2023 WIF AI Progress Report

[Erik Rutins]

Hi everyone,

I'm including below Steve's end of year summary of progress on the AI Opponent for World in Flames, which has been his main focus this year. As we've discussed previously, the goal is to have a functional AI Opponent for both sides in Barbarossa and the Japanese side in Guadalcanal. We see this as a great tool for helping players learn to play WIF and with both of those scenarios most of the movement and combat variations will be covered. Based on the progress so far, which has been tough going, we'll decide on anything beyond Guadalcanal once those initial goals are completed.

Year 2023 Progress on the Artificial Intelligence Opponent for World in Flames

Summary
The sequence of play can be broken into 5 parts: (1) beginning a scenario, (2) starting a new turn, (3) making decisions during a turn as the phasing side, (4) making decisions during a turn as the non-phasing side, and (5) the end of turn phases. In my last report I had merged the first two parts, which was incorrect. While beginning a scenario is immediately followed by starting a new turn, the Bringing in Reinforcements phase is skipped for the first turn. It is obviously important in subsequent turns,

Part I - Beginning the Game
The program enables players to select the mode of play where they compete against the AI Opponent (AIO). It automatically sets the scenario (Barbarossa), optional rules (standard set), and that the human is playing the Axis/Germany. Immediately following those actions, the program executes the decisions for the AIO setting up the Russian units and returns decision making to the human player to scrap German units and place the randomly selected German units on the map. As always occurs in Barbarossa, Germany and Italy automatically declare war on the USSR and the USSR calls out its reserves. Likewise the weather, imitative, and who goes first phases occur according to the scenario rules for Barbarossa.

Setting up the Russian units is done by the AIO using LAIO (Language for the AI Opponent) scripts. These are text files which contain branching logic to provide variety as to where the AIO places its units. To increase the challenge to the human player, random numbers are used to select which of 5 setup positions are used for each of the air, infantry, and armor/mechanized/cavalry units. In addition, the infantry unit placements vary independently for the north (Lithuania/Latvia), the center (Poland), and the south (Bessarabia). Combined with the normal random selection of which units are available to the USSR at the start of the game, the Russian forces facing the German/human player (and where they are placed), are virtually never the same.

To accomplish the initial setup for the USSR, code was written to (1) parse the LAIO scripts into instructions which the World in Flames program then (2) executes in real time (in 1 or 2 seconds). Simpler means were used to decide about scrapping units and placing the Russian naval units on the map. Once Germany declares war on the USSR, another LAIO script is used to randomize where the AIO places the USSR reserve units on the map. After the Russian reserve units are on the map, control returns to the human player to decide about aligning minors and then begin the German/Phasing side sequence of play.

The AIO code beginning the game has been completed and tested by the beta testers.

Part II - Starting a New Turn

This phase is skipped during the first turn. In the second and subsequent turns the AIO identifies which USSR units are available as reinforcements. Presently it establishes all the possible hexes/cities where the land and air units can arrive - there are no naval reinforcements for the USSR in Barbarossa. One remaining task is to code the AIO selecting good hexes in which to place its reinforcements. Given the large number of home cities in the USSR and the dozen or so units that arrive each turn, there are numerous possibilities. My goal is to find a Good hex for each unit - not to try and find the Best hex.

The AIO always asks for a reroll when possible. It always chooses to move first, when offered the opportunity. Those decisions are hard coded for Barbarossa, primarily because the scenario is only 5 turns long.

Aside from placing reinforcements on the map, the code for starting a new turn has been completed.

Part III - Non-phasing Side Decisions
When the German/human player makes decisions as the phasing side, there are frequent places in the sequence of play where the AIO must make decisions on behalf of the USSR. For example, during air missions and land combat. The code for making these decisions is ‘hard-coded’ in World in Flames; it does not use LAIO scripts. Most of these decisions are quite obvious (e.g., the USSR always chooses the Assault table when defending in land combats). Since the best (or near best) choice can be chosen easily, there was no need to create an elaborate process to make the hypothetical optimal choice. Indeed, experienced players often argue about many of these decisions as to which answer is best, so Optimal is not clear cut.

Part IV - Phasing Side Decisions
In general, the phases where the phasing side needs to make decisions can be divided into: Naval (naval air, naval movement, and naval combat), Air (strategic bombardment, carpet bombing, ground strikes), and Land (rail movement, land movement, air transport of land units, unloading land units, invasion, paradrop, land combat declaration, and land combat resolution). Additionally, there are a collection of other phases at the end of the impulse (air rebase and reorganization by air/naval/HQ units).

Naval
The AIO is never going to send naval units out to sea. In Barbarossa it is far more important to take Land Actions in order to move all the Russian land units. Overall, the Barbarossa scenario has little for the naval units to do, especially for the USSR. Hence, in all the Naval phases (listed above) the AIO will move no units and initiate no combats.

Air
The optional rules that the AIO will be using do not include carpet bombing, so none of those air missions will be possible. We have decided that the AIO will not be flying any strategic bombing missions either. Because the game is only 5 turns long, producing new units is very limited. As a consequence, production points have little value. Wasting air missions, and possibly air units, on strategic bombing in an attempt to impact the Axis side’s production, would be a bad idea.

That leaves just the ground strike phase in the Air phases (listed above) where the AIO might decide to risk its air force. During the first phase of the first turn, the USSR is unable to fly any air missions, so writing code for ground strikes isn’t necessary until the fourth impulse of the first turn. Guidelines for how those decisions will be made have been prepared, but the code to implement them remains to be written. Currently the AIO flies no ground strike missions.

Land
Deciding on what to do in the Land phases (as listed above) requires formulating an overall operational plan on where land units should attack, defend, and retreat. That work was completed in 2021. In 2023 I wrote code to figure out where precisely the front lines currently are for each land region. That was easy enough in principal but took some time to get right, given that the Baltic Sea frequently breaks the front line into northern and southern pieces. In essence, the existing front line is where an Axis controlled hex is adjacent to an Allied controlled hex (regardless of intervening Alpine and lake hex sides). The tricky bit occurs when Finland and Hungary are neutral. The AIO has to treat hexes in those countries as Axis controlled, since the Axis player can bring those countries into the war whenever he likes.

Determining a new hex front line depends on whether the AIO can and should move land units to reinforce existing front lines or build new ones. Issuing actual movement orders to the land units was a large part of the work I completed in 2023. That code is now completed and has been ‘lightly’ tested by the beta testers.

End of Impulse Phases
Decisions in the air rebase and reorganization phases at the end of the phasing side’s impulse are fairly easy to make. Although they still need to be coded. Air units are to be placed behind the front lines, but close enough to be within range of reaching them. Forest hexes are preferred and the air units should be spread out, so that only one air unit is in each hex.

Reorganization by naval and air units is rarely useful and can be eliminated from consideration. Reorganization by an HQ unit is a different matter. Indeed, the original setup for the AIO HQs and placement of reserve units anticipates that reserve units will be reorganized by the USSR/AIO at the end of the second impulse of the game. Other than that, reorganization by HQs is likely to be uncommon. HQ units are too important for maintaining supply to the land and air.units.

The current assessment is that 90% the code for the AIO to act as the phasing side has been completed.

Part V - End of Turn Decisions
One of the big decisions in the end of turn phases is Production Planning. However, here no new code was needed for the AIO. The program already is excellent at routing resources to factories overland. The AIO just uses those decisions for that phase of the game. Likewise, the AIO does not break down or reform units, and never surrenders. The phases in the end of turn involving naval units require no decisions, since the AIO is never going to send naval or air units out to sea.

The only phase where real decisions by the AIO are needed is Production. But here the choices are quite obvious. The AIO will build land units, and possibly air units if excess build points are available after building as many land units as possible. The Barbarossa scenario is only 5 turns long, so building units that take 4 turns to arrive doesn’t make any sense. And after the second turn, units that tkae 3 turns aren’t very attractive choices either. It didn’t take a lot of code to translate available build points, available units, and turns remaining into a list of units to be built.

The AIO code the end turn decisions was been completed in 2023 but needs testing by the beta testers.

Schedule for 2024
The expectation is that the AIO will be playing the Russian side of the Barbarossa scenario fairly well by March 1st, 2024.

Then the next task will be to get the AIO to play the German side of Barbarossa. That will entail making the AIO devise land attacks supported by ground strikes and ground suppport. Sometime in the middle of the year is my estimate for the AIO making decent decisions the Germans.

The last task for the AIO will be playing the Japanese side of the Guadalcanal scenario. The Japanese side is easier for a couple of reasons: there is only one major power on the Axis side, and the Japanese are primarily concerned with defending their convoy pipelines. The human player will have the more difficult task of coordinating the Commonwealth and US forces and breaking the Japanese convoy pipelines - without losing a lot of carriers.

[jaeenox]

I am curious how many people paid $100 15 years ago expecting an AI in a year or two? Now, we are being told there may never be an AI beyond two scenarios. Perhaps more than one person or a different person should be working on the AI. I will continue to support MG either way, but this is extremely bad news.

[Vanman]

I personally think I have already gotten my money's worth in playing online against other players, so I feel no bitterness in that regard. The game is eminently playable by those who want to spend the time to do it. By using AnyDesk (which is free) and sending files by email, it works.....and its a damn good game. Other people use other methods. If you are waiting for AI to play this game with an opponent, then I think you need to look at other options. One thing I find strange is the fact there is so few people posting looking for other players on the forum. Is hardly anyone playing this game? I know this is a niche product, but how niche is it exactly? Tiny? I wonder how many people have made the purchase up till now.

At the same time, I concur to the point that AI development is so slow that I have a general apathy towards it. Like many others, I doubt it will be any good, its going to take forever, and rather see the remaining optional rules finished first. One programmer on this massive game is just not enough resources for a game of this complexity. At the same time I thing to myself....isn't Gary's Grigsby's 'War in the East' game very complex? Is it comparable? I don't know, I have never played it.

Anyways, disappointment is based on expectations, and mine were never all that high. The fact that this is a computer game at all I find thrilling. It manages the rules, I don't need a massive table to play it etc. The cost of this game is tiny compared to the board game and all its components, and i have three beautiful rule books that came with it of high quality. For me its a net win, even if we made no further progress in development, but certainly, after all these years, I can understand why some are disappointed based on their expectations of AI, single map campaigns, and the leftover optional rules. i just happen to see the game as a glass half full.

Van (Steve)

[smitht2ls]

I have gotten my money's worth. I believe the main thing with the game in the current state it is just like the board game. Which for many fans is all they wanted.

If you check early opinions of the fan base in the forums, the primary focus was to get netplay working. Most did not expect or want an AIO, believing to it difficult to code.

I am one fan who is hoping for an AIO for the whole game. I do not believe adding the AIO to two small scenarios will add any value to the game. Certainly, will not draw new players.

[warspite1]

I still don’t understand why the AI is being worked on at the expense of making the product offering as is, playable and bug free.

The AI currently being coded is for a five turn scenario that doesn’t need to worry about a good many aspects of the game – and yet, despite this, this project has been “tough going”.

So maybe at some point in the future there will be a limited AI available for a couple of training scenarios. Clearly the hope is that this will attract new players.

But then what? Will there be a new advertising campaign to attract these potential new players? If so, how will that be sold? I ask because those new players will then move on to the meat and bones of what (M)WIF is all about – and take on the full campaign game and…. they will be faced with the same frustrations that all players have today. and that turn many players away - or stop them buying in the first place.

End of the day I am pleased to hear of any update on this great game, because while it continues to be worked on, there is always the hope that one day the convoy / production system will be fixed (as well as a few other key issues) that means there will be a workable, stable, bug free game for solitaire and PBEM users. Thanks to Steve for continuing to hang in there.

But working on an AI for the two short, limited training scenarios doesn’t seem like a good use of resources given the problems still in place.

[Centuur]

I still don’t understand why the AI is being worked on at the expense of making the product offering as is, playable and bug free.

The AI currently being coded is for a five turn scenario that doesn’t need to worry about a good many aspects of the game – and yet, despite this, this project has been “tough going”.

So maybe at some point in the future there will be a limited AI available for a couple of training scenarios. Clearly the hope is that this will attract new players.

But then what? Will there be a new advertising campaign to attract these potential new players? If so, how will that be sold? I ask because those new players will then move on to the meat and bones of what (M)WIF is all about – and take on the full campaign game and…. they will be faced with the same frustrations that all players have today. and that turn many players away - or stop them buying in the first place.

End of the day I am pleased to hear of any update on this great game, because while it continues to be worked on, there is always the hope that one day the convoy / production system will be fixed (as well as a few other key issues) that means there will be a workable, stable, bug free game for solitaire and PBEM users. Thanks to Steve for continuing to hang in there.

But working on an AI for the two short, limited training scenarios doesn’t seem like a good use of resources given the problems still in place.

+1

[pzgndr]

I still don’t understand why the AI is being worked on at the expense of making the product offering as is, playable and bug free.

I must agree that game play is most important. Resolution of game bugs should be the highest priority. Then game enhancements and then AI improvements. I commiserate with Steve since I am also on a similar path trying to get the other ADG monster board game, Empires in Arms, to be playable and bug free. It is a challenge. And that is an understatement.

My personal gripe about WiF is that I am not particularly interested in the PTO or global game. And reading about the persistent convoy bugs, or at least the challenging process of setting up and managing convoys, provides no incentive to try the global game solitaire. I still await the one-map Fascist Tide scenario to play the ETO game. I would greatly appreciate finally having this scenario provided, even with whatever half-ass workarounds Steve could manage to get it mostly playable.

I look forward to being able to play the Russian computer opponent in the Barbarossa scenario sometime next spring, perhaps in celebration of the Rasputitsa mud season. And then later against the German computer opponent. I suspect many players will then appreciate all of AI work Steve is doing and will be anxious for more. But yeah, fix the game play bugs, and get that Fascist Tide scenario done already.

[rkr1958]

I long for the folks that have moved on and for the MWIF forum activity of 5 to 10-years ago. I've stated my opinion multiple times that MWIF is a good game, but could be great if certain aspects were simplified or fixed. No other WW2 game I've ever played handles the combine arms (land, sea & air) in a manner that's as realistic as MWIF. I also love the naval aspect and individually named capital ships and light cruisers. The counters, map and for the most part the interface are all works of art. And for me, the fact that MWIF enforces the rules correctly 99.9% of the time is, and has been, a big aid for me correctly learning the rules of WIF FE (v7). Well, don't have hard data for the 99.9% but what I've seen MWIF is generally correct.

I also feel that all and even more desired from MWIF could be accomplished by a community of a dozen or more folks working to develop and test external apps that operate on the saved game file. Well one person could do it but that might take 10 to 20 years. A dozen or more dedicate folks would take maybe a year for everything with initial capabilities of critical apps in weeks.

By the way, MERRY CHRISTMAS everyone!

[warspite1]

I also feel that all and even more desired from MWIF could be accomplished by a community of a dozen or more folks working to develop and test external apps that operate on the saved game file. Well one person could do it but that might take 10 to 20 years. A dozen or more dedicate folks would take maybe a year for everything with initial capabilities of critical apps in weeks.

warspite1

Hi rkr1958, for the technically challenged among us (i.e. me) what does this actually mean in practice please?

Thank-you.

[rkr1958]

I also feel that all and even more desired from MWIF could be accomplished by a community of a dozen or more folks working to develop and test external apps that operate on the saved game file. Well one person could do it but that might take 10 to 20 years. A dozen or more dedicate folks would take maybe a year for everything with initial capabilities of critical apps in weeks.

warspite1

Hi rkr1958, for the technically challenged among us (i.e. me) what does this actually mean in practice please?

Thank-you.

See https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4&t=354574 which was a vision that I laid out over 3-years ago which gained zero traction. Below was one post from that thread that captures the overview of my vision.

Slide2.JPG (192.26 KiB) Viewed 2159 times

Utilities: This contains the functions, subroutines, methods and data to perform basic operations on the game file. For example, (1) open and save, (2) log changes, (3) flip/unflip units, (4) move counters, (5) change hex control, (6) change version, (7) keep ships/CPs at sea during RTB, (8) toggle "certain" optional rules, ... , (9999) etc.

Controllers: These allow the players to interface with the game file to either perform basic editing functions, run unit tests, integrate files from multiple (2-6) players, execute Bots and AIs to name just a few. Note that my vision includes two concepts for multi-player play. The traditional where up to 6 players play with each in command of a MP. The other is where players are given theater command that include two or more MPs.

Bots: These guys using deterministic rule sets and algorithms are designed to accomplish specific in-game missions/operations/functions. For example, (1) send out ASW escorts & patrols, (2) build convoy lines, (3) move a unit from point A to B changing hex control as applicable, (4) generate pre and post battle reports, (5) analyze various land, air and naval combat situations, ... , (9999) etc.

AIs: Like the Bots these guys are also designed to accomplish specific in-game missions/operations/function, but unlike the Bots learn to do it better over time.

I would also like to add that my concept for Bots include the functionality to implemented uncoded version 7 (FE) optional rules, version 8 (CE) rules, half-map scenarios and other scenario variants.

[Angeldust2]

Ronnie, if you would spearhead such a project, I would still be interested to join. I would be able to put in quite a lot of time and energy, albeit devaluated by my very limited technical abilities.

[gw15]

Excellent game. It's a work of art.
I have been playing Netplay for years now and it works. I definitely got my money's worth.

[warspite1]

I also feel that all and even more desired from MWIF could be accomplished by a community of a dozen or more folks working to develop and test external apps that operate on the saved game file. Well one person could do it but that might take 10 to 20 years. A dozen or more dedicate folks would take maybe a year for everything with initial capabilities of critical apps in weeks.

warspite1

Hi rkr1958, for the technically challenged among us (i.e. me) what does this actually mean in practice please?

Thank-you.

See https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4&t=354574 which was a vision that I laid out over 3-years ago which gained zero traction. Below was one post from that thread that captures the overview of my vision.

Slide2.JPG

Utilities: This contains the functions, subroutines, methods and data to perform basic operations on the game file. For example, (1) open and save, (2) log changes, (3) flip/unflip units, (4) move counters, (5) change hex control, (6) change version, (7) keep ships/CPs at sea during RTB, (8) toggle "certain" optional rules, ... , (9999) etc.

Controllers: These allow the players to interface with the game file to either perform basic editing functions, run unit tests, integrate files from multiple (2-6) players, execute Bots and AIs to name just a few. Note that my vision includes two concepts for multi-player play. The traditional where up to 6 players play with each in command of a MP. The other is where players are given theater command that include two or more MPs.

Bots: These guys using deterministic rule sets and algorithms are designed to accomplish specific in-game missions/operations/functions. For example, (1) send out ASW escorts & patrols, (2) build convoy lines, (3) move a unit from point A to B changing hex control as applicable, (4) generate pre and post battle reports, (5) analyze various land, air and naval combat situations, ... , (9999) etc.

AIs: Like the Bots these guys are also designed to accomplish specific in-game missions/operations/function, but unlike the Bots learn to do it better over time.

I would also like to add that my concept for Bots include the functionality to implemented uncoded version 7 (FE) optional rules, version 8 (CE) rules, half-map scenarios and other scenario variants.

warspite1

Thanks for the response rkr1958. I wish I could be of help but I think the fact I didn't really understand a word of your response tells you all you need to know in terms of my ability to contribute. I love the way you've contributed to this forum since you picked up MWIF and the detail you provide in your AAR's.

I genuinely hope you get somewhere with this.

[rkr1958]

Ronnie, if you would spearhead such a project, I would still be interested to join. I would be able to put in quite a lot of time and energy, albeit devaluated by my very limited technical abilities.

Let's give it a shot. In order not to highjack this thread further I suggest we continue our discussion on this in https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 6#p4673926

Any and all are welcome to join in on and contribute what they wish/can.

[RFalvo69]

The game is eminently playable by those who want to spend the time to do it.

As is pulling out your feet nails with a pair of pilers.

By using AnyDesk (which is free) and sending files by email, it works.....and its a damn good game. Other people use other methods.

Very true.

[RFalvo69]

I still don’t understand why the AI is being worked on at the expense of making the product offering as is, playable and bug free.

Because Matrix threw the towel on fixing the game (if ten years weren't enough, it will never be fixed). So, they must show that they are doing something. I.e. devote the next years in working on the AI for two tutorial scenarios while you pay (or have paid) for a full game that will never be fixed.

I posted why I had enough of this fiasco in 2017.

(BTW, check that thread if you want to see yourself, six years ago, vigorously defending this trainwreck ).

I still check how things are going every then and now. The level of cope is off scale. "There are workarounds!" whined players back then. "There are workarounds!" they whine today. Wow! That bar really never left the ground.

But one thing, admittedly, changed: the monthly reports are no more. Why? I don't know. To copy&paste:

Missing Optional Rules & Half Map Scenarios
Nothing new

...Shouldn't take so much time, should it? They threw the towel even on that.

[lucliu]

End of the day I am pleased to hear of any update on this great game, because while it continues to be worked on, there is always the hope that one day the convoy / production system will be fixed (as well as a few other key issues) that means there will be a workable, stable, bug free game for solitaire and PBEM users. Thanks to Steve for continuing to hang in there.

+1

[RFalvo69]

End of the day I am pleased to hear of any update on this great game, because while it continues to be worked on, there is always the hope that one day the convoy / production system will be fixed (as well as a few other key issues) that means there will be a workable, stable, bug free game for solitaire and PBEM users. Thanks to Steve for continuing to hang in there.

+1

Oh, yes, I forgot: the convoy / production system. It wasn't fixed in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and there aren't plans to fix it for the foreseeable future. But there is still hope.

We have now entered the eleventh year from when this game was deemed as "releasable". Happy new Year to everybody!

[Zovs]

Basically you have four choices:

1. Play WIF using MWIF and adapt the workarounds to MWIF
2. Play WIF using VASSAL
3. Play WIF in your garage
4. Don't play WIF at all

I choose 1.

YMMV

[Centuur]

Basically you have four choices:

1. Play WIF using MWIF and adapt the workarounds to MWIF
2. Play WIF using VASSAL
3. Play WIF in your garage
4. Don't play WIF at all

I choose 1.

YMMV

I don't own a garage, so there goes point 3.
I don't like Vassal, because it doesn't enforce the rules, so that makes point 2 pointless.
I don't like not to play WIF, so that makes point 4 out of the question.
That leaves me with point 1.