RE: AI vs non-AI

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: AI vs non-AI

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] >> World in Flames >> RE: AI vs non-AI

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: AI vs non-AI - 7/19/2004 6:36:40 AM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

Thanks ! That should satisfy some of these guys. I know squataa about game mechanics, interface, graphics, and already we're on the topic of AI.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not aginst an AI ! But to me it's like learning to navigate without a ship. Don't we first have to build the ship?

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 31

RE: AI vs non-AI - 7/19/2004 7:28:03 PM

Mziln

Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline

Link to Australian Design Group

For RaW (Rules as Written) select the DOWNLOADS button.

CWiF is supposed to use the the same rules as WiF.

Still waiting on a reply from matrix staff "Will there be a non-AI version?".

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 32

RE: AI vs non-AI - 7/30/2004 11:17:44 PM

IronManBeta

Posts: 4132
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Burlington, Ontario
Status: offline

I do not believe there will be a non-AI version. It will never have a killer AI, but it should have a sufficiently competent one to teach a newcomer some of the basics and to provide useful filler players in a multiplayer game if desired. Beyond that I cannot really say yet.

AI is the most fun part of any game project and I'm sure that there will be continual development over many years to come in the MWIF AI. At least some of it will be exposed so that interested parties can tweak weightings, etc. For version 1, our goals will be quite modest - honestly, there is no other way to do it!

Cheers, Rob.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

Link to Australian Design Group

For RaW (Rules as Written) select the DOWNLOADS button.

CWiF is supposed to use the the same rules as WiF.

Still waiting on a reply from matrix staff "Will there be a non-AI version?".

(in reply to Mziln)

Post #: 33

RE: AI vs non-AI - 7/31/2004 4:50:45 PM

IronManBeta

Posts: 4132
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Burlington, Ontario
Status: offline

The question phrased more generally was really 'will there be mutiple versions of the game over time' i.e. will be continue developing and releasing new versions or will it be a one-off deal? Our intent is to nurture and develop it indefinitely. That all depends of course on the support of the players but I have never seen a game with keener fans and so lack of interest is really the least of my worries. We will keep cranking out new versions as long as any one cares.

Cheers, Rob.

< Message edited by RobertCrandall -- 7/31/2004 8:11:02 PM >

(in reply to IronManBeta)

Post #: 34

RE: AI vs non-AI - 8/12/2004 4:27:56 AM

meyerg

Posts: 135
Joined: 11/14/2003
Status: offline

Rob:
IMHO the Wif Rules set was in its prime during 5th edition Wif. Has there been any consideration to making computer Wif based on an earlier version? All the following additions were, in my opinion, unnecessary:
1) motorized and mechanized INF (didn't add much but complexity)
2) Leaders in Flames = highly unbalanced game
3) PIF = many more planes with many different ranges and abilities but no increase in offensive/rebase allowance during land and combined
4) territorials = many more cheap units for allies.
5) the new maps (remember the bright colors of the old paper maps instead of the grey look of the new plastic feeling maps)
I think it sure would be easier to make a game based on Wif5 rules than the latest Wif with all the expansions like cruisers in flames, propaganda in flames, beer halls in flames, feminism in flames and the much awaited for Lord of the Rings Return of the King in Flames
Greg

(in reply to IronManBeta)

Post #: 35

RE: AI vs non-AI - 8/12/2004 6:10:27 AM

MButtazoni

Posts: 1494
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meyerg

Rob:
IMHO the Wif Rules set was in its prime during 5th edition Wif. Has there been any consideration to making computer Wif based on an earlier version? All the following additions were, in my opinion, unnecessary:
1) motorized and mechanized INF (didn't add much but complexity)
2) Leaders in Flames = highly unbalanced game
3) PIF = many more planes with many different ranges and abilities but no increase in offensive/rebase allowance during land and combined
4) territorials = many more cheap units for allies.
5) the new maps (remember the bright colors of the old paper maps instead of the grey look of the new plastic feeling maps)
I think it sure would be easier to make a game based on Wif5 rules than the latest Wif with all the expansions like cruisers in flames, propaganda in flames, beer halls in flames, feminism in flames and the much awaited for Lord of the Rings Return of the King in Flames
Greg

holy crap! i thought i was only one that missed the GOLDEN DAYS of WiF. this is an incredibly good idea.

_____________________________

Maurice Buttazoni
Project Coordinator, Playtest Coordinator

(in reply to meyerg)

Post #: 36

RE: AI vs non-AI - 8/12/2004 7:48:20 AM

meyerg

Posts: 135
Joined: 11/14/2003
Status: offline

Mbuttazoni:
You guys have a good thing going with your GGWAW. Sort of an Axis and Allies with research and supply. Hopefully we can keep WiF from adding rules and complexity without gaining SIGNIFICANT gameplay and LEARN from your Keep it Simple Stupid game that seems to have tons of strategy options and replayability.
Hopefully we can bring back the Golden Days of WiF (before they made headquarters a corps sized unit). So all fighters moved 4 and all subs were basically the same, the game sure played better than it does now. No need to assume the computer game needs all the bells and whistles. You will definitely not get the gamer who has never played Wif before if you start with all the expansions I detailed. Feminism in Flames alone really messes with all nations wartime economies!!!

(in reply to MButtazoni)

Post #: 37

RE: AI vs non-AI - 8/12/2004 11:38:03 AM

vonpaul

Posts: 178
Joined: 8/5/2004
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

I find it hard to believe Matrix would design CWIF on the old version of WIF, besides the CWIF designed so far is based on final edition and its been mentioned here that they are not scrapping the code.
I agree that 5th edition was much quicker to play and in some ways is the better board game because of that fact, however Final Edition is much more suited to computer adaptation and is the World in Flames of today.
It would be nice if it is designed in such a way that people could tweak the game to their own ends something like paradox or infogames does, but considering the way the beta was designed i could see if this will not be possible.
Would be nice to see mods like v5 and Fatal Alliances (ww1) though.

(in reply to meyerg)

Post #: 38

RE: AI vs non-AI - 8/13/2004 12:23:50 AM

Greyshaft

Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

I'd hate to go back to the "all TAC have the same movement allowance" days. PIF may not have changed the game flow but it certainly added color to the air combats.

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to vonpaul)

Post #: 39

RE: AI vs non-AI - 8/13/2004 1:17:57 AM

meyerg

Posts: 135
Joined: 11/14/2003
Status: offline

I'll concede adding a range statistic to the counter is probably a good thing. Adding more expensive twin engine fighters may be a good thing (better range, less Air to Air). Now, the rest of the "improvements" really add a little realism/historical accuracy at the expense of much playability.
Greg

(in reply to Greyshaft)

Post #: 40

RE: AI vs non-AI - 8/13/2004 8:04:47 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

Rob, your description of the function of the AI comports perfectly with my own interests. I've played complex wargames all my life -- ASL, Third Reich, now War in the Pacific -- but I've never gotten around to trying WIF. So I really want an AI that can at least give me a basic game so that I can learn the system. WITP's AI does this, and that's all I ask of it -- though I'm pleasantly surprised that the WITP AI is giving me a pretty good run for my money in my first game.

I'm also intrigued and encouraged to hear that AI development is the most "fun" part of designing a game. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I'm glad to hear it nevertheless. I

(in reply to IronManBeta)

Post #: 41

RE: AI vs non-AI - 8/15/2004 1:17:00 PM

amwild

Posts: 105
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RobertCrandall

I do not believe there will be a non-AI version. It will never have a killer AI, but it should have a sufficiently competent one to teach a newcomer some of the basics and to provide useful filler players in a multiplayer game if desired. Beyond that I cannot really say yet.

AI is the most fun part of any game project and I'm sure that there will be continual development over many years to come in the MWIF AI. At least some of it will be exposed so that interested parties can tweak weightings, etc. For version 1, our goals will be quite modest - honestly, there is no other way to do it!

Cheers, Rob.

Since we have someone here who obviously enjoys programming game AI, I have a question: Is a learning AI possible for a game of WiF's complexity?

(in reply to IronManBeta)

Post #: 42

RE: AI vs non-AI - 8/15/2004 3:29:22 PM

IronManBeta

Posts: 4132
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Burlington, Ontario
Status: offline

My marching orders are to produce a "faithful adaptation of the lastest Deluxe version of WIF" and 'to use the existing code base as far as possible'. Would it be possible to add a few options that allowed a partial reversion to WIF 5.0-like levels of complexity? Sounds doable to me. You have to realize though that no game in history as ever had more optional rules than this one and they are all but out of control already!

My first job is to do what I was told to do and then I can get fancy and entertain special requests later. Part of the appeal to me of the project initially was that there was a clear, well established and thoroughly tested set of rules. Nearly everyone I've talked to since has asked me to change them one way or the other to suit their personal preferences. Yikes! Our goal is to make everyone reasonably happy and that alone will be a ton of work. All the add ons will be a treat but it will take a lot of work to integrate them properly. I'm particularly concerned about how they would impact the AI we have to develop.

Cheers, Rob.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meyerg

Rob:
IMHO the Wif Rules set was in its prime during 5th edition Wif. Has there been any consideration to making computer Wif based on an earlier version? All the following additions were, in my opinion, unnecessary:
1) motorized and mechanized INF (didn't add much but complexity)
2) Leaders in Flames = highly unbalanced game
3) PIF = many more planes with many different ranges and abilities but no increase in offensive/rebase allowance during land and combined
4) territorials = many more cheap units for allies.
5) the new maps (remember the bright colors of the old paper maps instead of the grey look of the new plastic feeling maps)
I think it sure would be easier to make a game based on Wif5 rules than the latest Wif with all the expansions like cruisers in flames, propaganda in flames, beer halls in flames, feminism in flames and the much awaited for Lord of the Rings Return of the King in Flames
Greg

(in reply to meyerg)

Post #: 43

RE: AI vs non-AI - 8/15/2004 3:43:26 PM

IronManBeta

Posts: 4132
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Burlington, Ontario
Status: offline

The AI architecture has not been set yet but it will doubtless be some sort of layered hierarchy of finite state machines within a subsumtive framework. (Don't worry if that is Greek to you - it means a fairly conventional job, thats all). Some of the problems posed towards the middle layer of the AI sound like they would lend themselves to a scripting solution so there might well be a 'playbook' aspect too.

Something that I have not done yet in my games but would be fun to do is to give the the fsm agents a 'memory' of what they have done so far. That would really help with 'maintenance of the objective' issues in the short run, and would open up all kinds of possibilities more generally. Once you have a memory you can start to do all kinds of other things, one of which is simple learning.

Will it be fancy? Nope, not to start but it might actually reduce the complexity of the AI in the long run rather than increase it. Instead of working out all the combinations and permutations for all possible action in code it might become possible to do a simple look up of all ~matching instances in a database of memories and estimate probable outcomes based on what it finds - that sort of thing. That makes me really, really interested in pursuing it!

This probably did not answer your question but I liked answering it anyway. Cheers, Rob.

quote:

ORIGINAL: amwild

quote:

ORIGINAL: RobertCrandall

I do not believe there will be a non-AI version. It will never have a killer AI, but it should have a sufficiently competent one to teach a newcomer some of the basics and to provide useful filler players in a multiplayer game if desired. Beyond that I cannot really say yet.

AI is the most fun part of any game project and I'm sure that there will be continual development over many years to come in the MWIF AI. At least some of it will be exposed so that interested parties can tweak weightings, etc. For version 1, our goals will be quite modest - honestly, there is no other way to do it!

Cheers, Rob.

Since we have someone here who obviously enjoys programming game AI, I have a question: Is a learning AI possible for a game of WiF's complexity?

(in reply to amwild)

Post #: 44

RE: AI vs non-AI - 8/15/2004 5:03:15 PM

meyerg

Posts: 135
Joined: 11/14/2003
Status: offline

quote:

My marching orders are to produce a "faithful adaptation of the lastest Deluxe version of WIF" and 'to use the existing code base as far as possible'.

My opinion is that this means we are not starting with a clean sheet of paper, but CWIF will have to make compromises for PBEM.

quote:

Would it be possible to add a few options that allowed a partial reversion to WIF 5.0-like levels of complexity? Sounds doable to me. You have to realize though that no game in history as ever had more optional rules than this one and they are all but out of control already!

I believe we will only have one CWIF with optional rules to toggle on/off because the customer base is so small. I worry that a "faithful adaption" leaves no room to remove rules that add little or no gameplay but added complexity does three bad things: 1) added complexity for coding 2) added challenge to AI 3) higher learning curve for newbees. I believe these things make for a longer development cycle with reduced chance of mainstream acceptance (see computer Eastfront for an example of a great computer adaption with mainstream acceptance).

Finally, this makes the rumors of the European map US and Pacific map seem to me alive and well.

Greg

(in reply to IronManBeta)

Post #: 45

RE: AI vs non-AI - 8/17/2004 12:50:11 PM

amwild

Posts: 105
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

Well, this is somewhat greek; I am a programmer, but specialising in databases rather than AI.

However, this brings me to another point that interests me - logging. In a much erlier post before you joined in these discussions, I raised the question of an option to maintain a full log of every move made by man or machine in a given game so that a game's progress could be saved and replayed, and if desired, play could be picked up at any point in order to try to change the result (creating a duplicate of the log to that point).

Sure, with a game of this complexity, the log could be quite large, but it would provide some players with handy ammunition for bragging.

I would imagine that a full log would be necessary for the AI memory you discussed; the replay and interrupt facility (which I first saw in the original Civilization PC game) would be another bonus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RobertCrandall

The AI architecture has not been set yet but it will doubtless be some sort of layered hierarchy of finite state machines within a subsumtive framework. (Don't worry if that is Greek to you - it means a fairly conventional job, thats all). Some of the problems posed towards the middle layer of the AI sound like they would lend themselves to a scripting solution so there might well be a 'playbook' aspect too.

Something that I have not done yet in my games but would be fun to do is to give the the fsm agents a 'memory' of what they have done so far. That would really help with 'maintenance of the objective' issues in the short run, and would open up all kinds of possibilities more generally. Once you have a memory you can start to do all kinds of other things, one of which is simple learning.

Will it be fancy? Nope, not to start but it might actually reduce the complexity of the AI in the long run rather than increase it. Instead of working out all the combinations and permutations for all possible action in code it might become possible to do a simple look up of all ~matching instances in a database of memories and estimate probable outcomes based on what it finds - that sort of thing. That makes me really, really interested in pursuing it!

This probably did not answer your question but I liked answering it anyway. Cheers, Rob.

(in reply to IronManBeta)

Post #: 46

RE: AI vs non-AI - 8/17/2004 1:09:59 PM

terje439

Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RobertCrandall

My marching orders are to produce a "faithful adaptation of the lastest Deluxe version of WIF"

YEAY

(in reply to IronManBeta)

Post #: 47

RE: AI vs non-AI - 8/21/2004 1:14:09 AM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

I think it sure would be easier to make a game based on Wif5 rules than the latest Wif with all the expansions like cruisers in flames, propaganda in flames, beer halls in flames, feminism in flames and the much awaited for Lord of the Rings Return of the King in Flames
Greg

In fact, playing World in Flames Final Edition (WiF FE) in its Classic version is very very very close to playing WiF 5th Edition.

As far as I know about CWiF in the days of Chris Marinacci, it included SiF and PiF from the start and you were not allowed to play without them. But there were a number of people asking for the SiF & PiF counters & rules to be toggled off, to be able to play WiF FE Classic.

Maybe it will be possible with MWiF, so that everyone will be happy.

I, for one, prefer to play with all the lot, except leaders.

Cheers !

Patrice

(in reply to meyerg)

Post #: 48