Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: rmdesantis

Personally, I don't mourn the fact that the AI will be delayed. An AI would be nice to have, but I can't imagine that it would be anywhere near as good an opponent as a human (even one who plays badly). This game is extraordinarily complex and is challenging for humans to play. A year or two to develop an AI? I think you're off by an order of magnitude.

Once it is released, to your point, there will be bugs to fix. Frustration with the game would only be compounded by any dissatisfaction with the AI as well, and it would prove a distraction to correcting playability issues. Even in your scenario, fixing an AI would be secondary to having a stable platform that could be played by the paying public.

To me, the only advantage to an AI is to help learn the rules to prepare you better to play against human opponents. You can play a few impulses, perhaps a turn or two, but a competent player will likely see little challenge in continuing against it. I would love to be proven wrong, but I think this is the way the smart money would bet.

Mike

quote:

Thing is - by the time the AI arrives there are going to be lots of people who will just view it as an "old game" and therefore not worth investing in...

They will look at it at release. See that it has no AI. And will write it off. Will they wait two or three years for the AI?

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Let's see. 50% of the revenue now and 50% later, versus no revenue now.

Paulderynck,

Thing is - by the time the AI arrives there are going to be lots of people who will just view it as an "old game" and therefore not worth investing in.

I do not agree with it but the gaming community (as a whole and including some wargamers) tend towards being ageist in this way.

They will look at it at release. See that it has no AI. And will write it off. Will they wait two or three years for the AI? Chances are that many will have forgotten about it by then.

Best wishes,
Steve

It's funny how many of these forgetful people keep dropping in once or twice a year to whine.

quote:


- The game will be coming out.
- It will have no AI in its original release. That decision has been made, having been weighed up by the stakeholders in the project - you know, the people who actually invest money in a project and so have real cash on the line.

If that decision works for you then buy it, if not then don't, or simply delay the purchase until you get the AI you want. Simples.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

Thing is - by the time the AI arrives there are going to be lots of people who will just view it as an "old game" and therefore not worth investing in...

They will look at it at release. See that it has no AI. And will write it off. Will they wait two or three years for the AI?

I have to chuckle here. WiF already IS an "old game", released in 1985. Methinks after 28 years, those who are somewhat unsatisfied with actually playing the full-up boardgame face-to-face with real human beings or exchanging volumes of emails playing the VASSAL version, will continue to be patient for even a post-release AI. I suspect Steve will be well rewarded for his efforts over the years. And players will be well rewarded for their patience.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

Empires in Arms was bug infected? I have been thinking of buying it, lately... Is it bug-free now?

EiA had some issues, for sure. The last patch resolved a lot of it and it plays pretty well. There are still a few gameplay issues but not bad. The AI still needs work, and hopefully the developer will return to it someday.

quote:

To me, the only advantage to an AI is to help learn the rules to prepare you better to play against human opponents. You can play a few impulses, perhaps a turn or two, but a competent player will likely see little challenge in continuing against it.

I disagree. The nirvana of having a computer opponent for a PC wargame is to have a ready willing competent adversary whenever it is convenient for you, not some pbem or NetPlay opponent someplace. I don't mind waiting for a post-release AI. And I don't mind waiting a while for Steve to continue to improve and enhance the AI over time. You can be a naysayer all you want, but I remain optimistic. The Strategic Command series has an outstanding AI, but it's taken years to get it where it is now. And the effort needed to script the AI and game events is considerable, but well worth it and proves the point that it IS possible to have a formidible AI for a complex grand strategy WWII wargame. Be patient.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think the AI will come along fine eventually, but there is really no other way to get one than the present course. When you walk into a "Gaming" store and encounter blank stares when you ask if there are any hex-based wargames for sale, you realize how esoteric this hobby has become. And that despite a vibrant line of WWII miniatures in production and widely available.

Release to the public for human & solitaire play will put the perfect icing on what sounds to be an already smooth game engine. I do hope that perhaps there could be a way for Matrix to accept uploads of saved game files from the players, to use in AI development and to generate statistics on what is happening in the game. Data storage is so cheap now... That would be quite a project that could also help further improve the game system as a whole in years to come. Perhaps too much to hope for.

But WiF has a built-in way to learn to play the game - the Barbarossa & Guadalcanal scenarios. I think an AI good at playing Guadalcanal will be the more challenging one, as in the naval system there is more potential for feints than in the my-tanks-go-your-tanks-go land campaigns with zero Fog of War to consider. Once the AI can handle navies, the Decline & Fall scenario is the best to play as a third choice (for humans as well), as Grand Strategy is already mostly set for each side and country, but world-wide operational skills still need to be mastered. I predict that the AI for the Barbarossa scenario will be very challenging for a human opponent, and I look forward to playing it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster
For anyone who hasn't, I recommend skimming through the AI threads. A tremendous amount of work on the AI has already been done by many very experienced WiF players. Mostly what remains is to encode what has been thrashed out. I believe Steve already has a framework worked out for that.

In my opinion, and that is speaking as someone who has a computing and maths degree with a considerable AI component, the AI should be at least competent and shouldn't take too long to develop after release.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

Thing is - by the time the AI arrives there are going to be lots of people who will just view it as an "old game" and therefore not worth investing in...

They will look at it at release. See that it has no AI. And will write it off. Will they wait two or three years for the AI?

I have to chuckle here. WiF already IS an "old game", released in 1985. Methinks after 28 years, those who are somewhat unsatisfied with actually playing the full-up boardgame face-to-face with real human beings or exchanging volumes of emails playing the VASSAL version, will continue to be patient for even a post-release AI. I suspect Steve will be well rewarded for his efforts over the years. And players will be well rewarded for their patience.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

For anyone who hasn't, I recommend skimming through the AI threads. A tremendous amount of work on the AI has already been done by many very experienced WiF players. Mostly what remains is to encode what has been thrashed out. I believe Steve already has a framework worked out for that.

In my opinion, and that is speaking as someone who has a computing and maths degree with a considerable AI component, the AI should be at least competent and shouldn't take too long to develop after release.

Cheers, Neilster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

I though we could watch all of that already on the History Channel

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

For anyone who hasn't, I recommend skimming through the AI threads. A tremendous amount of work on the AI has already been done by many very experienced WiF players. Mostly what remains is to encode what has been thrashed out. I believe Steve already has a framework worked out for that.

In my opinion, and that is speaking as someone who has a computing and maths degree with a considerable AI component, the AI should be at least competent and shouldn't take too long to develop after release.

Cheers, Neilster

Hi Neilster

Read your post back in May and put it aside because it was my birthday, one of too many, but now I could use some of your expertise about how an AI would be competitive in MWIF

This not a trick question I am really concerned how this would play out.

European theater: I believe a decent AI could be constructed in that area because of the mostly land warfare. In Barbarossa the AI could and should be very competent, even though it is only five turns long, it could be a great teaching tool for when the player would like to take on Global War or Fascist Tide.

Guadalcanal Pacific theater: A whole different kettle of fish IMHO. As a beta tester Barbarossa is a cake walk compared to Guadalcanal. Even though in Fascist Tide there can be some sea warfare I think it palls compared to the Pacific naval and land warfare.

If you care to take this on and explain to me how the AI can be competent in the Pacific I would deeply appreciate your insight, and just maybe we can get a conversation going here from all posters how they feel about this whether or not they like or dislike and AI opponent.

I am not looking for a discussion whether anybody here will like an AI or not, been there done that, just a discussion about how an AI might run it's war campaign. Maybe Steve does not need any insight about this but my feelings are it cant hurt and it could start us thinking about the AI's pitfalls or bonuses.

Bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

If anyone here has played the Strategic command series from the Battlefront gaming company please let me know.

When the German AI in Strategic command attacked Russia after destroying Poland and France you had to play your best game without mistakes to stop them. I could not until I found that one famous stop gap that hurts all computer AI's. A trick within a trick.

While Germany was defeating France I [Russia] built a string of forts along rivers in front of Moscow from Rostov in the south to Vologda in the north, by the time the Panzers reached the line of forts I had been able to put a large amount of artillery just behind the forts. For the first time in the game the AI struggled with the situation. Attacking piece meal instead of concentrating in one crucial area with a lot of its units.

I personally thought the AI was very adequate for a game constructed five years ago. Their Pacific game fell short with the AI IMO. I found that given enough power the AI could be very strong even against better than average players.

Bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirWhiskers

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

If anyone here has played the Strategic command series from the Battlefront gaming company please let me know.

When the German AI in Strategic command attacked Russia after destroying Poland and France you had to play your best game without mistakes to stop them. I could not until I found that one famous stop gap that hurts all computer AI's. A trick within a trick.

While Germany was defeating France I [Russia] built a string of forts along rivers in front of Moscow from Rostov in the south to Vologda in the north, by the time the Panzers reached the line of forts I had been able to put a large amount of artillery just behind the forts. For the first time in the game the AI struggled with the situation. Attacking piece meal instead of concentrating in one crucial area with a lot of its units.

I personally thought the AI was very adequate for a game constructed five years ago. Their Pacific game fell short with the AI IMO. I found that given enough power the AI could be very strong even against better than average players.

Bo

This sounds like Strategic Command Global Conflict, for which I've only played the demo. The Original SC has a fairly limited AI, which is hard-coded with certain grand strategies. The ability of the AI varies according to the level of the game - tactically, it can be quite lethal; operationally it can be competent; strategically, rather inept. It constantly wastes build points moving units back and forth via SR. It doesn't really know how to handle unusual situations, such as an Allied invasion of Italy in 1939/40. It throws away the German u-boats early by keeping them in range of British airpower.

Some of us are old enough to remember the original SSG (Strategic Studies Group) that published some very good early computer games, such as Reach for the Stars and Carriers at War. Roger Keating, the designer known for his excellent AI's, made the very important point that most game AI's fail because they are tacked on at the end. Per Keating, proper game design requires designing the AI first. This serves to guide the designer, so the game code takes the AI into account from day one. If the designer realizes that he needs several new variables for the AI only after the code is 90% complete, that's too late. In designing the AI first, the game designer also learns what features should be excluded because they can't be properly handled by an AI. Keating also made the point that converting an existing boardgame to computer is the most difficult situation for a game designer - not only are the game rules already written, but they were originally designed for humans, not machines.

I want MWIF to have an AI. I want it have a competent AI that doesn't cheat. I'm keeping my expectations low not because I believe Steve and others won't put in the necessary effort (they will), but because I recognize that designing this game's AI will be incredibly difficult. I also expect, like the original SC, the AI will be better at the lower tactical levels than the higher strategic levels.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

A little guessing here but I think it was a good twenty years ago I saw a DOS game about the invasion of Russia. First war game I ever saw on the computer, for the life of me I cannot remember the name of the game, but a comment by the game programmers I do remember "it's a game you cannot win"

What I do remember very well was the 24th Panzer division in the game. In the first few moves it wiped out every Russian unit in front of it. After that it could not beat any unit Russia had and every game turned into a nightmare of losses. I was crushed because I had visions of myself being Erwin Rommel or Heinz Guderian but alas that fell by the wayside with my warrior ego. About a year later I read somewhere that the AI cheated and you could not win. Oh well!

I know Steve would not think of cheating but I do not think he would mind beating most of us with his AI

If anyone here has played the Strategic command series from the Battlefront gaming company please let me know.

When the German AI in Strategic command attacked Russia after destroying Poland and France you had to play your best game without mistakes to stop them. I could not until I found that one famous stop gap that hurts all computer AI's. A trick within a trick.

While Germany was defeating France I [Russia] built a string of forts along rivers in front of Moscow from Rostov in the south to Vologda in the north, by the time the Panzers reached the line of forts I had been able to put a large amount of artillery just behind the forts. For the first time in the game the AI struggled with the situation. Attacking piece meal instead of concentrating in one crucial area with a lot of its units.

I personally thought the AI was very adequate for a game constructed five years ago. Their Pacific game fell short with the AI IMO. I found that given enough power the AI could be very strong even against better than average players.

I am guessing here But Steve could have levels of ability for the AI, not cheating in any way but increasing each AI's unit with either never being disrupted, never OOS, higher attack factors etc. To the purist that's a nono and I understand that but I would like to play against a competitive AI and I do not care how it's done to make it competitive.

I would appreciate some constructive comments from people who appreciate this game whether it be the board game people or the CWIF people. The comments above belong some where else even though I deeply appreciate your comments Not referring to you Neilster.

Bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

I just found Strategic Command Gold and the actually have Assult on Communism out which is just the Russian campaign (bigger map, more units, etc) and the AI is supposted to be very good. In the Gold version, which I played, I thought the AI was pretty good. Or maybe I am just really bad lol. 90% of my games I play against the AI and I am just happy they work at all, much less great.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

I just found Strategic Command Gold and the actually have Assult on Communism out which is just the Russian campaign (bigger map, more units, etc) and the AI is supposted to be very good. In the Gold version, which I played, I thought the AI was pretty good. Or maybe I am just really bad lol. 90% of my games I play against the AI and I am just happy they work at all, much less great.

The combination of fuzzy-logic generic AI (movements, combats, etc.), campaign-specific AI scripting (plans, production, diplomacy, etc.), and variable event scripting (plus fog of war effects!) result in a very dynamic computer opponent in the Strategic Command series. It just keeps getting better as each of those three areas get improvements and enhancements, often requiring updated game engines.

If you've got the Global GOLD expansion, check out my Advanced Third Reich mod. Both Axis and Allied AI is scripted to be competent and challenging. This is most noticeable in the Med Front, which proved very tricky to script properly to handle many different strategies. Many WWII ETO games don't handle the Med very well at all, for either Axis or Allied reinforcements of North Africa. For instance, French colonies could go Vichy or Free, Axis could invade Spain or Turkey, Axis could break through in Egypt or not, etc. Mentally, we can think through it easily enough; it's another matter to script it all so it works adequately under various conditions. But, it IS possible. I have been routinely surprised by my own AI scripting...