Chance of Norm Koger doing a sequel?

[Karri]

I find it pretty hard to believe that a game like TOAW will ever take mor than 1GB of space...unless indeed 3d graphics, animations and other unnnecessary things are added.

[a white rabbit]

..currently my t3 folder is at 756MB, i wonder how much space 10 memory turns of FITE takes up...

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..currently my t3 folder is at 756MB, i wonder how much space 10 memory turns of FITE takes up...

The largest saves take up around 800kb.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..giving Elmer a decent memory of previous moves takes space, RAM just makes him/it process that memory (note MEMORY) quicker..

..and more CPU's let's him compare quicker..

I'm sure you're a great farmer, Richard, but you really could do with learning a bit more about computers.

The actual code- the things which control the way the game works- is all in that tiny little file with the .exe on the end. The vast majority of the space taken up by a TOAW install is the graphics. However, the code in that little .exe requires a fair old bit of RAM (CPU, too, but RAM is almost always the limiting factor) to operate.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..giving Elmer a decent memory of previous moves takes space, RAM just makes him/it process that memory (note MEMORY) quicker..

..and more CPU's let's him compare quicker..

I'm sure you're a great farmer, Richard, but you really could do with learning a bit more about computers.

The actual code- the things which control the way the game works- is all in that tiny little file with the .exe on the end. The vast majority of the space taken up by a TOAW install is the graphics. However, the code in that little .exe requires a fair old bit of RAM (CPU, too, but RAM is almost always the limiting factor) to operate.

..yes, like i said, the larger RAM helps him compare the history quicker, better, effectively using more of the program, so ?

.. i'm suggesting more storage space, so Elmer has a decent memory for comparison. As you wrote above 1 big save is running at 800KB so 10 moves, his own and the player's is 16MB ish, then he needs somewhere to store his own provisional planning unless you want to wait for him to recalculate evry time you load, so that's some 20MB, then he needs space to try out the planning in theory during play, no idea there..

..but, he really should have more than that, so 20 moves ?..

...then he needs space for his tactical models, almost a sub-game and all the space that needs..

..if it's any help, the best iGo program was some 3.5 GB, and that before i left France, most of which was previous championship games used for Elmer-san's planning, the "thinking" bit, the .exe if you really wanna get picky was some 150KB, and given the game, i really doubt that the graphics were much at all..

..if it helps your world-view Ben, i'm happy with my simplistic attitude to computer construction, it worked well enough when i learnt machine-code and you were still in nappies, so cute too, and not a lot has really changed since. It's still a y/n system, no maybe..

[berto]

Again, whether we're talking time, disk space, whatever--I hope that there will be no (or as few as possible) arbitrary, fixed constraints on the AI. Let us decide for ourselves how much time we'll give the AI, and how much computer resources we'll devote to it.

[Karri]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
.. i'm suggesting more storage space, so Elmer has a decent memory for comparison. As you wrote above 1 big save is running at 800KB so 10 moves, his own and the player's is 16MB ish, then he needs somewhere to store his own provisional planning unless you want to wait for him to recalculate evry time you load, so that's some 20MB, then he needs space to try out the planning in theory during play, no idea there..

That one save has ALL information regarding the scenario in it. Saving 'elmers' moves would probaply take like 10% of that. The trick is not just giving him more storage space, the problem is coming up with a way for Elmer to use those 'previous moves'. What you are asking is not using more space but building some kind of real artificial intelligence.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

.. i'm suggesting more storage space, so Elmer has a decent memory for comparison. As you wrote above 1 big save is running at 800KB so 10 moves, his own and the player's is 16MB ish,

No, actually. The 800kb includes all the scenario data. You may have noticed you're never prompted for a scenario file during play; that's because you don't need it. All the information- the map, units, events etc.- is stored in the save game file. Since the scenario file itself is only a little smaller than the save, we can deduce that the space taken up by the stored moves is less than 100kb- in the extremely large scenarios.

But I don't see where you're going with this. You want the PO to calculate possible future moves like a chess program? TOAW is far, far more complicated than chess- and involves random factors.

The PO's strategic brains currently depend entirely on the objectives plotted by the scenario designer. Something more is required- but I think the objectives are still going to have to feature in there unless we're going to do a massive AI project, which requires development time more than tech specs.

..if it helps your world-view Ben, i'm happy with my simplistic attitude to computer construction, it worked well enough when i learnt machine-code and you were still in nappies, so cute too, and not a lot has really changed since. It's still a y/n system, no maybe..

Chess and Go are "yes/no". TOAW is definitely maybe, as in "maybe this attack will work". That's why the AI has trouble.

[a white rabbit]

..no, computers are y/n, it's an electrical thing, the switch is either on , y, or off, n, there's no uncertantity state, maybe on/maybe off..
 
..as to a decent AI, a "thinking" Elmer, part of it's design parameters have to be potential space available for temporary storage, the more he has, the better the comparisons and the sounder the end decision. As to it's complexity beyond that of chess or iGo, a study on our own human CP analysis shows that isn't the case, we simplify, so why shouldn't Elmer. He doesn't have to analyse the whole map, just bits, one after another, as we do. In gross detail,  first we look at a formation, it's proximity to a given objective and any major obstacles, access to long-range support, all this on low map magnification, then we focus in on the details, and then we focus down real tight on observed bottle-necks, on max zoom, finally we make a decision, compare with our own objective track planning and from our stored maps and analysis take action..
 
..none of the above is beyond Elmer's ability, nor beyond the standard RAM capacity or chip size, the computer algorythmns (sp) exist, and now-a-days, the needed storage space for the comparison models also exists on the normal home computer, at prices we can all afford..

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: Karri

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
.. i'm suggesting more storage space, so Elmer has a decent memory for comparison. As you wrote above 1 big save is running at 800KB so 10 moves, his own and the player's is 16MB ish, then he needs somewhere to store his own provisional planning unless you want to wait for him to recalculate evry time you load, so that's some 20MB, then he needs space to try out the planning in theory during play, no idea there..

. What you are asking is not using more space but building some kind of real artificial intelligence.

..yup, i am, i want an Elmer that can, without cheats, beat me evrytime, if i get one move a day, and he needs all night to think, s'ok..

..it'l make for an interesting breakfast..

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: berto

Again, whether we're talking time, disk space, whatever--I hope that there will be no (or as few as possible) arbitrary, fixed constraints on the AI. Let us decide for ourselves how much time we'll give the AI, and how much computer resources we'll devote to it.

..oh, i totally agree, it should be designed so that everything from the current, decision in 5 minutes (poor bugger, you play speed-toaw ?) min storage situation, to a real deep think, say max 12 hours, with all the added storage need is available to the player..

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..no, computers are y/n, it's an electrical thing, the switch is either on , y, or off, n, there's no uncertantity state, maybe on/maybe off..

This is a problem, though. Humans are good at "maybe", so can handle uncertainty. Computers don't understand "maybe", so they're terrible at wargames.

As to it's complexity beyond that of chess or iGo, a study on our own human CP analysis shows that isn't the case,

No, you're wrong. In a single chess move, you only have a few dozen options. In one turn of a small TOAW scenario, there are probably millions of possible move combinations. Many of them can be ruled out automatically, but that still leaves a hell of a lot.

Chess is difficult for humans because being good at it involves predicting possible moves, probabilities etc. and visualising the result. A computer is great at this. TOAW is relatively easy for humans because it's so complex that you can't predict future moves with any certainty, so you just guess. Computers can't guess- they either know or they don't.

He doesn't have to analyse the whole map, just bits, one after another, as we do.

This is what he does now- fairly well as it happens- but he needs to analyse them all together, like humans can. Otherwise there's no strategy beyond what the designer programmed.

[a white rabbit]

..you're looking at it wrong, on the right magnification, a formation, say a corps is one 'thing', with a limited number of options, each of it's component divisions is one 'thing', with a limited number of options, each brigade is etc, each btn etc..
 
..what toaw does now, is decide btn by btn, refering only to the pre-set objective track for that btn's formation, with no regard to a given situation, the formation will attempt to go a/b/c/d in a very "bitty" manner, each btn almost fighting it's own war, a bottom-only aproach. What Elmer needs is a means to carry this low-level thinking thru to a parent formation decision, and following analysis of the surrounding enviroment, supporting-formation best-case actions make a decision and take an action..
 
..he can only do this by analysis in stages, at various levels. i'l try a practical example...should Corps A, 3 divs of 2 brigades of 3 btns each, as a whole, attack or hold ? does the attack warrent moving 3 Div out of reserve  to participate ? Corps A has objectives beyond the current situation..
 
..1 Div, 1 Brig, left flank, has two btns that have very good odds, in attacks with adjoining formations, 2 Brig are all poor to very poor odds, 2 Div, right flank,  1 Brig has one btn with poor, 2 btns with 50/50, 2 Brig has 2 btns on good in co-operation with an adjoining formation and one on excellent, in co-operation again. Priority is always to parent formation, so Elmer looks at involving 3 Div, this improves nothing for the poor or very poor, at best it ups poor to 50/50, unless all of 3 Div is used in one attack, which has a negative loading, and very good to excellent is already sufficient..
 
..result: Corps A participates in support of adjoining formations on the good to excellent attacks, but does not commit 3 Div, and does not as a whole attack..
 
..this is simplified, available artillery/air/whatever has also to be factored in, and the same decision making has to happen for the adjacent formations, with a results comparison facility.. 
 
..What it needs is : storage in GBs and apart from laptops without plug-ins we now have it : 'thinking' capacity that we now have, who is running on less than 512k RAM ? and the now-generation of machines is at least twice that : and a company, willing to and capable of, designing for the ongoing future of a tried and tested system..
 
..toaw isn't a platoon level, instant-action game, the opposing player should have time to consider his actions, whether human or Elmer..

[berto]

For the first time ever, I am about to purchase a Mac, a Mac Pro to be exact. (Forgive me Father, for I will have sinned. )

Gack! Whatever will I do with 8 CPU cores, not to mention 4 GB of memory? (I'd buy more, but sheesh that Mac memory is expensive. Yeah, I know, I might instead buy my own RAM and install it myself.)

Not that I intend to use this new Mac to play games (might though, via dual boot or virtualization, but it's mainly a computing playpen for my techie son to encourage his further technical development).

BUT, the point is that, yes, the hardware is improving in capability by leaps and bounds. Multi-core, RAM-rich systems are becoming commonplace.

We must abandon outmoded ways of thinking.

The gaming company that frees itself from the old AI orthodoxies and begins to exploit these new technological capabilities--by for example implementing multi-threaded AI parallel processing together with near-unlimited disk-based virtual memory, not to mention the absence of tight time constraints--that company stands to make a (small) fortune (maybe), anyway save a few grognards' souls.

White Rabbit, you are a prophet of the AI New Order. [&o]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..you're looking at it wrong, on the right magnification, a formation, say a corps is one 'thing', with a limited number of options,

The options are finite, sure. But they number in the millions. Raise this to the power of the number of formations, and then add in the possible actions of the other side (bearing in mind sharply limited intelligence, whereas in Chess and Go intelligence is perfect).

..what toaw does now, is decide btn by btn, refering only to the pre-set objective track for that btn's formation,

This is more or less the problem. But the solution to this isn't a brute-force approach like you use for a Chess computer. You'd want a learning AI which tries to be more like a human player and less like an adding machine.

The idea I had would be for the player to design objective tracks independent of the formations. The AI would then judge how it was performing on each of these objective tracks relative to one another, and assign its formation to these tracks depending on the situation. So if the situation on one track is changing rapidly, that gets extra formations assigned to it.

[L`zard]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: L`zard

How many of you can prove to me that Your really alive and not an AI..........

I can do a good job. I've met seven other TOAW players in person, most of whom have posted here at one time or another. Meet any one of them and they can attest to my existence.

Ben, your proof is already historical, LOL...

I'll admit that meeting 'seven others' in person....WOWSERS ...you lucky bstd!

Got 'Stout'?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: L`zard

I'll admit that meeting 'seven others' in person....WOWSERS ...you lucky bstd!

And just for fun, a short biography by TOAW. Forum names [thus];

2000ish: Peter Szabo at Waterloo Station
2001: Colin Wright, Richmond CA
2001: [Fidel Helms], NC (with Colin)
2001: Tim McBride, CO (with Colin)
2005: [Easily Confused] at the Cutty Sark, Greenwich
2006: [Specterx], [Viridomaros] simultaneously at Waterloo Station

[nemo69]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: L`zard

I'll admit that meeting 'seven others' in person....WOWSERS ...you lucky bstd!

And just for fun, a short biography by TOAW. Forum names [thus];

2000ish: Peter Szabo at Waterloo Station
2001: Colin Wright, Richmond CA
2001: [Fidel Helms], NC (with Colin)
2001: Tim McBride, CO (with Colin)
2005: [Easily Confused] at the Cutty Sark, Greenwich
2006: [Specterx], [Viridomaros] simultaneously at Waterloo Station

That's quite a lot indeed. I've only met with Viri in Liège in 2005.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Nemo69

That's quite a lot indeed.

Well London's something of an international destination, which helps. Only Specterx came to see me, the others were passing through anyway.

I've only met with Viri in Liège in 2005.

Yeah. He showed me a photo of the two of you.

[Karri]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..you're looking at it wrong, on the right magnification, a formation, say a corps is one 'thing', with a limited number of options,

The options are finite, sure. But they number in the millions. Raise this to the power of the number of formations, and then add in the possible actions of the other side (bearing in mind sharply limited intelligence, whereas in Chess and Go intelligence is perfect).

..what toaw does now, is decide btn by btn, refering only to the pre-set objective track for that btn's formation,

This is more or less the problem. But the solution to this isn't a brute-force approach like you use for a Chess computer. You'd want a learning AI which tries to be more like a human player and less like an adding machine.

The idea I had would be for the player to design objective tracks independent of the formations. The AI would then judge how it was performing on each of these objective tracks relative to one another, and assign its formation to these tracks depending on the situation. So if the situation on one track is changing rapidly, that gets extra formations assigned to it.

IMO, the only solution if one wants to improve the Ai is to completely redo the OOB system of TOAW. Once you have a 'clear' OOB, ie this division is part of this corps, which is part of this army, which is part of that Army Group which is commanded by the Supreme Command, can you actually develope an AI that thinks in the grand scale.

Furthemore, the Supreme Command needs to 'know' how to give objectives(instead of designer implementing those objective tracks), then the army groups, corps, divisions, and battalions need to know what they can do and what they should do.

The key is information and how to use that information, and it should flow both ways. For example the 1st corps gives the 1st division the task of capturing the city of Kharkov. 1st division 'analyses' the situation and sends back a message that this is impossible without 2nd and 3rd division securing flanks. 1st corps then analyses the situation and decides if it can allow 2nd and 3rd division to do that. If not it will either cancel the attack or ask for more reinforcement...or if the situation is desperate it will force the order...and so on.