Does it always go like this??

[Ron Saueracker]

Solitaire head 2 head. Final giveaway that ones life blows the big one and it's time to either get out of the cocoon or cash in your chips and make room for useful people.[8D]

[Thayne]

ORIGINAL: dpstafford
I can't understand why anybody would waste their time playing against the AI. Even if the AI were good. (Which I don't think it can ever be in a game this complex).

Just for starters . . .

(1) Because many PBEM opponents enjoy finding loopholes in the rules to exploit in order to gain a nonhistorical advantage. Computer AIs are designed not to do this.

(2) Because a PBEM opponent is not always available when I want to play. The Computer AI is always there.

(3) Because a PBEM opponent might either seriously outclass or seriously underclass my abilities. I can adjust a computer's skill level.

(4) Because the computer does not mind if I decide that I am simply not interested in playing any more and quit . . . or that I want to start over.

(5) Because I can write a DAR about my campaign and post it above without worry that my opponent is going to learn my strategy and use the information against me.

Thayne
Editor in Chief
Thayne News Campaign Reports

(P.S., wild_Willie2, if you look at my DAR, you will see a game vs. the AI which seems to be going pretty well. I am at May 10, 1942 right now. I adopted some house rules to make the game more interesting -- rules that I think should have been in the way the game was designed to start with.)

[dinsdale]

Deep Blue was built to defeat one of the greatest Chess players of all time. There are plenty of affordable chess games which will defeat standard players.

Yes, Chess is a much easier game to create an AI for, but as long as this excuse is trotted out, time after time, for game after game, then there will never be enough demand, and thus never resources spent, to make a competent AI.

No doubt there are plenty of FPS players who thought DOOM1 had great graphics and nothing more was necessary. Fortunately for that hobby, there's been a market for pushing the boundary in graphics and every year they have improved. Sadly those of us who like wargames are too often satisfied because there is a game, so excuses are made for every flaw.

All other aspects of gaming have improved over the last 10 years, except AI. Of course games sell more when they can stack features on the marketing hype, and not if they claim to have a great AI.

We have the AI we want and deserve, and ultimately, that's as much our fault as the developers.

[denisonh]

How long did it take to perfect Deep Blue?

How many times has the basic modeling (rules for chess) for the game change during that span?

To make a decent AI would take a significant amount of time, and would be something difficult to make under constantly changing conditions.

If it was that easy, the DoD simulations the the US military would have decent AIs to work inside thier multi million dollar combat simulations.

They don't.

What do you want for a game that cost $70?

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

Deep Blue was built to defeat one of the greatest Chess players of all time. There are plenty of affordable chess games which will defeat standard players.

Yes, Chess is a much easier game to create an AI for, but as long as this excuse is trotted out, time after time, for game after game, then there will never be enough demand, and thus never resources spent, to make a competent AI.

No doubt there are plenty of FPS players who thought DOOM1 had great graphics and nothing more was necessary. Fortunately for that hobby, there's been a market for pushing the boundary in graphics and every year they have improved. Sadly those of us who like wargames are too often satisfied because there is a game, so excuses are made for every flaw.

All other aspects of gaming have improved over the last 10 years, except AI. Of course games sell more when they can stack features on the marketing hype, and not if they claim to have a great AI.

We have the AI we want and deserve, and ultimately, that's as much our fault as the developers.

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: denisonh

How long did it take to perfect Deep Blue?

It's irrelevant. Why does a state of the art, one of a kind machine and program need to be invoked every time the word AI is used? Should I repeat what I said, or did you read any of the post?

If it was that easy, the DoD simulations the the US military would have decent AIs to work inside thier multi million dollar combat simulations.

They don't.

What do you want for a game that cost $70?

What I expect is an evolution from what was available 10 years ago.

Obviously that's too much to ask, and wargamers wonder why this is a niche market these days. Buggy whip manufacturer mentality.

[denisonh]

Ever done any programming? Just curious.

Programming "expert systems" to recognize patterns in complex environments and then formulate actions/reactions/counteractions ain't like writing postcards. Then change the parameters midstream while programming.

Many would say the current model is incomplete and has a number of issues, and therefore requires changeing. The second, third and fourth order effects of model changes can have significant effects on the programmed routines of the AI. The grand campaign has how many day turns, how many hexes, how many units, etc..? The possibilities and permutations that have to be considered to formulate a plan are expansive.

Enough to boggle the mind (and a free thinking one at that)

I have done some postgraduate work in combat modelling and simulation programming, and if it was that easy it would have been done before.

It just ain't that easy.

If it was, you wouldn't still be waiting.

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

ORIGINAL: denisonh

How long did it take to perfect Deep Blue?

It's irrelevant. Why does a state of the art, one of a kind machine and program need to be invoked every time the word AI is used? Should I repeat what I said, or did you read any of the post?

If it was that easy, the DoD simulations the the US military would have decent AIs to work inside thier multi million dollar combat simulations.

They don't.

What do you want for a game that cost $70?

What I expect is an evolution from what was available 10 years ago.

Obviously that's too much to ask, and wargamers wonder why this is a niche market these days. Buggy whip manufacturer mentality.

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: denisonh
Ever done any programming? Just curious.

Christ. [>:] Have you ever done any sewing? If not, then I hope you never pass comment about clothes.

Anyway, yes it's my profession, but I believe that's not only irrelevant to the discussion but also encourages the sort of behaviour which another poster who insists on shoving his credentials into every post. Further, as this is hardly the venue to discuss the specifics of AI, or indeed of discussing breakthroughs in AI which are in use within industry, then it does not require being a programmer to participate.

It just ain't that easy.

If it was, you wouldn't still be waiting.

Do you think it's been easy to bring each new generation of graphics breakthroughs? Even before getting to software, do you think it's been easy moulding this generation of hardware?

Easy isn't relevant, if it were then there would only be "simple" discoveries. The problem isn't the difficulty, it's the lack of resources spent in R&D. All I tried to say was that we, in our meek acceptance of every game in this genre, who are part of the problem.

No doubt in 2014 you'll still hold the position that whatever AI is shipped with a game is fine. Though I doubt wargames will still be around.

[denisonh]

Comparing Graphics and AI is like comparing is like painting a house is to designing a house.

The complexities are a little more difficult.

And complexity is relevant. It is the dealing with all the permutations of decisions within decisions and trying to quantify these that makes any decent artifical decision making difficult.

I prefer PBEM play at any rate, so you can keep your patronizing comments.

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

ORIGINAL: denisonh
Ever done any programming? Just curious.

Christ. [>:] Have you ever done any sewing? If not, then I hope you never pass comment about clothes.

Anyway, yes it's my profession, but I believe that's not only irrelevant to the discussion but also encourages the sort of behaviour which another poster who insists on shoving his credentials into every post. Further, as this is hardly the venue to discuss the specifics of AI, or indeed of discussing breakthroughs in AI which are in use within industry, then it does not require being a programmer to participate.

It just ain't that easy.

If it was, you wouldn't still be waiting.

Do you think it's been easy to bring each new generation of graphics breakthroughs? Even before getting to software, do you think it's been easy moulding this generation of hardware?

Easy isn't relevant, if it were then there would only be "simple" discoveries. The problem isn't the difficulty, it's the lack of resources spent in R&D. All I tried to say was that we, in our meek acceptance of every game in this genre, who are part of the problem.

No doubt in 2014 you'll still hold the position that whatever AI is shipped with a game is fine. Though I doubt wargames will still be around.

[fbastos]

Hey, hate to interfere with the discussion, but consider CiV III... it's also very complex, with plenty of rules, but the AI is very sharp.

A good AI can be done, if one spends enough time on it, and plenty of testing.

F.

[denisonh]

CIV III AI cheats, and the complexity of CIV III is much less then WitP.

Much much less than WitP.

ORIGINAL: fbastos

Hey, hate to interfere with the discussion, but consider CiV III... it's also very complex, with plenty of rules, but the AI is very sharp.

A good AI can be done, if one spends enough time on it, and plenty of testing.

F.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale



We have the AI we want and deserve, and ultimately, that's as much our fault as the developers.

What are you talking about? What a bunch of nonsense. I've yet to find an AI which is the least bit interesting, let alone challenging. Generally, they suck donkeys. AI is a misnomer. But why do we deserve this? We can bitch all we want but we have no say as to whether developers attempt better AI or eye candy. The money is just not there I suspect to warrant R&D dollars for wargame AI, when all the sales are in RTS and FPSs.

You must be another of those people who say "if ya don't vote, ya can't bitch." Even if ya vote you can't make a difference. EG You got Kerry or Bush...whoohoo, democracy is grand. Ahole, anus, sphincter, different name, same s--t. What a joke. Open the eyes man. Look around.

[fbastos]

CIV III AI cheats, and the complexity of CIV III is much less then WitP.

Much much less than WitP.

WiTP AI also cheats...

While I agree that WiTP has more variables than CiV III, the map on WiTP is fixed, so a lot of stuff is known in advance (like "go for SRA").

I do believe that the major difference is the amount of resources one can put on tuning the AI before release, and perhaps more important, the number of test runs one can do before release.

In both aspects WiTP is at severe disadvantage, because at one hand there's no way to compete with the resources of a major publisher that can spend $20M on a game, and on the other hand one tester on CiV III can perhaps play 10 games on a day, while on WiTP one would have to try a game for 10 days before coming to any conclusion...

But then again, after spending enough time on tuning the AI, it should be much better, even on WiTP.

F.

[denisonh]

Hhhhmm, do I detect a little cynicsm?

I gues it would be pointless to ask if you are a registered voter.[:D]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: dinsdale



We have the AI we want and deserve, and ultimately, that's as much our fault as the developers.

What are you talking about? What a bunch of nonsense. I've yet to find an AI which is the least bit interesting, let alone challenging. Generally, they suck donkeys. AI is a misnomer. But why do we deserve this? We can bitch all we want but we have no say as to whether developers attempt better AI or eye candy. The money is just not there I suspect to warrant R&D dollars for wargame AI, when all the sales are in RTS and FPSs.

You must be another of those people who say "if ya don't vote, ya can't bitch." Even if ya vote you can't make a difference. EG You got Kerry or Bush...whoohoo, democracy is grand. Ahole, anus, sphincter, different name, same s--t. What a joke. Open the eyes man. Look around.

[denisonh]

One other important point is that sequential turn resolution allows for more certainty that simulataneous turn resolution.

That causes serious issues with trying to project outcomes and effects.

ORIGINAL: fbastos

CIV III AI cheats, and the complexity of CIV III is much less then WitP.

Much much less than WitP.

WiTP AI also cheats...

While I agree that WiTP has more variables than CiV III, the map on WiTP is fixed, so a lot of stuff is known in advance (like "go for SRA").

I do believe that the major difference is the amount of resources one can put on tuning the AI before release, and perhaps more important, the number of test runs one can do before release.

In both aspects WiTP is at severe disadvantage, because at one hand there's no way to compete with the resources of a major publisher that can spend $20M on a game, and on the other hand one tester on CiV III can perhaps play 10 games on a day, while on WiTP one would have to try a game for 10 days before coming to any conclusion...

But then again, after spending enough time on tuning the AI, it should be much better, even on WiTP.

F.

[Ron Saueracker]

I actually voted for the first time since 88 because it was getting so bad I voted to make sure our civil service heavy population did not vote in a Liberal majority again. We got a Liberal minority gov't. Not saying that my vote counted, really I'm saying I had to vote for s--t to keep other s--t from getting a majority. Be nice if whe "actually" had some choice.

[rlc27]

Where's the love, guys? [:(]

[fbastos]

I actually voted for the first time since 88 because it was getting so bad I voted to make sure our civil service heavy population did not vote in a Liberal majority again. We got a Liberal minority gov't. Not saying that my vote counted, really I'm saying I had to vote for s--t to keep other s--t from getting a majority. Be nice if whe "actually" had some choice.

Oh, didn't know you could vote for Bush in Canada...

F.

[denisonh]

Ron,

I have plent of choices when I visit a public house.[:D]

But I usually ask for a pint of Guinness despite all my "choices".[:)]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I actually voted for the first time since 88 because it was getting so bad I voted to make sure our civil service heavy population did not vote in a Liberal majority again. We got a Liberal minority gov't. Not saying that my vote counted, really I'm saying I had to vote for s--t to keep other s--t from getting a majority. Be nice if whe "actually" had some choice.

[denisonh]

Wrong forum. You must be looking for "Love in the Pacific".[:D]

ORIGINAL: rlc27

Where's the love, guys? [:(]

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

Do you think it's been easy to bring each new generation of graphics breakthroughs? Even before getting to software, do you think it's been easy moulding this generation of hardware?

Easy isn't relevant, if it were then there would only be "simple" discoveries. The problem isn't the difficulty, it's the lack of resources spent in R&D.

precisely but....

The problem is that real AI still requires a LOT of research, and not just applied research. A few years ago I was cognizant of (but no I did NOT do any of the real work) a number of large and well funded research projects into AI applications.

There are any number of extremely important tasks that require the judgment of highly trained human beings. Some of these tasks are also repetitive. Some of the tasks are also stressful. (just for example, although it was not one of the tasks, consider an air traffic controller.) The difficulty of finding highly intelligent people who are willing to be trained to do repetitive work that requires critical judgment is extreme. Since such people are also expensive to train and have a tendency to quit. This makes it even more difficult. The task of developing AI software to do some of this class of job was recognized to require some fundamental research and a LOT of expensive applications work. However the payoff was deemed to be worth it and this was the government, so several were funded (and funded into the tens of millions).

Not one of those projects ran to completion. The issue was that if you have a task important enough to warrant spending that much money to automate, it has to be RELIABLE. And it wasn’t. Things would work well for a while and then some utterly irrational result would pop up. Some fundamental theoretical breakthroughs were required, and the funding agencies were just not interesting in an open-ended research project. Instead any further work that took place was aimed at providing tools for the human to increase his productivity.

The point is that AI has been one of those great concepts that has just not gone anywhere very fast. If your task is relatively forgiving like producing a game opponent, it’s not worth spending the money it would take to develop it. If the task is to automate some critical human-judgment function, it’s not reliable without some basic research breakthroughs that can’t get major funding. Such research is taking place, in academia, but at a very slow pace.

If any of those big projects panned out, the fallout would surely have made game AI more practical. Conversely if anyone just sat down and spent the money to produce a true AI for a forgiving environment, they might go bankrupt but the rest of us would certainly benefit from it.