UMP?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

UMP?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> UMP?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

UMP? - 11/19/2009 3:34:37 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Hey guys:

Why don't you guys chime in on some type of UMP rule for AI? This could add more value to the diplomacy aspect of the AI game! Tell me some yeas and nays if you would...

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

Post #: 1

RE: UMP? - 11/19/2009 4:32:54 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Hey guys:

Why don't you guys chime in on some type of UMP rule for AI? This could add more value to the diplomacy aspect of the AI game! Tell me some yeas and nays if you would...

Personally, the simplest would probably just to use the UMP rules from Empires in Arms for this Empires in Arms game.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 2

RE: UMP? - 11/19/2009 5:05:37 PM

Skanvak

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Personally, the simplest would probably just to use the UMP rules from Empires in Arms for this Empires in Arms game.

I agree with this statement.

This will give you time to implement a good AI later.

_____________________________

Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 3

RE: UMP? - 11/19/2009 7:26:06 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

And, make it an option. I always found the UMP rules very artificial.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Skanvak)

Post #: 4

RE: UMP? - 11/19/2009 10:53:30 PM

StCyr

Posts: 148
Joined: 7/2/2003
Status: offline

quote:

Why don't you guys chime in on some type of UMP rule for AI? This could add more value to the diplomacy aspect of the AI game! Tell me some yeas and nays if you would...

Why don�t you use the forum search and find out what you had been told YEARS ago about UMPs ?
God, it is such a shame that you had been allowed to ruin the computer version of EIA because there won�t be a second try to convert this game for PC.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 5

RE: UMP? - 11/20/2009 12:54:53 AM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

The host should be able to replace the AI with a human player, including another player already controlling another MP.� I understand there is still a problem with the game allowing the same email address to control two MPs?� Fix that and then players can implement UMP rules themselves.�

With all due respect to Skanvak and others, we need a good AI implemented sooner�and not later.� The major pbem issues have been addressed and should be resolved with v1.8 sim dip/eco implementation.� It's time to focus on the other lingering AI issues, so ideally players won't have to bother with the boardgame UMP rule.

< Message edited by pzgndr -- 11/20/2009 1:35:16 AM >

(in reply to StCyr)

Post #: 6

RE: UMP? - 11/20/2009 1:14:08 AM

easterner

Posts: 179
Joined: 10/9/2004
Status: offline

Solitaire or 2 player pretty dead w/o AI.

UMP would be fine as option not replacement for AI.

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 7

RE: UMP? - 11/20/2009 3:08:26 AM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: easterner

Solitaire or 2 player pretty dead w/o AI.

UMP would be fine as option not replacement for AI.

I don't think Marshall is looking to replace the AI, its' just that the AI, for a lot of us, is simply not suitable and never will be, which is why UMP rules are a good idea, as an option of course.

Though I tend to agree that I could probably live with this being on the back back burner. I also agree that work should be done on the AI first. I know this is a pretty hardy task since it's going to be VERY difficult (near impossible if not impossible) to get the AI to actually be challenging in this game.

(in reply to easterner)

Post #: 8

RE: UMP? - 11/20/2009 2:15:21 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: StCyr

quote:

Why don't you guys chime in on some type of UMP rule for AI? This could add more value to the diplomacy aspect of the AI game! Tell me some yeas and nays if you would...

Why don�t you use the forum search and find out what you had been told YEARS ago about UMPs ?
God, it is such a shame that you had been allowed to ruin the computer version of EIA because there won�t be a second try to convert this game for PC.

WOW! I guess I'm off your Xmas list? LOL!
Did not mean to upset you!

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to StCyr)

Post #: 9

RE: UMP? - 11/20/2009 5:35:17 PM

Skanvak

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline

Sorry, but a player playing two MP and the UMP rules are really two different things. Mainly, the UMP can go neutral, can change control and have a simplify way of dealing with it when it is neutral (taht would save time for PBEM).

As for the AI. As much as I like to not have to look for the players, there is not good AI for diplomatic game. I think that Marshall has his plate full with the game and only with a team of 5-6 good (genius) computer ingeneer and game theorist that we could hope to have an AI able to do diplomacy with us.

So I believe that he should make AI in successive state.

1st/ design a battle scenario (Austerlitz or the danube campaign) then perfect the AI for battle only. AS long as the campaign thinking of the AI is not perfected, I think it is meaningless to have Marshall mind work on the diplomacy part.

2nd/ Design an over simplify diplomacy model in which AI Ally with the player automatically allow the player to control part of the AI army while at war. I mean by oversimplifie diplomacy model, a model that allow for pre-establish way to align some major power with you, and a set of action that will lead the AI MP to go to war (but again simple). This part should first be think over a lot before being develop (so better once the game is finish or by someone else, this would be A LOT BETTER)

3rd/ program it.

_____________________________

Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 10

RE: UMP? - 11/20/2009 6:02:31 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Since human players used UMP rules themselves in the board game they should be able to do that in pbem, and regulate themselves according to the rule. Why should the game have to do this? If Marshall is going to program in UMP AI, he may as well program a full AI capable of being a challenging computer opponent. I'm optimistic this is possible and should be pursued. Then no reason for UMP, since that was a board game workaround for having less than 7 players which isn't an issue in a PC game with computer oppoents available.

(in reply to Skanvak)

Post #: 11

RE: UMP? - 11/20/2009 6:10:54 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

I might be enticed to support UMP-type rules if they were changed completely. The original game allowed the potential of having a stalwart ally be an enemy with only a partial-turn's worth of warning. It's just absurd in a game about this era.

Some changes which would make it work better:

- The month in which an UMP can change hands needs to be variable.
- Turkey, if UMPed, needs to allow the new owner to re-raise feudal corps if the previous owner did not. I'm not sure whether this should be allowed that same month, though (if the swap is in December, as in EiA).
- Some way of handling money needs to be created. The idea of handing your UMP a bunch of cash only to have him be your enemy the next month is absurd. Diplomats would know better than to bribe someone getting hostile to them.
- Political changes would have to occur in stages, not all at once. For example, an UMP may be allowed to drop access rights after X months, or to drop an alliance after Y months, or to declare war in Z months (where X<Y<Z, or are numbers counted from the last action in the list XYZ).

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 12

RE: UMP? - 11/21/2009 2:49:20 AM

JavaJoe

Posts: 546
Joined: 9/12/2005
Status: offline

UMP rules.

This gets me off the chair and into the discussion.

Jimmer,

Great ideas. Let's get the UMP rules implemented first then improved.

Joe

_____________________________

Vice President Jersey Association Of Gamers
JerseyGamers.com

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 13

RE: UMP? - 11/21/2009 9:11:55 AM

Skanvak

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline

quote:

- Political changes would have to occur in stages, not all at once. For example, an UMP may be allowed to drop access rights after X months, or to drop an alliance after Y months, or to declare war in Z months (where X<Y<Z, or are numbers counted from the last action in the list XYZ).

I was thinking of a predictable Diplomatic stance for the AI, I think the same system could be applied for the UMP. Though, betrayal could be possible (ie a one month warning).

< Message edited by Skanvak -- 11/21/2009 9:22:53 AM >

_____________________________

Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to JavaJoe)

Post #: 14

RE: UMP? - 11/21/2009 2:46:09 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

I have been playing several solo games against the AI and what I am finding is interesting...

It looks to me that without alliances, you simply cannot win! This should not be a surprise since this is the nature of the game.
Even when you do form an alliance, rarely does it work to your advantage enough to help you win! Granted that there is work to be done on the AI (And more is getting done) but my concern is that even when the AI becomes strategic enough to win a war will he be good enough (selfless) to help an ally. I believe that a UMP rule could really add some excitement and make an alliance more powerful but this is simply MO. I find myself cussing an AI ally move so many times because they are self-serving and not designed to help another nation! This is some code that I will have to figure out (If A == win then A need to help B).

Anyway, keep the UMP thoughts coming (IF you want)...

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to Skanvak)

Post #: 15

RE: UMP? - 11/22/2009 1:35:04 AM

easterner

Posts: 179
Joined: 10/9/2004
Status: offline

The problem with Diplo is inability to communicate with AI.

You can request Access & Alliance, the AI seems to handle that well.

You can request an attack but usually get refused or sometimes a bribe is requested. This is a problem as often AI takes bribe or says yes then does nothing.

You can't request it to declare war, a major failing.

AI Ally doesn't tell you its plans so co-ordination is next to impossible.

I would have no objection to a modified UMP rule that gives a PC an option to control 1 Ally AI and run it till it takes a certain loss percentage returning it to normal AI and preventing new UMP for X months. This would not have to exclude a full normal UMP in PBEM games.

< Message edited by easterner -- 11/22/2009 1:38:24 AM >

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 16

RE: UMP? - 11/22/2009 12:41:39 PM

Skanvak

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline

Marshall,

I do think that once ally, AI movement of the main army, at least, should be given to a controlling player. AI are just not fitted for diplomacy with multi-player human at the present technology state.

I don't know from which level of decision you are coming from so it ias hard to propose a diplomatic model.

_____________________________

Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to easterner)

Post #: 17

RE: UMP? - 11/23/2009 12:12:15 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: easterner

The problem with Diplo is inability to communicate with AI.

You can request Access & Alliance, the AI seems to handle that well.

You can request an attack but usually get refused or sometimes a bribe is requested. This is a problem as often AI takes bribe or says yes then does nothing.

You can't request it to declare war, a major failing.

AI Ally doesn't tell you its plans so co-ordination is next to impossible.

I would have no objection to a modified UMP rule that gives a PC an option to control 1 Ally AI and run it till it takes a certain loss percentage returning it to normal AI and preventing new UMP for X months. This would not have to exclude a full normal UMP in PBEM games.

Aha! BUT I did add this into 1.08 (Ask an ally for help against selected nation). An ally should now DOW to help you out!

BUT this is a little aside from UMP. I like the UMP rules. They give you flexibility to move and attack but also help protect from abuses (Controlling MP taking all pp losses, etc).

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to easterner)

Post #: 18

RE: UMP? - 11/23/2009 5:45:00 PM

Skanvak

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline

Marshall it is still not diplomacy. I think a system that allow for fixed allignement like in WiF for ex will be better suited for the AI with a control given to the player. But such a system should be written from scratch before being implemented.

_____________________________

Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 19

RE: UMP? - 11/23/2009 11:33:57 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

Marshall it is still not diplomacy. I think a system that allow for fixed allignement like in WiF for ex will be better suited for the AI with a control given to the player. But such a system should be written from scratch before being implemented.

Huh? I don't think I'm following you???

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to Skanvak)

Post #: 20

RE: UMP? - 11/24/2009 6:00:58 PM

Skanvak

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline

Marshall,

The system I suggest is the following :

un-allied AI MP acts according to script

If a set of pre-establiashed condition (randomness can be set) are meet, the AI MP will become partially player controlled.

For ex: Prussia (AI MP) will become English controlled if France attack a Prussia protected minor and England send X gold (by the way getting rid of the dollar would be nice). X beign known to everyone before the game start.

Then Prussia corps will automatically be transfered to England player. I think that garrisonning the home nation should be controlled by the AI. Controlling MP (England) would be able to declare war and peace condition, well nearly everything like if Prussia is an Englsih Free state.

I thought of this kind of solution because in 2-5 player game, the AI will not be part of the diplomatic game. It is just another minor country and therefore should be control by a similar system. By giving a pre-establish patern of alliance, you put the AI MP into the strategic planing of the players as an item to consider and not like a stupid autistic player.

I hope I am clear this time.

_____________________________

Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 21