the game solo. I know if I want more of a challenge, I need to play a human. The main purpose of the AI to me was providing an opponent against which I learned how to play at a basic level.

If an AI is written for WiF that accomplishes that task, given the complexity, I think it has to be considered a success.



I disagree somewhat here. It is perfectly possible to create a challenge for players even in single player. If you give the AI an advantage.....

Of course, if Steve can create an AI as strong as a human, this is a complete non-issue, but otherwise, not giving the AI some advantage will more or less ruin the game experience for me.



Cheesehead -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/4/2006 8:44:11 PM)

quote:

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.


I just don't see any reason to worry about dumbing down the AI for this game. If Newbie's can't beat your AI, they can always find other newbies to play. And anyone with the brains to understand this game would be motivated for further challenges after an initial drubbing at the hands of the AI.


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.


I disagree with any notion of giving production advantages to anyone in this game (AI or human). It would throw off the balance of the game for anyone trying to learn. "Hearts of Iron 2" did this...it was their only way of making the AI a challenge, yet it produced such an unrealistic game that I quit playing. Everything is just wrong about it. Imagine two football teams playing...one is asked to put only 9 men on the field against the full squad of 11 on the other side.



macgregor -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/4/2006 9:59:39 PM)

I agree with Cheesehead. Though I'm sure Steve will make a great AI. How long it will take him is another question. Certainly too long for someone with no intention of utilizing it.



P8654 -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/4/2006 11:04:18 PM)

I agree that their should be no production advantage given to any opponent (maybe as an option). I usually only play single player. I dislike games where the computer breaks the rules and I have to follow them. The computer doesn't have to be deep blue but it should present a challege to novice players.



Glen Felzien -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/5/2006 2:10:32 AM)

I must echo the dislike for needed cheats for AIOs. I understand why it is done but I find it disappointing. I want a challenge from a AIO that is playing better than I and not because it has greater resources at hand. That said, is it difficult to add such a feature for those that dont mind. Maybe a slider function that can be chosen at the campaign start: Less advantage - Even - Greater advantage. Somthing like that maybe?

Finally, will there be a hotseat function? With FoW, solitaire games would be better than table top solitaire.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/5/2006 4:17:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Glen Felzien

I must echo the dislike for needed cheats for AIOs. I understand why it is done but I find it disappointing. I want a challenge from a AIO that is playing better than I and not because it has greater resources at hand. That said, is it difficult to add such a feature for those that dont mind. Maybe a slider function that can be chosen at the campaign start: Less advantage - Even - Greater advantage. Somthing like that maybe?

Finally, will there be a hotseat function? With FoW, solitaire games would be better than table top solitaire.


The design specifications I am working to require: hot seat, mulitple player internet, PBEM , and solitaire against an AI opponent.

The first was done by Chris for CWIF and pretty much works.

The second was in development for CWIF and functions to some degree but has some lingering problems.

Neither the third nor the fourth was ever even attemnpted by CWIF.

I am designing the multiple player internet capability from scratch, basing it using INDY 10, which suits me better as the underlying software for live internet communications. INDY 10 also enables PBEM communications.

For the PBEM capability, I have a full design specification written for modifying the sequence of play (available upon request to Steve@PatternDiscovery.us).

For the AI Opponent I am up to 80 pages for the design specification with a lot more yet to do.



stretch -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/5/2006 4:29:12 AM)

Steve,

I wanted to point out that my reservations about an AI for WiF ever being any good is not a critique of your ability (or those who help). I (we all) deeply appreciate your hard work and I wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstood.

I just don't want it to hang up development, which it easily could. I think in order to get a really good AI we'd need to convert Froonp's brain into a computer program. (a-la Dr. Daystrom on Star Trek TOS, Ep 53, "the ultimate computer".. and no I’m not an uber geek I had to look that up) .



Neilster -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/5/2006 4:52:54 AM)

1. The mechanics of MWiF have been playtested to death by thousands of experienced players. Hence, in comparison to most computer games there is a huge amount of background knowledge to assist in producing the AI.

2. The head programmer is experienced both in WiF and AI techniques.

3. Unlike most games, it's not being rushed out to get a quick return on investment ("We'll patch the problems later" etc).

4. MWiF's complexity is already nicely constrained by the turn/phase structure. I believe this will assist in writing the AI.

5. There will be a proper testing program.

As a result I'm confident the AI will be significantly better than that in the vast majority of games. A look at the posts of composer99 and Froonp on the grand strategy threads might be worthwhile.

Cheers, Neilster



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/5/2006 5:13:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stretch

Steve,

I wanted to point out that my reservations about an AI for WiF ever being any good is not a critique of your ability (or those who help). I (we all) deeply appreciate your hard work and I wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstood.

I just don't want it to hang up development, which it easily could. I think in order to get a really good AI we'd need to convert Froonp's brain into a computer program. (a-la Dr. Daystrom on Star Trek TOS, Ep 53, "the ultimate computer".. and no I’m not an uber geek I had to look that up) .


Different people want different things out of MWIF. However, at their core everyone wants me to do the same thing: work on what they want included in MWIF and ignore all the other stuff because "the game doesn't need it - and working on those 'extras' delays the release date."

If you have been following this forum for a while you have probably gathered that I work on multiple aspects of the game at once. My style is to push something as hard and fast as I can until either it pushes back too hard or I accomplish a milestone. I then go on to other things and cycle back to the stuff I have set aside later. My goal is to be as productive as I can and not sit worrying over some bizarre bug in the code for a week. Or to keep polishing someting until it glows in the dark. Problems left alone for a while often can be solved quickly when revisited a week later. Mostly completed stuff can be set aside and when new ideas arise days or weeks later, those improvements are better thought out.

This applies to your concern, in that I have been working on the AIO since before Matrix officially hired me. I now fit it in when I eat breakfast and lunch, during commercials, while driving, and when walking down a fairway. It is an item on my task list but it will be the last item completed before delivery. Eventually I will reach the point that a good friend of mine refers to as "when in doubt, ship it out." Perhaps a bit too cynical, but it emphasizes the fact that I am no McClellan.

So, I get the hot seat version working with the new graphics and into play test to see what I have broken (1).

While that is happening, I restructure how the sequence of play is implemented to support the game record log - and let the play testers see if it works (2).

While that is happening, I add a multiple player internet capability and send that off to play test (3).

While that is happening, I improve the interface (4).

Add PBEM (5).

Add the AIO (6).

While earlier versions are in play test, I will be working on the next major item to add to the product. I expect to be improving aspects of earlier play test versions in response to comments from the play testers. This is part of my general philosophy of incremental improvement. By the time I get to finishing the AIO, all the other pieces should be solid (that's the theory, anyway). The AIO is a potentially bottomless pit of opportunity for improvement, which brings be back to the "ship it out" quote. Of all the features, only the AIO won't be as complete as I can make it -and that is in deference to the obvious pressures on me to release the product ASAP (my wife is on my case about this every day on all of your behalf).

There is a ton of work to do - but I enjoy doing it. I want to see some money someday too.



Glen Felzien -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/5/2006 5:29:09 AM)

quote:

There is a ton of work to do - but I enjoy doing it. I want to see some money someday too.

LOL too true! One of the reasons I have great hope for this project is because you are a WiF player and understand the infinate complexity of the strategy that this game system allows. Because of the massively large number of possiblities, the AIO can indeed be a bottomless pit. I suspect you have already accounted for this but a cut off to AOI development has to be made after which, and depending on Matrix's level of continued post release support, the AIO could be patched (read enhanced) indefinately.

The bottom line is that the shipped AIO has to be at a level of competancy that you are comfortable with. I suspect anything less than that would result in you being (very) disappointed with the decision to release.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/5/2006 6:22:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Glen Felzien

quote:

There is a ton of work to do - but I enjoy doing it. I want to see some money someday too.

LOL too true! One of the reasons I have great hope for this project is because you are a WiF player and understand the infinate complexity of the strategy that this game system allows. Because of the massively large number of possiblities, the AIO can indeed be a bottomless pit. I suspect you have already accounted for this but a cut off to AOI development has to be made after which, and depending on Matrix's level of continued post release support, the AIO could be patched (read enhanced) indefinately.

The bottom line is that the shipped AIO has to be at a level of competancy that you are comfortable with. I suspect anything less than that would result in you being (very) disappointed with the decision to release.



Yes, you are right - but when to release is entirely my call.



Davidt -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/5/2006 9:45:24 AM)

quote:

Of all the features, only the AIO won't be as complete as I can make it -and that is in deference to the obvious pressures on me to release the product ASAP (my wife is on my case about this every day on all of your behalf).
[:D]

Great nothing will beat this "motivator" in making you hurry up finishing the game [;)]



Froonp -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/5/2006 11:57:16 AM)

quote:

This applies to your concern, in that I have been working on the AIO since before Matrix officially hired me. I now fit it in when I eat breakfast and lunch, during commercials, while driving, and when walking down a fairway. It is an item on my task list but it will be the last item completed before delivery. Eventually I will reach the point that a good friend of mine refers to as "when in doubt, ship it out." Perhaps a bit too cynical, but it emphasizes the fact that I am no McClellan.

Wow. Am I understanding it correctly ?
You began working on the AIO before being hired by Matrixgames ?
Can I ask you why ? For fun ? Because of ideas you had that might fit in MWiF ?
I just ask for the sake of interest on how you came to MWiF.

Cheers !
Patrice



Froonp -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/5/2006 12:01:02 PM)

quote:

I think in order to get a really good AI we'd need to convert Froonp's brain into a computer program. (a-la Dr. Daystrom on Star Trek TOS, Ep 53, "the ultimate computer".. and no I’m not an uber geek I had to look that up) .

Wow, thanks, but it should need a little more than that. I've got experience, but what may really help having a good AI is all of our combined experiences.
So what I say is, please, everyone, go back reading the countries AI threads, and see if you can amend them, react to them, to improve the ideas we give for MWiF.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/5/2006 5:00:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
You began working on the AIO before being hired by Matrixgames ?
Can I ask you why ? For fun ? Because of ideas you had that might fit in MWiF ?
I just ask for the sake of interest on how you came to MWiF.

Cheers !
Patrice


I am a problem solver and I work puzzles of all types at almost every opportunity. It is my persona. AI is of special fascination to me (as it is to many others). Since I also am a WIF fanatic, the intersection of all three of these interests is writing the AI for MWIF. That is precisely why I first contacted Rob Crandall. 'MacGregor' is a friend of mine and he first suggested I look into how the rewrite of CWIF was proceeding. Little did he suspect I would be lead programmer less than a month later.



c92nichj -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (1/7/2006 5:24:02 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 !!!!


If Steve will not succeed in writing an AIO that beats Patrice Forno, Mike Cobb or Kai Kunze, maybe it would be possible to make the AIO cheat on higher difficulty levels, but rather than increase the production of the AIO I would like him to have a slightly higher chance of rolling good die rolls.



Rexor -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (5/17/2006 3:09:06 AM)

Any news on the AI?



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (5/17/2006 4:35:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rexor

Any news on the AI?

Not a thing for almost 2 months now. In that interim ...

The design issues for the map seem to be settled.

The design issues for the units at high resolution are done too. There is just the question of highlights and rounding the corners. I gave the status boxes a quick once over this morning too, so I at least have an understanding of what their role was in CWIF. Last on the list for the units is to design medium and low resolution depictions that have reduced detail but larger numbers. Then the interface will need to provide the player with the ability to change the unit resolution (1) at will and (2) automatically when the detailed map is zoomed in or out. For example, when the zoom level is at 5,6,7,8 use high resolution, at 3 and 4 use medium, and at 1 or 2 use low resultion. Player's discretion on all of that, of course.

I am now (as of this morning) spending time on: (1) the interface, (2) the new game engine, and (3) NetPlay (for the playing over the Internet).

The AIO has to wait for the new game engine to be finished before coding can start. PBEM has the same precondition.

I intend to implement NetPlay using the old game engine so I only have 1 new major piece of software to debug at a time. When that is fairly stable, I'll attack the task of replacing the game engine. Right now I spend time every day tinking away with my silver hammer on the 450+ game record log record definitions (54% done as of yesterday).



mlees -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (5/17/2006 5:06:14 PM)

Is NetPlay different from PBEM?

As in: NetPlay = Real time, over the internet, playing, with "chat" boxes so you can call the opponent a cheating bastage to his face, and each player can see each piece as it is moved.

PBEM = Play by Email = Much slower paced, non-real time, where moves are sent as entire packaged bundles that need to be imported into your last save spot. Typically punctuated by "Oh, resend your last urn. We're out of sync again...".[;)]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (5/17/2006 7:01:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees
Is NetPlay different from PBEM?

As in: NetPlay = Real time, over the internet, playing, with "chat" boxes so you can call the opponent a cheating bastage to his face, and each player can see each piece as it is moved.

PBEM = Play by Email = Much slower paced, non-real time, where moves are sent as entire packaged bundles that need to be imported into your last save spot. Typically punctuated by "Oh, resend your last urn. We're out of sync again...".[;)]


For PBEM I have designed a revised sequence of play that drastically reduces the number of emails required for each impulse. I did that back in July/August with a lot of input from forum members. If you are interested in the details, you can find the whole discussion in older threads in this forum, or you can email me for 2 PDF documents that constitute the finished design documents I'll be coding from (Steve@ PatternDiscovery.us).



mlees -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (5/17/2006 9:17:12 PM)

Thanks for the offer, sir. If the PBEM system is going to be similar to the conclusions and hopes reached on these forums, then I think I have a close enough grasp on that.

I had not seen the term "NetPlay" used often, though.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (5/17/2006 10:42:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

Thanks for the offer, sir. If the PBEM system is going to be similar to the conclusions and hopes reached on these forums, then I think I have a close enough grasp on that.

I had not seen the term "NetPlay" used often, though.

NetPlay is the term Dan Hatchen is using for the code he is writing for the Internet play portion of MWIF. I have adopted his label.



wworld7 -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (5/18/2006 1:45:22 AM)

Hello,

Fast and easy....I WANT TO PLAY THIS GAME. I believe it will take some of my time away from WITP.

Keep up the good work!!!

Flipper



ravinhood -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (5/23/2006 2:31:13 AM)

The problem I find in most AI design is that developers attempt to do the impossible and make an ai that "plays fairly". In their attempt to make a machine equal to a human many fail time and time again. A few like Meier, Mad Minute designers, Slitherine have moved away from this "must be fair and equal to a human" programming and created what I would think most game players want....a "challenging AI". Now, I'm one of those that doesn't care if the AI knows where my units are or if it gets experience or even die roll modifier advantages and these are things I've asked for time and time again some sliders or something where the individual player can modify the combat statistics in an options menu. It's one of the best things about the Combat Mission and Steel Panthers series where I can give the AI more units or myself less and also increase the experience levels of these units and add +1, +2 or +3 modifiers. I would like to see those options go one step futher with die roll modifiers as I believe the SSG games have.

Having the ai run thru all these decision codes for politics and resource gathering, I think just makes it harder for the ai to play a good game. I've always said less means better when it comes to an AI. An old game "Empire Deluxe" certainly will show most anyone what an ai with less can do to a human player. There's plenty of settings/options in "Empire Deluxe" for anyone to reach that ultimate "challenge" that I would think they are looking for.

Objectives are important and programming an AI to obtain and hold these are important, but, not to the point of banzai attacks just because there is one in the human players possession and going from a winning situation to a losing situation as the AI in the Combat Mission series does time and time again. The AI should definitely always do a victory check vs time left in the game. If it's ahead and there's very little time left there is no need to make advances to other objectives. It should go into a defensive or probing posture and force the human player to advance and take those banzai losses instead. ;)

Trying to make the game TOO historically accurate. Of course it shouldn't have modern day like tanks, but, it also needs to play against what the human player does vs what was done historically. It needs to "react to the situation" and not to what the history books says it should do. This comes to the question of "must" there be a D-Day invasion timed specifically to what happened realistically? To me if you make a game designed for a history lesson the game loses that "whatif" ability of change. If the AI always does this or that every single game, the human player is going to "react" to it every single game. Much like MTW's Horde invasion, we all know exactly the when and where it's going to happen and setup for it. Therefore there needs to be variables to given situations that change from game to game, but, not so much so that it is beyond believeablity. Probably easier said than done huh? lol

Bottom line is the AI's clear objective in every game should be to WIN, not just delay or harass the human player, but, actually play to WIN and that's one of the major issues with craptastic AI's today. They are merely programmed too much as a road block instead of with the mindset of WINNING!.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (5/23/2006 2:52:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

1 - The problem I find in most AI design is that developers attempt to do the impossible and make an ai that "plays fairly". In their attempt to make a machine equal to a human many fail time and time again. A few like Meier, Mad Minute designers, Slitherine have moved away from this "must be fair and equal to a human" programming and created what I would think most game players want....a "challenging AI". Now, I'm one of those that doesn't care if the AI knows where my units are or if it gets experience or even die roll modifier advantages and these are things I've asked for time and time again some sliders or something where the individual player can modify the combat statistics in an options menu. It's one of the best things about the Combat Mission and Steel Panthers series where I can give the AI more units or myself less and also increase the experience levels of these units and add +1, +2 or +3 modifiers. I would like to see those options go one step futher with die roll modifiers as I believe the SSG games have.

2 - Having the ai run thru all these decision codes for politics and resource gathering, I think just makes it harder for the ai to play a good game. I've always said less means better when it comes to an AI. An old game "Empire Deluxe" certainly will show most anyone what an ai with less can do to a human player. There's plenty of settings/options in "Empire Deluxe" for anyone to reach that ultimate "challenge" that I would think they are looking for.

3 - Objectives are important and programming an AI to obtain and hold these are important, but, not to the point of banzai attacks just because there is one in the human players possession and going from a winning situation to a losing situation as the AI in the Combat Mission series does time and time again. The AI should definitely always do a victory check vs time left in the game. If it's ahead and there's very little time left there is no need to make advances to other objectives. It should go into a defensive or probing posture and force the human player to advance and take those banzai losses instead. ;)

4 - Trying to make the game TOO historically accurate. Of course it shouldn't have modern day like tanks, but, it also needs to play against what the human player does vs what was done historically. It needs to "react to the situation" and not to what the history books says it should do. This comes to the question of "must" there be a D-Day invasion timed specifically to what happened realistically? To me if you make a game designed for a history lesson the game loses that "whatif" ability of change. If the AI always does this or that every single game, the human player is going to "react" to it every single game. Much like MTW's Horde invasion, we all know exactly the when and where it's going to happen and setup for it. Therefore there needs to be variables to given situations that change from game to game, but, not so much so that it is beyond believeablity. Probably easier said than done huh? lol

5 -Bottom line is the AI's clear objective in every game should be to WIN, not just delay or harass the human player, but, actually play to WIN and that's one of the major issues with craptastic AI's today. They are merely programmed too much as a road block instead of with the mindset of WINNING!.


1 - Giving the AI an untoward advantage is not to my taste. For this kind of wargame I am a player before I am a programmer. Therefore the AI is a stand-in for me playing the game. Of course there are numerous things that are trivial for a human to do that are agony to get a computer to do. most of them have to do with 'seeing' the board. Be that as it may, I have had some success in the past programming AIs my design document intends to acheive that without extra units, production points, etc..

2 - Actually, WIF contain very little in the way of politics. Production is a big deal. Indeed, it could eeasily be argued that production is they primary focus of the game until you reach the end-stage.

3 - I agree completely.

4 - I agree completely.

5 - I agree completely.



Neilster -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (5/23/2006 10:44:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

The problem I find in most AI design is that developers attempt to do the impossible and make an ai that "plays fairly". In their attempt to make a machine equal to a human many fail time and time again. A few like Meier, Mad Minute designers, Slitherine have moved away from this "must be fair and equal to a human" programming and created what I would think most game players want....a "challenging AI". Now, I'm one of those that doesn't care if the AI knows where my units are or if it gets experience or even die roll modifier advantages and these are things I've asked for time and time again some sliders or something where the individual player can modify the combat statistics in an options menu. It's one of the best things about the Combat Mission and Steel Panthers series where I can give the AI more units or myself less and also increase the experience levels of these units and add +1, +2 or +3 modifiers. I would like to see those options go one step futher with die roll modifiers as I believe the SSG games have.

Having the ai run thru all these decision codes for politics and resource gathering, I think just makes it harder for the ai to play a good game. I've always said less means better when it comes to an AI. An old game "Empire Deluxe" certainly will show most anyone what an ai with less can do to a human player. There's plenty of settings/options in "Empire Deluxe" for anyone to reach that ultimate "challenge" that I would think they are looking for.

Objectives are important and programming an AI to obtain and hold these are important, but, not to the point of banzai attacks just because there is one in the human players possession and going from a winning situation to a losing situation as the AI in the Combat Mission series does time and time again. The AI should definitely always do a victory check vs time left in the game. If it's ahead and there's very little time left there is no need to make advances to other objectives. It should go into a defensive or probing posture and force the human player to advance and take those banzai losses instead. ;)

Trying to make the game TOO historically accurate. Of course it shouldn't have modern day like tanks, but, it also needs to play against what the human player does vs what was done historically. It needs to "react to the situation" and not to what the history books says it should do. This comes to the question of "must" there be a D-Day invasion timed specifically to what happened realistically? To me if you make a game designed for a history lesson the game loses that "whatif" ability of change. If the AI always does this or that every single game, the human player is going to "react" to it every single game. Much like MTW's Horde invasion, we all know exactly the when and where it's going to happen and setup for it. Therefore there needs to be variables to given situations that change from game to game, but, not so much so that it is beyond believeablity. Probably easier said than done huh? lol

Bottom line is the AI's clear objective in every game should be to WIN, not just delay or harass the human player, but, actually play to WIN and that's one of the major issues with craptastic AI's today. They are merely programmed too much as a road block instead of with the mindset of WINNING!.


Many experienced gamers feel that AIs that are improved by cheating are highly unsatisfying to play. I raised this several years ago on the Yahoo WiF discussion boards and received replies that convinced me that this is not the way to go.

With regard to game AIs being generally crap, I posted this earlier...


1. The mechanics of MWiF have been playtested to death by thousands of experienced players. Hence, in comparison to most computer games there is a huge amount of background knowledge to assist in producing the AI.

2. The head programmer is experienced both in WiF and AI techniques.

3. Unlike most games, it's not being rushed out to get a quick return on investment ("We'll patch the problems later" etc).

4. MWiF's complexity is already nicely constrained by the turn/phase structure. I believe this will assist in writing the AI.

5. There will be a proper testing program.

As a result I'm confident the AI will be significantly better than that in the vast majority of games.

With regard to your concerns that the AI might be swamped by complexity, a look at the posts of composer99 and Froonp on the grand strategy threads might be worthwhile. If you've played WiF, you'll know that the game doesn't slavishly follow history. In fact, many players would like it to do so more and they can force it to, to a certain degree, with optional rule choices. Optional rules can also be used to change play balance, so if you're playing the AI and you feel it's too weak, choose some rules that help its side.

Cheers, Neilster



Froonp -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (5/23/2006 12:23:22 PM)

quote:

With regard to your concerns that the AI might be swamped by complexity, a look at the posts of composer99 and Froonp on the grand strategy threads might be worthwhile.

And every experienced WiF FE player is encouraged to post more to these threads, the more the better.
Even if to add only some bits, or some tactics that you use and we don't. Everything is good.



ravinhood -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (5/23/2006 3:21:30 PM)

I'd like to give a little more input of why I don't mind the ai having advantages I don't have or as some call them "cheats". When you play a human individual who is of lesser experience than you are you can "teach" them to improve their game. This is something the player cannot do with a computer ai other than at least "options" to give it some distinct advantages. Most often it is in numbers of units, but, it is rarely Ever improved gameplay (slitherine uses a feature where the ai doesn't actually do anything for a certain amount of turns per difficulty level, I don't really consider this improved gameplay) whereas another human player usually can and will improve. Also since the majority of computer games sold are for the "solo" play (at least by all the polls I've seen), there definitely needs to be things that can at least improve the "challenge" of the game even for those that play hardcore highest difficulty from the start.

I've just never understood this philosophy of not adding "options" to increase difficulty beyond the norm. Why is it so hard to have something in the options that the player can adjust to make any game extremely challenging to them on an individual basis? Why is it so hard to add an option to increase the offense/defense stats of the ai units in % increments?? I've always thought a slider from 10% to 100% increase to offense/defense (one for each) stats would be perfect for computer wargames. Die roll modifier options as well. Maybe I'm thinking too much in board wargame play, but, it certainly was easy to do when giving a lesser experienced player some advantages when I played them.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.110352