ai?

[Skanvak]

I don't expect a Genius AI. You are totally misunderstanding me, making wrong accusation not based on fact...

I am just not confident that your goal for the AI is reachable in the present situation. I do agree that lots of people including myself were expecting an AI to deal with the few number of players. BUT after 2 years and present state of the AI, and my resent reasearch on the subject. I think that this is not reachable. Which is very different from the personnal attack you are making.

You should have noted that I made two proposal for AI developpement :
_ One to offer a simplified, historically oriented mathematical model to deal with diplomacy.
_ Another to look at the program developped by Chris Crawford that could be useful.

We need a special diplomacy interface with the AI, dedicated and clear to give us the feeling to involve the AI in the diplomacy around the board, not simply buying its support.

So what I say, is that after so much years, ans so much to do to make the game playable for non-AI game. I think that it is time to stop the effort on this field and finished the other aspects of the games. Fields, I trust Mashall to be able to succeed alone, not the AI. My argument is not a bout the need of an AI but about the time towards rewards we will get. I'd like to read serious arguments from you and not simply "we all want it even if undoable".

[pzgndr]

You are totally misunderstanding me... I think that this is not reachable... I think that it is time to stop the effort on this field

What personal attack?? Knock it off and grow up. There is zero misunderstanding here; YOU assert that AI development should stop completely. And you just asserted that again! Sorry, that's a No-Go idea and AI development should continue. I disagree with you. Marshall disagrees with you. Matrix Games disagrees with you. Methinks you are completely wasting your time and making a stink where you have no grounds to do so. If you want to continue, I'll keep offering rebuttals to your bad idea.

[Skanvak]

You don't offer rebuttals, only wishes and prayers. You are just saying want. I am still waiting for a real argument, something that can make me expect a sastisfactory AI. That will make me change my mind, nothing else. Beside, once the non-AI game is finished, I think it will be time to resume developpement of AI.

The Diplomacy Artificial Intelligence Development Environment (DAIDE) project[25] is a hobby project to produce computer AIs capable of playing Diplomacy, and allow them to play against each other and against humans. The AIs being produced by this project are mostly only capable of playing games without negotiation, and are somewhat weaker than most human players, although several of the AIs are significantly stronger than the AIs in any of the commercially released Diplomacy games.

http://www.daide.org.uk/index.xml

I mean if they have not yet design a capable AI since 2002, I don't see Marshall alone do it. That is an argument. I don't ask to stop Ai just because I don't need it, actually I have the need for AI you describe. And you see I provided 2 sources of inspiration for developping the AI. What I argument is that in the present state of the developpement team, it should be stopped (for the diplomcay part, the military AI should be able to reach a good enough level).

[pzgndr]

I am still waiting for a real argument

The only argument here is the one you are hopelessly trying to provoke. This is a computer wargame and Matrix Games has already made it clear it will have an AI and AI development will continue. You refuse to accept this simple fact of life here. How far along it will get and how good it will be is uncertain, but as I have tried to gently remind you Marshall stilll has AI improvements and enhancements on the development plan and that is not likely to change. Period. No argument. Get used to it.

What I seem to keep hearing is what YOU want, without any regard to what many other players such as freeboy expect. If you truly want only the non-AI pbem game to be finished, guess what? It's already done! Use CyberBoard or Vassal pbem software. Or get out the cardboard and play the original. Why come to Matrix Games and argue that computer wargames should not have a computer opponent? That's as senseless as going to CyberBoard or Vassal and arguing that they should implement AI for all of their pbem games.

[NeverMan]

pzn,

That's fine, we all accept Matrix's futile efforts to develop a decent AI capable of playing with diplomatic efforts. I think it's obvious they aren't going to do it BUT they will continue to try (as they love to bang their heads against walls at Matrix).

[Thresh]

(as they love to bang their heads against walls at Matrix).

So they've adopted the methods of a few posters to try and get things done.

Interesting...

[pzgndr]

we all accept Matrix's futile efforts to develop a decent AI capable of playing with diplomatic efforts

And who exactly is "we all" amongst the total number of EiANW purchasers?? My unofficial assessment of just those who have posted here on this forum over the past few years is that more players are interested in having a decent computer opponent for some or all of their gaming than there are players who have no interest in AI development or playing against a machine. Those interested in only 7-player multiplayer pbem games with no AI do not constitute "all". So this statement is rather wishful speculation, moreso than anything I've stated here.

I would question how players use the current UMP rules. Aren't there rules for how anyone can play a country? Of course there are. Just having the AI improved and enhanced to the point where existing UMP rulesets are implemented would be a significant step forward. I would argue that most players would be happy to see that, so it's not exactly a futile effort to work towards that reasonable goal. Some additional improvements and enhancements may be possible beyond that, but nobody is expecting genius level AI.

To develop a "great" AI may be unattainable, but to continue development towards a decent "average-to-good" AI is a reasonable goal. Only a few unreasonable folks continue their own futile efforts to argue otherwise.

[Skanvak]

Pzgndr, really, I would like an AI opponnent. Just that now, I prefer time and effort on other think because I am desillusionned about the present result of several years of AI developpement for this game. That why I am a bit upset by your unfunded accusation.

Beside you should know that I would like the UMP to be implemented.

Understand that implemented a battle scenario like the russian campaign can be good to test and develop the AI by step. What we say if that if a proper plan to develop the AI is not made, we see no need to put Marshall effort on something that will fail, at least not now. If we were presented with a credible plan then we surely will support it.

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

Pzgndr, really, I would like an AI opponnent. Just that now, I prefer time and effort on other think because I am desillusionned about the present result of several years of AI developpement for this game. That why I am a bit upset by your unfunded accusation.

Beside you should know that I would like the UMP to be implemented.

Understand that implemented a battle scenario like the russian campaign can be good to test and develop the AI by step. What we say if that if a proper plan to develop the AI is not made, we see no need to put Marshall effort on something that will fail, at least not now. If we were presented with a credible plan then we surely will support it.

Guys,

It is obvious to anyone you two will not agree on this. Save yourselves some energy and let it go.[:)][:)][:)]

Happy Holidays!!!

[pzgndr]

Flipper, agreed, this is long past pointless and Marshall's updated roadmap clearly has AI development on the schedule. I find it very amusing that Skanvak highlights a problem of speaking with the AI, whereas I find it a problem speaking with him. LOL. [:D]

[Skanvak]

May you are an AI? [:D]

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

My unofficial assessment of just those who have posted here on this forum over the past few years is that more players are interested in having a decent computer opponent for some or all of their gaming than there are players who have no interest in AI development or playing against a machine.

I'm pretty sure your "unofficial assessment" is wrong. MY "unofficial" assessment says the exact opposite of your "unofficial" assessment... of course. [;)]

[Sorta]

Only speaking for myself I believe PBM issues should be prioritized over AI. I've never played a PC wargame with an AI that approaches anywhere near the challenge of a human and this is a lovely multi-player wargame.

[Marshall Ellis]

It just seems to me that the more vocal crowd is the PBEM crowd (At least today LOL)! I intend to fix up the PBEM stuff a bit then move to AI then IP!

[Skanvak]

IP crowd! LET's GET VOCAL!

PS : Marshall, don't forget to fix the rules...

[Lildorien]

Sorry to dig up this quite old post, but I think it should be feasable to improve the AI on the diplomatic level and possibly quite simply. I've played a few games as lone human against all AI opponents. They are always very passive, almost never issuing any war. I think it could be fixed if the AI was checking it's 'roadplan' : something like 'I need to make another 200 VPs before the end in order to win, There are 20 turns left so I need 10 VPs per economical phase, I'm currently making 8 so I won't win if I don't win some wars/battles first. Furthermore, checking the other players (AI/humans) I see that player A, and B are currently well ahead in VPs while the rest is struggling, so they should be the ones I attack...

This can only be implemented if the VPs gain bug in harder versions of the AI is corrected first or it would ruin it all.

Lildorien, hoping for better AI [&o]

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: Lildorien

Sorry to dig up this quite old post, but I think it should be feasable to improve the AI on the diplomatic level and possibly quite simply. I've played a few games as lone human against all AI opponents. They are always very passive, almost never issuing any war. I think it could be fixed if the AI was checking it's 'roadplan' : something like 'I need to make another 200 VPs before the end in order to win, There are 20 turns left so I need 10 VPs per economical phase, I'm currently making 8 so I won't win if I don't win some wars/battles first. Furthermore, checking the other players (AI/humans) I see that player A, and B are currently well ahead in VPs while the rest is struggling, so they should be the ones I attack...

This can only be implemented if the VPs gain bug in harder versions of the AI is corrected first or it would ruin it all.

Lildorien, hoping for better AI [&o]

These are good points and I will try to improve the AI in 1.09 as a focal point. This is on my road map.

[Skanvak]

I think that the multiplyer AI and the single player AI should be different. In the single player, it is possible to make a general decision tree for the global situation according to the decision of the player only. Whereas for true MP game you have to give the AI a real possibility to negociate.

That need an interface that does not exist in the present state of the program. I have an idea for negociation interface using diplomacy set publicly offered, then each player will make a bid, the winner will get partial control of the AI country.

Still thinking about both system.

[pzgndr]

Skanvak, ideally each AI player should be playing to some established rulesets, like the UMP rules and national objectives for semi-historical play.  Maybe the AI player should know which opponents are AI and human and perhaps act a little differently, but the various different combinations of human/AI games could make this problematic.  But with decent rulesets the AI should play OK as either single or multi-player.
 
I do not understand human winner getting partial control of an AI country.  Is this like current UMP rules where a human player controls a country with limitations?  The idea is not clear, nor how you would divide control between human and AI.
 
I would agree the negotiation interface needs improvements.  Even amongst human players the conditional/unconditional surrender conditions need to be more flexible and offer a better interface for negotiating terms.  For other diplomacy phase negotiations there is an interface to talk with AI allies, and this could be enhanced with more options and perhaps add options to talk with AI neutrals/opponents.  But really, what negotiating are you after?  For requests like we currently have, you can expect either a yes or no response, or maybe something conditional like the AI will do something for PPs if you agree.  Again, this could be enhanced some but the bottom line is you ask for something and you either get it or you don't.  Same with a human.  Human may offer a long-winded rationalization for his decision whereas the computer only calculates probabilities, but the end result is the same.  So what exactly is a "real possibility" to negotiate??

[Skanvak]

fast reply :

The winner of the negociation auction get a partial control of the AI. It is a bit like the actual UMP system but gradual and compel the player to uphold its promise to the AI otherwise the AI will withdraw its authorization.

As to how it is quite simple. Ai Give control of it DOW and part of its troops increasing number if truth increase until the AI become a controlled minor.

I see AI as a minor player not the equal of a human player.

For the diplomatic interface. we have 2 options : one is to do something like the Storytron (please look at it, I can't explain it in a few words). Or an oversimplified system that could work for a boardgame.

I think you miss the point of a negociation. Human can always negociate as long as they can communicate, so an interface is not needed. For the computer you need one. Something that allow to chat with the computer in a way understandable for both party. So you need not only to tell the AI how to evaluate the situation, but to actually speak (use a language). Establish a psychological profile of its opposant ...etc... It is a challenge in itself.

There are too much possibility in a discution for the AI to be efficient for negociating with several player. They are machines, they think like machines. It is not a question of probability.