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

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



Message


mlees -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (8/22/2006 12:37:35 AM)

quote:

Deterministic means it can be determined exactly. The strength of an infantry unit is deterministic.
Probabilisitic means it depends on probability (rolling dice or drawing chits in the case of WIF). The land combat results table is probabilistic.


Ah! Thanks for taking the time to explaining that to me. :)

quote:

So what I was asking is whether under certain circumstances is the player guaranteed getting/not getting intel information? If you do this, you can learn about the enemy units.


The vague "image" I had in my mind was probalilistic, but that's because I am used to dice rolling. (Old PnP 1st ed. DnD alumni here.) I dont have an emotional stake either way.

The advantages of a deterministic system is that a meticulus player can utilise his units in such a way as to "spot" all the desired units, and thus makes for a very controllable and reassuring flow of play. Removes all "chance" from his plans of world conquest.

Also, very easy to see if the FOW system is working. If you place a unit someway as to ensure a "spot", and the computer does not reveal a FOW enshrouded unit, you know the code is goofed somewhere.

The characteristics of a deterministic system is a lot more influenced by the nature of the randomness of the system. Not everything works as planned, and the player will need to adapt his moves "on the fly" more often, as a result, because of failed "spots".

That will make it more frustrating for the overly meticulus player. (The new players should leave such an option off while learning the game.)

But would it add to suspense and surprise, making for a more fun and memorable game? For me it would. But I realise I am not neccessarily the standard mean.

For WiFFCon Tourney purposes, or for those who want the most "pure" WiF, than the option would be "off".




Neilster -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/22/2006 7:46:37 AM)

Falling off the end of the list. Time to bump it for the new people.

Cheers, Neilster




Nibelung -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/22/2006 2:07:51 PM)

biased probabilistic please. Its war, not chess, so most of the things should not take for granted. But we don't want to feel we are playing Russian Roulette too... Open ended dices can be a possibility.




bredsjomagnus -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/22/2006 3:35:31 PM)

Well....

Iīve read through some of the posts and think that they contain many good ideas.

I do think that fog of war is an important element in war. If a commander knew the exact location and strength of his/her enemy it would be much easier to go to work [8|]. This goes for warfare in all times (Israel had quite some problems with the hizbolla milis just a few months ago, all because of bad intelligence).

Another part of me thinks that a game doesnīt get better just because i gets more realistic. Maybe even the opposite sometimes, if it gets to complicated. Just look at games like the Axis & Allies-serie that is both very unrealistic and great at the same time (of course itīs a matter of taste). But since Steve made clear that fog of war would be an opiton I think that it would be great if it was implemented.

As said before; one (as commander) should maybe know alot about the front but less about whats going on beyond. Just that simple and clear...[:'(]

One should also, I think, be able to activly disorientate with dummy units (like Rommel in north africa [:)]).


/Bredsjomagnus
-Im from Sweden you know-




bredsjomagnus -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/22/2006 6:41:16 PM)

I wonder if it is possible to create an AI that learns from itīs mistakes och itīs good moves? Sounds creepy I know [X(]...

Iīve heard about a chess computer that did just that, and that it also therefore became more and more difficult to beat it.

Wouldnīt it be great to play against an AI that constantly evolv depending on earlier expirience?! (hmmm maybe not [:D]).




SurrenderMonkey -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/22/2006 7:05:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus


One should also, I think, be able to activly disorientate with dummy units (like Rommel in north africa [:)]).


/Bredsjomagnus
-Im from Sweden you know-


But not at this scale. It would be the equivalent of not knowing that Rommel is there at all, which is silly.




bredsjomagnus -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/22/2006 7:12:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SurrenderMonkey


quote:

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus


One should also, I think, be able to activly disorientate with dummy units (like Rommel in north africa [:)]).


/Bredsjomagnus
-Im from Sweden you know-


But not at this scale. It would be the equivalent of not knowing that Rommel is there at all, which is silly.


Well of course you are right about that. What I ment is that instead of entire new units (dummie units) you can deliberatly try to fool your enemy that an already existing unit is stronger or weaker than it really is.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/22/2006 8:51:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nibelung

biased probabilistic please. Its war, not chess, so most of the things should not take for granted. But we don't want to feel we are playing Russian Roulette too... Open ended dices can be a possibility.

I absolutely agree.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/22/2006 8:52:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus
quote:

ORIGINAL: SurrenderMonkey
quote:

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus
One should also, I think, be able to activly disorientate with dummy units (like Rommel in north africa [:)]).


/Bredsjomagnus
-Im from Sweden you know-


But not at this scale. It would be the equivalent of not knowing that Rommel is there at all, which is silly.


Well of course you are right about that. What I ment is that instead of entire new units (dummie units) you can deliberatly try to fool your enemy that an already existing unit is stronger or weaker than it really is.


Fog of war is tricky. There has already been quite a bit of discussion on this topic, I have decided it is not for MWIF product 1 (#2 maybe).




Nibelung -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/23/2006 4:07:18 PM)

oh, no Fog of War? I'm slightly disappointed by the gamey things it will do to the game [:(]




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/23/2006 7:45:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nibelung

oh, no Fog of War? I'm slightly disappointed by the gamey things it will do to the game [:(]


Well, one of the strong arguments against FOW was that the game has received decades of play in the over-the-board format. During that period innumerable changes were made to strengthen all aspects of the design - based on feedback from serious players (those with extensive experience).

This puts adding a FOW feature into the category of changing a fundamental principle of the game - something that should not be taken lightly. It deserves extensive analysis prior to design and implementation, followed by extensive playtest, and redesign and recoding if necessary.

Given the level of work that entails, and that WIF as a board game won "game of the year" and "game of the decade" honors, a straight implementation of WIF doesn't seem to be a bad idea.




Arron69 -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/24/2006 3:41:23 PM)

I totally agree. Wif is a very good game, as it is. And if the FOW can be made in Wif product 2, well that is something to look forward to.

Andi.




Nibelung -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/24/2006 6:23:25 PM)

ok, but what about the rule of not looking at the counters under the top one? Possible, as an option, impossible?




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/24/2006 7:14:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nibelung
ok, but what about the rule of not looking at the counters under the top one? Possible, as an option, impossible?


This is a fairly common "house rule", but it lends itself to a lot of gamemanship (do you put the weakest counter on top or the strongest?).

Regardless, it would be an extra feature that is not part of standard WIF FE. My policy (to prevent feature creep) is 'No' to all house rules. Players will just have to settle on choosing from the current list of 81 optional rules, 11 scenarios, 4 modes of play, and choice of side/major power.




ptey -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/29/2006 3:04:33 AM)

Recently there have been raised some points, about whatever the ai should do in various situations, is highly dependent upon the options selected. A smart move with some options in play, might not be very good with another set of options, maybe even foolish.

Im therefore thinking that it may be infeasible to create an ai that performs equally well with all possible selections of options.

I would personally much rather see an ai that can do somewhat good with a preselected set of options. Than trying to make an ai that can cope with all options and therefor most likely never performing that well.
There are ofcourse some options that doesnt effect the game that much (and therefore the ai), which the player can use regardless. But perhaps some options could be given less attention in the development of the ai (which the player should be informed, when options for a game are chosen).

Are there being put any consideration into this?





Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/29/2006 5:11:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ptey
Recently there have been raised some points, about whatever the ai should do in various situations, is highly dependent upon the options selected. A smart move with some options in play, might not be very good with another set of options, maybe even foolish.

Im therefore thinking that it may be infeasible to create an ai that performs equally well with all possible selections of options.

I would personally much rather see an ai that can do somewhat good with a preselected set of options. Than trying to make an ai that can cope with all options and therefor most likely never performing that well.
There are ofcourse some options that doesnt effect the game that much (and therefore the ai), which the player can use regardless. But perhaps some options could be given less attention in the development of the ai (which the player should be informed, when options for a game are chosen).

Are there being put any consideration into this?


My starting position is that the AIO will play with whatever optional rules the player selects. Note that they can not be changed once a game has begun.

If problems arise, I'll review this assumption. However, I expect to be able to handle most of them by the way calculations are performed (e.g., the value of twin engine and night fighters, combat engineers, and other additional unit types). There are perhaps some 'strategic' optional rules, but I haven't looked for them in particular. Oil is one, but the AIO should be able to cope with that since it is such a popular rule.




trees -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/29/2006 6:22:01 AM)

Check out the WiF discussion list this week ... Presence of the Enemy would be another dual-personality AI.




ptey -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (11/29/2006 6:48:35 AM)

Ok, I understand that it is desireable to create an ai, that can play well with all options. Since this ofcourse will allow everyone to play solo games against the ai exactly as they prefer it.

I think there are a good amount of options that have a fairly big impact on both tactical and strategic choices. Some of these impacts are fairly obvious and some are more concealed, but still not to be underestimated. I have no illusions that i personally are able to grasp all of them, but i can think of atleast some options that imo will make a noteable difference on the way parts of the game is played. A small example could be in a game i started recently, where italy was able to launce a succeful invasion of malta as it entered the war. This was possible from the combination of playing with divs, limited overseas supply and SCS transport. CW didnt guard it well enough when these options were in play. Sloppy play by the CW perhaps, but in any case, i think there are alot of similar examples which becomes possible with various option selections.

One must recognise that only a finite amount of time is availeable for the creation of the ai. Thus you must to prioritize, do you want the ai to to some extent understand the impact of all optional rules, or do you want it to understand it well for a few.
I once heard a saying from a guy doing microchip engineering going something like "make the common case fast and the rare case work". An analogy for the mwif ai should imo be "make the ai play the common options selection well, and all the strange/uncommon option selections.. not quite as well".

These thoughts naturally implies, that you are able to create an ai where the nuances created by the selection of options actually matters.[:)]




coregames -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (3/29/2007 6:58:14 AM)

Will I be able have an AI player as my ally?




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (3/29/2007 7:18:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames

Will I be able have an AI player as my ally?

I am not promising this for MWIF product 1. However, I am designing the AI to support both AI Opponents and AI Assistants.

It is the player interface to the AIA that would involve the most work, since players will want to know what the AIA is doing and exert some control over it as well. Merely defining the places where the human and AIA interact in the decision making process would require quite a bit of work. Coding those interactions and then designing reports and control forms/screens for implementing them would be a lot of work too.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (3/29/2007 7:38:12 AM)

After 8 months of neglect, I am in the process of bringing my AI notes up to date. The design document now has 86 pages, but all the stuff on strategic plans for each major power are separate.

Here is a question for you all to consider:

What criteria should be used for assigning fighters to missions?

I have already done a lot on this topic, so let me give you some background.

1 - After analyzing a theater of operations (TOO - some well defined portion of the map), the AIO will know the number of fighters and other air units in the TOO and their relative capabilities. This will be for both sides: friendly and enemy. In this case I am most concerned with air-to-air ratings.

2 - Knowing the quantity of non-fighters, the AIO works out how many fighters are going to:
a - escort friendly bombers (non-fighters)
b - attack enemy bombers
c - attack enemy fighters (I think of b and c as 'shadowing' the enemy air units and only flying to intercept them)

3 - So, given that the bombers are in the air, which units do we send as escorts/interceptors?

My concern is choosing which fighters would be best to send. Here are some criteria I have come up with off the top of my head. They are not in any particular order:

A - If all else is equal, send the unit with the smaller range
B - If all else is equal, send the unit whose air-to-air number, when compared to the enemy's expected air-to-air factor best matches the relative, still organized, air-to-air relationship in the TOO overall. That is, if have slightly better fighters available, send a slightly better fighter.
C - If the mission's importance is high, and the choice of fighter can influence its chance of success, send the best fighter
D - If it is a night mission, send a night fighter
E - If it is a day mission and a night mission might happen later in the turn, do not send a night fighter
F - If an enemy fighter that is being shadowed remains on the ground, then do not send the fighter that is in the best position to reach target hexes the enemy fighter can reach
G - If there are simultaneous missions requiring fighters, then perform a post analysis after the first assignments and see if a better combination of allocating fighters is possilbe.

I am sure there are more, and I haven't thought about how to proritize within the list yet.

Any ideas? Comments?




composer99 -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (3/29/2007 7:14:59 PM)

Assuming I don't fall asleep too quick, I'll try to come up with some ideas after rehearsal tonight.




Incy -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (3/30/2007 3:22:11 AM)

I think number of bombers/ftr's in an area of operation is best kept as a couple of general background status variables, i.e. a couple of "how good/deep is each sides bomber coverage", and "how good/deep is each sides FTR coverage"

These variables should be an aide to actual combat decitions, which should be made hex by hex, based on all air units that can fly to each hex.
Each hex should be assigned a priority, and there are different tasks that can be prioritized for each hex:
-refuse enemy air to clear through
-allow friendly air to clear through
-risk to aircraft in contested hex (is there a ground strike or attack vs hex with air in it, this air should have a higher priority for flying)

In addition, there should be some general priorities:
-achieve favourable attrition
-reduce enemy ftr/bomber coverage (by drawing enemy units to battle)
-maintain friendly ftr/bomber coverage (by holding units back from battle)


The AI should evaluate all these priorities for each battle.
Example 1: A Para attack should have a really high priority to clear friendly air
Example 2: When attacking an enemy land unit with very few combat factors refusing enemy air should be a very high priority
Example 3: Achiving favourable attrition should be a general goal at all times, sort of a "background" priority
Example 4: When my enemy has 2 and I have 5 FTR, drawing enemy FTR to the battle is a high priority, because this will further increase my superiority. Maintaining my own FTR coverage is not so much a priority (but would increase if the enemy still maintained many bombers in theathre)
Example 5: when on the offence, fronts are mobile, and it's early in the turn, drawing out enemy FTR/bombers is a high priority, because it's a good chance they can later be overrun

Then, based on priorities, each hex should be eveluated for recieving escorts, bombers, and intercepts. Make a list of possible planes for each mission type. Also, make the same list for the enemy, to help the decition making.
For each decition, cycle through the relevant list to find the best match (es).

Some rules that should be implemented (no time for an extensive list this evening..):
-in big air battles (or battles where "refusing enemy air to clear" is a high priority), always try to include one low-quality "expendable" bomber. The bomber is mainly there to soak off DA and DX results
-try avoid situations where air odds become excedingly bad. For example, try not to send an unescorted weak bomber if it can be intercepted, but can't be counterintercepted. And the oposite, seek exceedingly good odds if possible
-if enemy bombers are in the air, and drawing out enemy FTR coverage is a priority, intercepting is a good idea
-if drawing out enemy ftr is a priority, sending out bombers solo (with or without possible counterintercept) might be a good idea.
-if drawing out enemy bombers is a priority, or if enemy has very weak bomber coverage, consider attacking hexes without proper FTR intercept cover to draw out the last remaining bombers
-consider aborting air battles if odds turn sour and there are no very high priorities pushing you to continue

One thing not mentioned this far is that air cover is important when choosing sites for land attack (and thus sites for possible ground strikes). When picking attack hexes, air cover should be considered first. So some air calculations should be done PRIOR TO planning stuff like land moveent and land attack!!
When doing repositioning of air (RTB or rebase), covering hexes vulnerable to attack with your own air power should always be a priority. For example, proper positioning of russian bombers and FTR (and continous adjustment of what proper positioning is) is quite critical during barbarossa. Key goals for stalin is to position air where it's safe, and where it can reach as many important places possible (an important placeis not neccesarily the most importnt place on the board, but the most important place the air can matter (because enemy air cover is weak enouh that friendly air can get through/enemy air can be denied). Since stalin is weak in FTR power early on, FTR's must be continously repositioned to create local pockets of air superiority (or parity). Preferably FTR's should be moved to cover critical areas, for instance an area of a front that is pulling back to another defencive line and is vulnerable to groundstrike in the process .




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (3/30/2007 4:34:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Incy
I think number of bombers/ftr's in an area of operation is best kept as a couple of general background status variables, i.e. a couple of "how good/deep is each sides bomber coverage", and "how good/deep is each sides FTR coverage"

These variables should be an aide to actual combat decitions, which should be made hex by hex, based on all air units that can fly to each hex.
Each hex should be assigned a priority, and there are different tasks that can be prioritized for each hex:
-refuse enemy air to clear through
-allow friendly air to clear through
-risk to aircraft in contested hex (is there a ground strike or attack vs hex with air in it, this air should have a higher priority for flying)

In addition, there should be some general priorities:
-achieve favourable attrition
-reduce enemy ftr/bomber coverage (by drawing enemy units to battle)
-maintain friendly ftr/bomber coverage (by holding units back from battle)


The AI should evaluate all these priorities for each battle.
Example 1: A Para attack should have a really high priority to clear friendly air
Example 2: When attacking an enemy land unit with very few combat factors refusing enemy air should be a very high priority
Example 3: Achiving favourable attrition should be a general goal at all times, sort of a "background" priority
Example 4: When my enemy has 2 and I have 5 FTR, drawing enemy FTR to the battle is a high priority, because this will further increase my superiority. Maintaining my own FTR coverage is not so much a priority (but would increase if the enemy still maintained many bombers in theathre)
Example 5: when on the offence, fronts are mobile, and it's early in the turn, drawing out enemy FTR/bombers is a high priority, because it's a good chance they can later be overrun

Then, based on priorities, each hex should be eveluated for recieving escorts, bombers, and intercepts. Make a list of possible planes for each mission type. Also, make the same list for the enemy, to help the decition making.
For each decition, cycle through the relevant list to find the best match (es).

Some rules that should be implemented (no time for an extensive list this evening..):
-in big air battles (or battles where "refusing enemy air to clear" is a high priority), always try to include one low-quality "expendable" bomber. The bomber is mainly there to soak off DA and DX results
-try avoid situations where air odds become excedingly bad. For example, try not to send an unescorted weak bomber if it can be intercepted, but can't be counterintercepted. And the oposite, seek exceedingly good odds if possible
-if enemy bombers are in the air, and drawing out enemy FTR coverage is a priority, intercepting is a good idea
-if drawing out enemy ftr is a priority, sending out bombers solo (with or without possible counterintercept) might be a good idea.
-if drawing out enemy bombers is a priority, or if enemy has very weak bomber coverage, consider attacking hexes without proper FTR intercept cover to draw out the last remaining bombers
-consider aborting air battles if odds turn sour and there are no very high priorities pushing you to continue

One thing not mentioned this far is that air cover is important when choosing sites for land attack (and thus sites for possible ground strikes). When picking attack hexes, air cover should be considered first. So some air calculations should be done PRIOR TO planning stuff like land moveent and land attack!!
When doing repositioning of air (RTB or rebase), covering hexes vulnerable to attack with your own air power should always be a priority. For example, proper positioning of russian bombers and FTR (and continous adjustment of what proper positioning is) is quite critical during barbarossa. Key goals for stalin is to position air where it's safe, and where it can reach as many important places possible (an important placeis not neccesarily the most importnt place on the board, but the most important place the air can matter (because enemy air cover is weak enouh that friendly air can get through/enemy air can be denied). Since stalin is weak in FTR power early on, FTR's must be continously repositioned to create local pockets of air superiority (or parity). Preferably FTR's should be moved to cover critical areas, for instance an area of a front that is pulling back to another defencive line and is vulnerable to groundstrike in the process.

Yes. I agree.

I break the use of air power down into separate decisions, with allocation of air units to a Theater of Operations (TOO) as one task and positioning air units within a TOO a second task. The latter is executed when rebasing and returning to base.

The overall allocation of bombers/ATRs/Naval air to mission types is a separate task too, and it takes into consideration many of the points you made. I think of this as after the Air Marshal assigns air units to a TOO, then either the Field Marshal for that TOO or the Admiralty (when dealing with air combat in sea areas) decides what to do with the air units at his disposal. This division of responsibility and use of resources may miss some optimal combination during the course of a game, but the ability to figure out logic and write code if vastly simplified. I believe the trade off is justified.

So, the decision as to when to send a bomber on a mission for ground strike or off/def ground support is up to the Field Marshal and he will base that decision on what he is going to do with his land units (both when attacking/advancing and defending/withdrawing).

Since a lot of the decisions concerning the use of fighters depends on what the enemy does, I believe choosing specific fighters to fly as escorts or interceptors is the hardest decision to make. The decision you make during a ground strike phase is going to have repercussions during subsequent phases. When you are the phasing player, you should know whether you are going to execute a paradrop later in the impulse and to dedicate a fighter to that mission - and it is not to be touched prior to the paradrop phase of the impulse. As the non-phasing player, it is more difficult, since do you want to always have your best fighter sitting on the ground in anticipation of intercepting an enemy paradrop? Perhaps you do, since if it prevents the enemy from doing a paradrop, it is doing good work and earning its keep.

Right now, I am trying to simply get a grasp on all the different things to take into consideration when choosing which fighters to send up. If I can understand all the pieces that are part of this puzzle, then I can start thinking about how to put them together in a structured way that I can program for the AIO.




coregames -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (3/30/2007 7:07:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

It is the player interface to the AIA that would involve the most work, since players will want to know what the AIA is doing and exert some control over it as well. Merely defining the places where the human and AIA interact in the decision making process would require quite a bit of work. Coding those interactions and then designing reports and control forms/screens for implementing them would be a lot of work too.


I can see that would be a tricky bit of programming; when activites between a live player and an AI must be coordinated, does the player decide this? Does the AI have a mode that puts its units under temporary control of the human? How would the computer decide that such a mode was appropriate in a given situation? Perhaps there could be a 'negotiation' screen, where the various heads of state hash out how such joint operations will be handled.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (3/30/2007 12:32:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
It is the player interface to the AIA that would involve the most work, since players will want to know what the AIA is doing and exert some control over it as well. Merely defining the places where the human and AIA interact in the decision making process would require quite a bit of work. Coding those interactions and then designing reports and control forms/screens for implementing them would be a lot of work too.


I can see that would be a tricky bit of programming; when activites between a live player and an AI must be coordinated, does the player decide this? Does the AI have a mode that puts its units under temporary control of the human? How would the computer decide that such a mode was appropriate in a given situation? Perhaps there could be a 'negotiation' screen, where the various heads of state hash out how such joint operations will be handled.

Good questions, and there are many others that come to mind. Hence my (almost certain) decision to not include this in MWIF product 1.




CBoehm -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (3/30/2007 7:24:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ptey

I would personally much rather see an ai that can do somewhat good with a preselected set of options. Than trying to make an ai that can cope with all options and therefor most likely never performing that well.
There are ofcourse some options that doesnt effect the game that much (and therefore the ai), which the player can use regardless. But perhaps some options could be given less attention in the development of the ai (which the player should be informed, when options for a game are chosen).

Are there being put any consideration into this?




I completely agree ...trying to make a ai that can cope well with "whatever" options being played ...I will think will be if not impossible then a HUGE work and I fear that a decision to not optimize the ai with a default set op options in mind will lead to a ai that simply performs poorly ...




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (3/30/2007 9:26:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CBoehm
quote:

ORIGINAL: ptey
I would personally much rather see an ai that can do somewhat good with a preselected set of options. Than trying to make an ai that can cope with all options and therefor most likely never performing that well.
There are ofcourse some options that doesnt effect the game that much (and therefore the ai), which the player can use regardless. But perhaps some options could be given less attention in the development of the ai (which the player should be informed, when options for a game are chosen).

Are there being put any consideration into this?


I completely agree ...trying to make a ai that can cope well with "whatever" options being played ...I will think will be if not impossible then a HUGE work and I fear that a decision to not optimize the ai with a default set op options in mind will lead to a ai that simply performs poorly ...


The vast majority of optional rules just change the effective factors on the unit(s) during movement or combat. Specialized units can be thought of this way as well. When designing the AIO, the only optional rule that really bothers me is No ZOC on surprise. For one thing, I personally think it is a bad rule, giving way too much of and advantage to the country that declares war on a minor. It is especailly bad for Poland and the USSR when Germany attacks. I might decide to make that rule unavailable when playing solitaire. And perhaps there are a couple of others - I haven't gone through them in detail with this in mind. Still, 95 % of the optional rules should be available when playing against the AIO. Ideally, I can make that 100%, but we'll see.




trees -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (3/31/2007 4:05:54 AM)

to fly or not to fly ... hmmm, what impulse is it? Do I want fighter cover for the missions I pick, or do I let my opponent dictate what my fighters do?

Last year I had an opponent (Axis) who would waste an entire impulse trying to draw up my French fighter cover to non-important hexes. My fighters were there to prevent ground strikes on the hexes leading directly to Paris and nothing else. He couldn't believe I would let ground strikes go through when I still had face-up FTRs. He also couldn't believe how long it took him to conquer France.

I would suggest a somewhat common psuedo- 'house rule' - throw out the Combat Air Patrol step of the air combat sequence.. It seems like a good idea on the surface but when playing you rarely ever use it. You either keep a FTR within intercept range of what you consider important or you don't or can't. If the AI were to try and decide when to fly CAP I think human opponents could quickly figure out how to trick the AI into doing it.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames (3/31/2007 4:37:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: trees
to fly or not to fly ... hmmm, what impulse is it? Do I want fighter cover for the missions I pick, or do I let my opponent dictate what my fighters do?

Last year I had an opponent (Axis) who would waste an entire impulse trying to draw up my French fighter cover to non-important hexes. My fighters were there to prevent ground strikes on the hexes leading directly to Paris and nothing else. He couldn't believe I would let ground strikes go through when I still had face-up FTRs. He also couldn't believe how long it took him to conquer France.

I would suggest a somewhat common psuedo- 'house rule' - throw out the Combat Air Patrol step of the air combat sequence.. It seems like a good idea on the surface but when playing you rarely ever use it. You either keep a FTR within intercept range of what you consider important or you don't or can't. If the AI were to try and decide when to fly CAP I think human opponents could quickly figure out how to trick the AI into doing it.

I agree about CAP. Personally, I never use it. If the fighter cover is really important, then can't the opponent wait another impulse when the CAP has been exhausted? If CAP lasted an entire turn or until engaged, then I would have a different attitude about it. Right now, I figure the AIO will never fly CAP.




Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.078125