Gary Grigsby/Joel Billings interview

[mogami]

Originally posted by Nikademus
SIX HOURS?

Jinkies , someone's been hitting the scooby snacks a little too hard.


I spent 45 minutes on my turn one. Looks like I'm just going to have to go for broke and occupy the West Coast. That'll take the wind out of his sails

Hi, You cheated and sent the turn 1 that is pre programmed. I'm working on turn 1 again. Sorry you have to do turn 2 over again. I should send it to you some time today. (Now that I've already studied the situation it will not take 6 hours to redo.)

[Nikademus]

Cheated? I'm wounded. I call it delegation of authority to my staff who worked months on this plan. Translation: wanted to go with historical opening move and then go from there.

[Fred98]

“that players LOVE detail. They want more detail, and more control.”


I disagree.

In the days of board games you could have a company sized action.

This is made up of 3 x 3 = 9 squads

To play my turn I give 9 orders.

As the dice has 6 sides, each order could have one of 6 results (or more if we add in the results of the Dice Roll Modifier)

But the point is that I give 9 orders.

In a PC version, each man could be represented individually – perhaps 100 men.

Each man could have a different weapon, different skills, different amounts of ammo and a different psychological breaking point.

A PC can keep track of all this data. Which means instead of 6 possible results, there are now 1,000s of possible results.

But I do not want to keep track of each individual man, or his amount of ammo etc etc etc

Instead I want to continue to give just 9 orders per turn. And use computers to fine-tune the possible outcome of each of those orders.

This is an example of taking advantage of computers to make a better game.

[Feinder]

Joe, I completely agree with your prespective. I think it's nutts to try to do search arcs and ordinance selection (as has been requested on the UV boards). Frankly, I don't believe it has any place in what is in my opinion, an "Operational Level" wargame. But if you comb thru the UV boards, you'll notice there are plenty of threads calling for greater detail on a myrriad of topics. I don't think those players truely know for what they are asking (pandora's box sort of thing), but the fact is, I believe that you and I are in the minority for those who think that WitP will already be of a large enough scope, that it doesn't need additional detail over UV.

-F-

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by Feinder
I believe that you and I are in the minority for those who think that WitP will already be of a large enough scope, that it doesn't need additional detail over UV.

-F-

Count me in that minority. It not only doesnt need additional detail it needs less detail over UV. Thats not to say that it shouldnt have improvements. A more detailed OOB, more comprehensive base restrictions and other such things that add to game play but doesnt require a micromanagement click fest.

[Von Rom]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the interview.

I think there is no reason why the AI cannot be made to be a challenge in single player games.

Give the AI priorities yes, but also incorporate into the game an event editor that is flexible and user friendly.

What do I mean about an event editor?

Simply this:

Many people playing HoI complain that when playing Germany, the USA waits too long to enter the war. Solution? HoI has an easy to use event editor. You simply need to create an event that will ensure the USA declares war on Japan and Germany sometime in 1942. Simple. In addition, you can make that declaration of war be random. So you never know WHEN that declaration of war will come in 1942.

How can this be applied to WiTP?

Example:

If I'm playing Japan and I make a move to invade Midway, then there should be an event to cover this, such as:

"IF Japan moves carriers and transports to hexes XXXXX, THEN the US AI will move carriers to intercept at hexes XXXXX."

Another example:

"IF Japan (the player) attacks/invades Hawaii, THEN the USA receives a higher producton bonus."

Basically, an event editor will allow a player to create an event to cover almost ANY situation.

And quite frankly, I do not mind if the AI is given some cheats such as longer-range patrol aircraft, higher producton, and/or additional ships to help it out.

To those who may say that this will corrupt an historic game etc, remember, that this is a game and should be made into a challenging wargame. The addition of an event editor will allow for both historic scenarios and challenging "what-if" situations.

The AI CAN be made to be a challenge. And since the vast majorty of people will be playing this game solitaire, at least give the players the tools to allow them to make the AI more of a challenge.

Cheers!

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by Von Rom
I thoroughly enjoyed reading the interview.

I think there is no reason why the AI cannot be made to be a challenge in single player games.

Give the AI priorities yes, but also incorporate into the game an event editor that is flexible and user friendly.

What do I mean about an event editor?

Simply this:

Many people playing HoI complain that when playing Germany, the USA waits too long to enter the war. Solution? HoI has an easy to use event editor. You simply need to create an event that will ensure the USA declares war on Japan and Germany sometime in 1942. Simple. In addition, you can make that declaration of war be random. So you never know WHEN that declaration of war will come in 1942.

How can this be applied to WiTP?

Example:

If I'm playing Japan and I make a move to invade Midway, then there should be an event to cover this, such as:

"IF Japan moves carriers and transports to hexes XXXXX, THEN the US AI will move carriers to intercept at hexes XXXXX."

Another example:

"IF Japan (the player) attacks/invades Hawaii, THEN the USA receives a higher producton bonus."

Basically, an event editor will allow a player to create an event to cover almost ANY situation.

And quite frankly, I do not mind if the AI is given some cheats such as longer-range patrol aircraft, higher producton, and/or additional ships to help it out.

To those who may say that this will corrupt an historic game etc, remember, that this is a game and should be made into a challenging wargame. The addition of an event editor will allow for both historic scenarios and challenging "what-if" situations.

The AI CAN be made to be a challenge. And since the vast majorty of people will be playing this game solitaire, at least give the players the tools to allow them to make the AI more of a challenge.

Cheers!

I wholeheartedly concurr, an event engine would be perfect for this game and would go along way in making the AI competant. I doubt it will make it in since it seems they already have too much on their plate. However in the long run it might just make things easier for them. Instead of racking there brains trying to hard code the Artificial opponent to be competant ( a dubious task at best ) let the players do it themselves with a flexible event engine. That way they could concentrate on the AI getting the logistics, staff and production stuff right.

This isnt exactly state of the art stuff either, Norm Koger did it best IMHO, years ago for TOAW and a lot of these same guys have worked with him before and a very familiar with his work. I just dont understand why its not being considered.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Originally posted by Feinder
Joe, I completely agree with your prespective. I think it's nutts to try to do search arcs and ordinance selection (as has been requested on the UV boards). Frankly, I don't believe it has any place in what is in my opinion, an "Operational Level" wargame. But if you comb thru the UV boards, you'll notice there are plenty of threads calling for greater detail on a myrriad of topics. I don't think those players truely know for what they are asking (pandora's box sort of thing), but the fact is, I believe that you and I are in the minority for those who think that WitP will already be of a large enough scope, that it doesn't need additional detail over UV.

-F-

While what you say is basically correct way of thinking the UV showed that,
unfortunately, we have serious problems with AI routines that still exist even
if we play PBEMs.


The best examples are "Naval Attack", "Naval Search", "ASW".

We now in UV (and WitP as I hear) have full 360 deg cover for all those
missions and for long range planes it means that we, in fact, have 0% of
control over them and that stupid AI routine can mess things up hugely.

I am sure that there is no UV PBEM player who was not made disappointed and
angry over AI routine choice for targeting in "Naval Attack".

This is, we all know, because AI routine would never ever be even as 1% as
clever as we PBEM players are. The AI would never learn the fine art of
tactics and strategy and _HUGE_ mistakes/errors/blunders would continue to
happen.


The only way to fix this is to give us more micromanagement.


But this is not as bad as it sounds - on default setting the possible
micromanagement option would still be working as it is now so nothing is lost
(i.e. the arc is subset of circle).

If you don't want to use it and you are, as player, happy as things are now -
then be it - you simply don't use it (and AI can use the default value).


Therefore I still hope that some day we will be able to get proper arcs with
user selectable range and areas for "Naval Attack", "Naval Search" and "ASW".

I know... I know... I am dreamer but so be it...

I have a dream... a dream of arcs...



Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
Joel Billings did write few weeks ago that limiting range of aircraft is being
discussed as feature so at least this can be viewed as some sort of stopgap
measure and help us to more enjoy the game.

[Snigbert]

I don't think those players truely know for what they are asking (pandora's box sort of thing), but the fact is, I believe that you and I are in the minority for those who think that WitP will already be of a large enough scope, that it doesn't need additional detail over UV.

You can count me in that minority as well. That doesn't mean that I dont like the additional ships, air groups, land units, etc. It is just that we are going to have our hands full already.

And quite frankly, I do not mind if the AI is given some cheats such as longer-range patrol aircraft, higher producton, and/or additional ships to help it out.

I wouldnt like that. If players want to handicap or advantage one side or the other let them do it with the editor, but dont make it part of the game engine..

[Mr.Frag]

Remember your math lessons:

n_P_k = (n!)/(n-k)!


Everytime you add something, it adds rather dramatically to the permutations and combinations possible that the poor AI has to deal with.

A simple lottery with 6 choices out of 39 numbers results in 14 million odd possibilities.

Gary's dealing with 1000s of choices out of 10,000 odd objects (bases, ships, planes, troops)

3.5140787195342979695471368959819e+32490 permutations in each turn ... as a rough ballpark, not factoring in variations such at altitude of planes etc and other detailed options.

Chess by comparasion is quite a simple game with it's 32 pieces that can only be moved into a finite number of locations. A computer can play an entire game of perfect chess at grand master level by the time Gary's AI might be able to make the first real pass through what could possibly be done in a turn.

Keep asking for more and he really will snap

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
Remember your math lessons:

n_P_k = (n!)/(n-k)!


Everytime you add something, it adds rather dramatically to the permutations and combinations possible that the poor AI has to deal with.

A simple lottery with 6 choices out of 39 numbers results in 14 million odd possibilities.

Gary's dealing with 1000s of choices out of 10,000 odd objects (bases, ships, planes, troops)

3.5140787195342979695471368959819e+32490 permutations in each turn ... as a rough ballpark, not factoring in variations such at altitude of planes etc and other detailed options.

Chess by comparasion is quite a simple game with it's 32 pieces that can only be moved into a finite number of locations. A computer can play an entire game of perfect chess at grand master level by the time Gary's AI might be able to make the first real pass through what could possibly be done in a turn.

Keep asking for more and he really will snap

All true, but I still think that adding an event engine would make things easier on him not harder.

[HMSWarspite]

I am beginning to get worried about this game. If I play a strategic game, such as WitP, or UV for that matter, I want to play it at a strategic level. I do not want search arcs, naval attack priorities, etc etc etc. I do not even have to have altitudes for aircraft. I think that if 2by3 go down this line, they will have the classic IT problem. Late, overspent, and pleasing no one.

People who are trying to get more detail 'because it's more realistic' are kidding themselves. They are also risking making the game unplayable for the 'average' gamer. People who want total control over everything (whether to overcome perceived AI problems, or purely because they want things to go just so) are IMHO better off playing chess.

Why can't people play the game that is delivered (or not, your choice)? The mark of a true general is to adapt to the situation that he finds himself in, not to appeal to get the game changed.

I love UV, and really enjoyed PW when it was new. I did not really find too much in PW that frustrated me. However, I would put the chances of me buying WitP at present as c50%. I suspect it is heading for the same graveyard as Campaign for North Africa (a board wargame by SPI that was insanely complicated, and I suspect almost never played - did a couple of turns once with some friends!). It will be a great pity if WitP turns in to an unplayable monster. I think Gary would have been better to stay at PW scales.

I always prefer the full campaign in games, but if the game takes 2 years to play, how many people will start a game, and know that they have 2-3 full months (RL) of getting smashed on all fronts, another 6 months of slow build up and chipping away, and maybe a year of advance (if US). Alternatively, Jn players get 2-3 months of fun, and 18months of relentless defense (active or inactive). UV Jn players are a scarce resource. Full WitP Jn player anyone?

Just my opinion...

[Mr.Frag]

All true, but I still think that adding an event engine would make things easier on him not harder.

No, it adds even MORE problems as now you need to pass through the evaluation as now you need to add a layer of evaluation to test whether each and every possible option interferes with the specific event and/or negates the event.

Think of the logic for a sec ... using Midway as an example.

Japan mounts an attack that is perceived by the event engine as a Midway event. The AI steals all available CV's from whatever missions they may have already been engaged on and reroutes them to Midway to try and save the day.

The Japan player, being a sneaky evil person like me turns around knowing that he triggered a Midway event and actually goes ahead with his real plan (as Midway was just a trick to sucker the AI into withdrawing the CV's from Noumea) which has a huge invasion fleet hiding nearby.

By abusing the event engine, I gain the ability to trick the AI into doing things that are completely illogical. There would need to be even more levels of evaluation now added to validate that the event is a real event, not a trick event, and it would also have to calculate the impact of reacting to the event (assuming it was real) vs the impact to changing it's existing plans that may already be well underway. You would literally be forcing the AI to play in a very non-strategic manner, always reacting at a tactical level to ever changing situations.

Now you have to add another layer of evaluation to validate that the costs of each operation that the AI mounts are worthy of the investment in time and materials no matter what the rest of the theater happens to be doing at the time. You also have to weigh these plans properly so the AI sees altering the plans after the fact as costly and can draw the logically conclusion of messing with operational plans after the plan is running is ill advised.

Now you run into another mess. Lets say the Midway role is reversed and the AI is the one triggering it. Do I, being the human want my forces ripped from my control in the middle of what I was doing to react to the event trigger? Certainly not!

I would suspect he has had to hide all sorts of hidden weights all over the place to get the AI to actually do anything other then sit back and defend. This is what causes UV to work well in short scenarios and poorly in long scenarios. These weights (what drives the AI as such) need to be constantly adjusted as things change, but not adjusted so much to confuse the AI. This would probably be fine if we played 2 month turns, but being as we are not locked into a plan and can constantly mess with it, the computer AI is at a major disadvantage here.

If Gary can manage to get AI into this game that can actually play the whole campaign from start to finish in a sensible and logically manner with actual objectives that make strategic sense as part of the overall war plan, I'll be completely amazed as it will probably be the most complex AI ever done on a PC based game. I suspect the best he'll be able to manage is sections of the area up to a year in duration as PC's just don't have the power yet to be able to operate on this level of AI.

The sheer hareware requirements to have the AI even get remotely close to being able to look 40 turns into the game in semi real time is staggering. To be able to actually look that deep and choose to mount an operation that makes sense would require Gary to pretty much compose millions of possible battle plans and have the computer AI evaluate each round to see if any of them happen to apply to the current situation and merit use. Without this kind of predicate look ahead, the best the AI will really be able to do is sail along through some pre-coded master plan, with minor deviations in order of execution mixed in to keep us guessing for the first dozen or so games.

If you are expecting to play the AI beyond that, I doubt you'll be happy. WitP is at heart going to be a two player game, with the computer managing the dice rolls for us.

[Kitakami]

I wholeheartedly agree. A game of this magnitude can be detailed in what counts, but can be abstracted in what would drive players to distraction over details that do not add to enjoyment.

I, for one, am looking forward to see how the merchant shipping will be treated. I would vote for some level of abstraction, maybe assigning number of ships or tonnage to a route, and assigning escorts to the route.

It would leave more time to spend over other, more enjoyable (at least for me) things. I do not consider unraveling logistical nightmares as a pleasurable way to spend my time.

[madflava13]

Originally posted by HMSWarspite
People who are trying to get more detail 'because it's more realistic' are kidding themselves. They are also risking making the game unplayable for the 'average' gamer. People who want total control over everything (whether to overcome perceived AI problems, or purely because they want things to go just so) are IMHO better off playing chess.

HMS -
I understand where you're coming from, and I too worry about overextending. But I think it's important to remember that this game isn't for the average gamer. It was never intended to be, and it will be a failure if that's who is targeted. Most average gamers IMO would freak out trying to get a grip on UV, much less WitP. WiTP is meant for the grognard, the hardcore wargamer.

[Chiteng]

Chrome is chrome. I happen to like Chrome.
It doesnt mean that too much wont bog the game down BUT

Gettysburg the Turning Point (GG) had plently of chrome
and still did a good job of simulating the battle.

Computers go a LONG way towards taking the edge off.

It is a pity no game company is willing to put VG Vietnam
onto the computer. A **** good game and a **** good
simulation as well.

[Mr.Frag]

Mad, the game better be at the average joe who wants to play, because the hardcore folks represent less the 1% of 1% of the PC Gaming market and realistically, unless WitP is going to be in the $1000+ price range, we are nowhere near enough in numbers to even cover the development costs to break even forget about publishing and distribution.

I don't know 500,000 wargamers. Thats pretty much the minimum level this days to turn a buck.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
Mad, the game better be at the average joe who wants to play, because the hardcore folks represent less the 1% of 1% of the PC Gaming market and realistically, unless WitP is going to be in the $1000+ price range, we are nowhere near enough in numbers to even cover the development costs to break even forget about publishing and distribution.

I don't know 500,000 wargamers. Thats pretty much the minimum level this days to turn a buck.

Well if you hit 50k with a book it is usually considered a success.

[Von Rom]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
No, it adds even MORE problems as now you need to pass through the evaluation as now you need to add a layer of evaluation to test whether each and every possible option interferes with the specific event and/or negates the event.

Think of the logic for a sec ... using Midway as an example.

Japan mounts an attack that is perceived by the event engine as a Midway event. The AI steals all available CV's from whatever missions they may have already been engaged on and reroutes them to Midway to try and save the day.

The Japan player, being a sneaky evil person like me turns around knowing that he triggered a Midway event and actually goes ahead with his real plan (as Midway was just a trick to sucker the AI into withdrawing the CV's from Noumea) which has a huge invasion fleet hiding nearby.

By abusing the event engine, I gain the ability to trick the AI into doing things that are completely illogical. There would need to be even more levels of evaluation now added to validate that the event is a real event, not a trick event, and it would also have to calculate the impact of reacting to the event (assuming it was real) vs the impact to changing it's existing plans that may already be well underway. You would literally be forcing the AI to play in a very non-strategic manner, always reacting at a tactical level to ever changing situations.

Now you have to add another layer of evaluation to validate that the costs of each operation that the AI mounts are worthy of the investment in time and materials no matter what the rest of the theater happens to be doing at the time. You also have to weigh these plans properly so the AI sees altering the plans after the fact as costly and can draw the logically conclusion of messing with operational plans after the plan is running is ill advised.

Now you run into another mess. Lets say the Midway role is reversed and the AI is the one triggering it. Do I, being the human want my forces ripped from my control in the middle of what I was doing to react to the event trigger? Certainly not!

I would suspect he has had to hide all sorts of hidden weights all over the place to get the AI to actually do anything other then sit back and defend. This is what causes UV to work well in short scenarios and poorly in long scenarios. These weights (what drives the AI as such) need to be constantly adjusted as things change, but not adjusted so much to confuse the AI. This would probably be fine if we played 2 month turns, but being as we are not locked into a plan and can constantly mess with it, the computer AI is at a major disadvantage here.

If Gary can manage to get AI into this game that can actually play the whole campaign from start to finish in a sensible and logically manner with actual objectives that make strategic sense as part of the overall war plan, I'll be completely amazed as it will probably be the most complex AI ever done on a PC based game. I suspect the best he'll be able to manage is sections of the area up to a year in duration as PC's just don't have the power yet to be able to operate on this level of AI.

The sheer hareware requirements to have the AI even get remotely close to being able to look 40 turns into the game in semi real time is staggering. To be able to actually look that deep and choose to mount an operation that makes sense would require Gary to pretty much compose millions of possible battle plans and have the computer AI evaluate each round to see if any of them happen to apply to the current situation and merit use. Without this kind of predicate look ahead, the best the AI will really be able to do is sail along through some pre-coded master plan, with minor deviations in order of execution mixed in to keep us guessing for the first dozen or so games.

If you are expecting to play the AI beyond that, I doubt you'll be happy. WitP is at heart going to be a two player game, with the computer managing the dice rolls for us.

Hi

I think there is some misunderstanding as to how events work.

Events normally are written to help the AI. So if an event fires when the AI plays Japan, the same event WILL NOT FIRE (or can be made not to fire), when the human plays Japan.

It is actually quite simple and elegant with the right event tools. Currently, modders have created over 300 NEW events for HoI. The reason why Paradox has not incorporated them into the default game, is a question best left to them. But these events help SOLVE most of the game's problems.

Having an event editor relieves the game's programmers of a lot of work.

Most of these events can be added after the game has been released. When thousands of people are playing the game against the AI, many similar situations will arise that can be fixed with an event, that will only fire when it applies to the AI.

WiTP will be a fairly open-ended grand strategy game. This is the perfect game in which events work the best, especially since there are only two protagonists.

The fact that any game (especially a wargame) is being made today without scenario or event editors, does a disservce both to the game and to the gamers themselves.

Here is an example:

In UV when the player is playing Japan vs the AI, and he invades Australia, it is basically game over - as the game now stands. However, if UV had had an event editor, I, or someone else, could then create an event such that IF any city in Australia is occupied by the Japanese, THEN Australia will mobilize the "Home Guard", which would mean adding additional, but less experienced, troops to other Australian cities. This event could also trigger additional B-17 bombers being sent to Brisbane, as well as other ships, destined for other theatres, being sent to help stem the Japanese advance.

There is a suggestion that the AI can be tricked through events. But the event can be written in such a way as to over-come these situations.

A good event editor can make a good game - great.

IMO, to suggest that a game can only be played by two humans, does an injustice to what can be done with the AI through programming, events, placement and some imagination.

Cheers!

[madflava13]

Mr. Frag,
I have to admit I don't know enough about the numbers here, I just always assumed from playing these games that this a pretty small niche market. Either way, I hope they do sell enough to make a profit...