rhondabrwn
Posts: 2570
Joined: 9/29/2004 From: Snowflake, Arizona Status: offline
|
I'd have to agree... AI improvements would be quite welcome, but that's a hard nut to crack. The AI in the newer HPS generation games (Campaign Gettysburg, for example)is just useless in the campaign game. As the games introduce expanded options, larger maps, alternative orders of battle and arrival, the older AI approaches seem really challenged. The scripting approach has severe limitations. I would like to see an AI engine developed that would be database driven (accessible to users and modders)and which would use a chain of command architecture in which army strategy would be determined by the AI based upon (1) scenario objectives and victory conditions (2) an analysis of known enemy positions and strength. (Hey, if we can do it for chess playing computers....) Once the over-all strategy is set at the army level, general directions would be communicated to the AI routines for corps level and independent formations (if in communication on the game map). Then an AI routine would determine a corps level strategy in accordance with the army directives received (or an independent plan if out of communication). The AI would then drop down to sucessive lower levels, evaluating terrain, objectives, and enemy positions and developing operational tactical orders for each division, Brigade, etc. This would be programming the thought processes of a skilled commander. Would this take time to process? Absolutely... I could see the computer grinding away for hours to produce the game plan for the turn. Can I accept playing one turn a day against an outstanding computer opponent? Definitely! Of course, the "advanced AI" would have to be an option for people who just want a fast game (and a sure victory against the AI).
_____________________________
Love & Peace, Far Dareis Mai My old Piczo site seems to be gone, so no more Navajo Nation pics :(
|