A.I.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

A.I.

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory >> A.I.

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

A.I. - 6/20/2005 11:16:05 PM

Cyrano

Posts: 47
Joined: 12/28/2001
From: USA
Status: offline

I don't want to single out one post because I see this all the time, but, for some reason, it got under my skin this afternoon, viz., what people expect of A.I.

I KNOW that this is an evolving discipline. I KNOW that, one day, I will be crushed underfoot like a bug by my PC at every turn, but I sometimes think we set this bar waaaaay too high, especially for games like CoG.

Let's call it the "IMA BADA$$" phenomenon. The process runs something like this:

1. Person hears of new game (strategy games most common).
2. Person READS about new game on Intermess.
3. Person PINES for new game for many weeks.
3.a. Person COMPLAINS that new game has not yet been released.
3.b. Person COMPLAINS AGAIN that new game has not yet been released.
3.c. Person is temp-banned from website for profane b*tching about lack of game release (this happened in R:TW more than once, IIRC).
4. Person actually GETS game.
5. Person PLAYS game for, oh say, 30 hours.
6. Person discovers that certain "gamey" things work to the detriment of the A.I. (here, cf. R:TW siege issues).
7. Person POSTS, under title "IMA BADA$$" or, alternately, "Y the A.I. BLOWZ", and under an assumed nick (remember earlier temp-ban?) revealing his mighty ueberness and lambasting the developers for poor programming. This, of course, is done despite person's NEVER having written a line of non-BASIC/JAVA code in his life.

What DO we expect of these jumbles of code? I'm not sure I know my own answer to this question, but this issue is precisely why I regard MP as so important. I honestly believe (belief only, no evidence to support this mind you) that NO computer will, in my lifetime, be quite as cunning as two of my dear gaming friends (props: Matt and Rapp) who are among the craftiest SOBs I've ever met. Moreover, I was playing a game of WotR the other day when a complete n00b player did something that made all of us look at her with expressions that surely said "she's either crazy or an absolute genius."

What do I (again, me personally here) want CoG SP to do? I want it to TEACH me the game and give me a fair to middlin challenge. If it kicks my butt, great, but I will NOT judge it a failure if all it does it get me ramped up for MP gaming.

And, yes, please be done SOON ;). Most excited about this project.

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

Post #: 1

RE: A.I. - 6/20/2005 11:42:13 PM

ioticus

Posts: 187
Joined: 6/13/2004
Status: offline

Well, if you're referring to my post, all I said was I hope it has a killer AI. Not sure why this would "get under your skin." Personally, I could care less about multiplayer in a computer wargame. If the AI doesn't challenge me, then, yes, I view the game as a failure. You care more about multiplayer, so what?

(in reply to Cyrano)

Post #: 2

RE: A.I. - 6/21/2005 12:12:10 AM

Cyrano

Posts: 47
Joined: 12/28/2001
From: USA
Status: offline

As I said, I did not want to single out a particular post. In fact, I mentioned R:TW more than CoG, which is probably my bad in that respect.

Since you stepped forward though, I'll take up the cudgel and inquire: what constitutes "killer A.I."? It's the vagueness of the phrase, I suppose and the fact that -- again, in other games -- it's used very perniciously as I described.

Did, for example, R:TW have goot or bad strategic A.I.? Tactical A.I.? On what basis? Should A.I. take account of "gamey" things or is that fall against the design side of the ledger? Who's to blame for the jeep rushes of CM:BO? Steve and Charles or the players who used and use them?

In CoG (bringin' the post back home) I, again, freely admit I don't precisely know what I want the A.I. to do. I know I don't want the A.I. to attack my three divisions with its one...unless of course it's got a really good reason. Perhaps all things of this sort are proved in the example, but I'd still like to see some sort of a standard evolved.

Maybe I just weep for programmers (my brother is one, I'm far to right-brained for the task) and want everyone (again, please, not just yourself) who calls for good A.I. to 'splain what they mean and how, in the case of "not killer" A.I., they'd do it differently.

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

_____________________________

"Gentlemen songsters off on a spree, damned from here to eternity, God have mercy on such as we..." -- The Whiffenpoofs

(in reply to Cyrano)

Post #: 3

RE: A.I. - 6/21/2005 12:50:42 AM

Mr. Z

Posts: 1048
Joined: 3/24/2005
Status: offline

Of course each player will have to decide for him- or herself how good the AI is, but I find that sometimes it does things you might question, other times it kicks your butt. Skill level of the player is definitely a factor, as are the difficulty settings (I think we're up to ten now, for each player? Something like that.)

However, overall, I find that each scenario for each player nation presents a fairly good challenge--even if one AI opponent is acting foolishly, if you're not careful you may find yourself fighting the entire board, and that's not an easy thing, regardless of who you're playing (admittedly it's easier for France in 1805 than almost anyone else!

)

Anyway, don't ever hesitate to post your thoughts after release and playtesting--we do have some patches in mind.

(in reply to Cyrano)

Post #: 4

RE: A.I. - 6/21/2005 12:57:19 AM

sol_invictus

Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

I certainly don't expect a "killer AI" without cheating; I really hate cheating AI. What I do hope for is an AI that avoids obvious mistakes or outright imbecile behaviour. Having said that, could Mack at Ulm be said to have a lame AI? The Allied Command at Austerlitz? Brunswick at Auerstadt? Since trained military proffessionals at the height of their careers make some really bad decisions at times, can we expect a game AI to always make a very solid decision. As long as the AI doesn't seem to always make dumb decisions and it appears to have a coherent and somewhat effective plan, I will be happy. If it can decide who is best to ally with and at what time, I will be very happy. If it makes solid decisions on what research to pursue and handles its economy well, I will be happy. I guess we will know the answer soon.

(in reply to Cyrano)

Post #: 5

RE: A.I. - 6/21/2005 2:41:22 AM

ioticus

Posts: 187
Joined: 6/13/2004
Status: offline

"Killer AI" is simply AI that challenges me without obvious cheating, no more, no less. The SSG games have it, the HPS games do not, for example. Of course, it's a personal thing, that's why all wargames should have difficulty levels.

(in reply to sol_invictus)

Post #: 6