ZOOMIE1980
Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mogami quote:
ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980 Once again you make a poor case. I've programmed various AI algorithms for over 20 years. You have the basis mostly correct, but the resourse claims are ludicrous. The notion that it would take an AI 3 days per turn to assign value to all the possible actions it would need to take each turn is ridiculous. The notion that a "smart" AI need consider 400 turns in advance is also nonsense, even against a "master". Also completely undefined is just what, in context of this game, is a "master". How long does it take a player to play a 1600 turn game to become a "master"? At best, a few players will play enough to get "good". Most will get to be merely reasonably competent. I absolutely guarantee, one dedicated professional could develop a chess-like AI that could look 15-20 or so turns in advance and give 80-90% of all the people that will ever buy the game, a truely challenging game against a very intelligent API and be able to do with the AI taking more than several minutes on a PIV 3.2GHZ machine, to calculate it's best response. Certainly less than hour or so. Much less for lower intelligence settings. But even forgoing that genre of AI, while tedious, a dedicated developer could develop enough preprogrammed strategies each with several possible strategic branches during the course of the game, based on general human opponent strategy, to keep even proficient players somewhat off gaurd, and keep the AI from being overly predictable. What I continue to see from the development team here is an attempt to justify why the AI is well down the priority list of the game. Hopefully, after the realse, if successful enough with enough cash flow, that someone will decide to put some significant effort into an a major AI upgrade patch down the road. Hi, I don't think I suggested that the AI would need to look 400 turns in advance. I think I said a programmer could not pre programe strategy 400 turns in advance because he will not know what transpires in those 400 turns. Why don't you help out and post strategy they can pre program for the AI to play Allies or Japanese for scenario 15 (the complete war Dec 41 to June 46) It would help if you could define all possible courses the war could take because having the AI following a pre planned stategy that has no relation to the current on map situation is worse then having a merely stupid AI. Also I was not saying there were or would ever be masters of WITP. I said novice chess players that think they can confuse master chess players by making "unexpected" moves lose the game faster then if they stick to simple but solid moves. It does not matter if the master can predict them as long as they do not present him with a weakness that he can then exploit to his advantage. A master will see and recognize a weakness and "unexpected" moves are where they generally occur. I don't mind being rebutted but I do mind be rebutted using points I did not make. I'm sorry if I was unclear. I play high dollar ,high rated chess machines. At their fastest settings they are all at least 400 points (USCF rating) below what they play at their slowest settings. Just don't play where you try to out calculate them. Play solid closed long term positional chess and watch them suffer breakdowns. (Rookies open the position and then try tactics against a computer) Also most chess programs have an opening libary where the past 300 years of grandmaster chess is stored. The program just checks for positons that match one from it's libary. (so it is not really understanding or thinking just plagerizing history) It is illegal for a human player to consult such a libary during a game. In matches where the libary is removed the program has a dramamatic drop in results. Chess programs have scored their highest in "Blitz" games where they can use their libaries and calculating powers in tactical games to advantage. They remain almost hopeless when deprived of the libary and are forced to play slow closed strategic games. (They are suckers for material sacrifice and will never be able to understand the positional nature of such sacrifices because the grandmaster can not explain it only knows from experiance what it means and how to exploit it. ) First off, I largely disregard the chess analogy as appropriate, at least in the notion that every unit on the map is a chess peice and every hex a square. You people seem totally incapable of thinking outside the box when it comes to creating a decent AI for a turn based wargame, basically because you simply do not want to be bothered at this late date. From what I've seen on this forum during this discussion is CLEAR indication that the majority of potential purchasers will NOT be playing this game via e-mail, or hot-seat, but playing solo. That should be input enough for you people to devote a significant amount of time after release for a major AI patch upgrade. And such an improvement is not anywhere NEAR the difficulty you are making it out to be. Like I've said, I've worked on AI's for the Air Force and Army off and on for over 20 years. The job can be done, and it can be done to perform reasonable on today's computers and there are a LOT of AI advancements out there, if you care to take time to research them. Most, the VAST majority of the purchasers of this game, will be solitare players. They deserver better than a 1985 vintage AI.
|