Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck?

[sIg3b]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore
There's just no getting to the Highlord keep that fast.

Plus, all the diplomacy involved.

You are not seeing the wood because the trees are in the way.

1. Capital taken => Sudden Death
2. Highlord Capital = Undefended
3. DWARVES!!! => have direct access to Highlord backyard
4. Diplomacy = all important
5. Focus on Diplo-Annexing Dwarves => Highlord finished

[sIg3b]

ORIGINAL: wings7

Alot of complaints, let's hear some AI programming solutions...

Better playtesters.

I can understand designers overlooking AI problems; but how come the playtesters don´t find exploits that the players find within 3 days after release?

Answer: Not enough time given for testers after AI completion, or wrong playtester activity focus, or the wrong playtesters.

Either nobody is listening to the testers, or the testers are fans who marvel at the graphics or the chrome or whatever gimmick of the day instead of single-mindedly trying to do this to the AI:

[wings7]

ORIGINAL: Tesuji

ORIGINAL: wings7

Alot of complaints, let's hear some AI programming solutions...

Better playtesters.

I can understand designers overlooking AI problems; but how come the playtesters don´t find exploits that the players find within 3 days after release?

Answer: Not enough time given for testers after AI completion, or wrong playtester activity focus, or the wrong playtesters.

Either nobody is listening to the testers, or the testers are fans who marvel at the graphics or the chrome or whatever gimmick of the day instead of single-mindedly trying to do this to the AI:

Excellent point and solution [:)] ...I know there are more good ideas and solutions from our members here...

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: Tesuji

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore
There's just no getting to the Highlord keep that fast.

Plus, all the diplomacy involved.

You are not seeing the wood because the trees are in the way.

1. Capital taken => Sudden Death
2. Highlord Capital = Undefended
3. DWARVES!!! => have direct access to Highlord backyard
4. Diplomacy = all important
5. Focus on Diplo-Annexing Dwarves => Highlord finished

Was that "hard mode"?[:)] When I play hard mode the Highlord has always kept a defending force near his capital. If you played more than once or twice you would also see the Highlord player doesn't play the same start every game either. He might go for the elves, or the kinder or the humans to the north first. He always gets those ogres next to the dwarves and I've seen them countless times take out the dwarves after I get them.

Not to forget the Highlord has Dragons that can move nearly across the board to defend or attack something. Even the griffons of the dwarves have a hard time against them in the early game before the lances and the orbs.

You must have just had a lucky game of it. I've never seen those dwarves join the alliance so early in the game. I think the Highlord tries to get them from me. [:D]

[Mobeer]

The programming solution can only follow a project management change, that values AI development more highly than at present. That in turn needs customers to change their behaviour. Only buy games with recognised strong AI, post in forums (like this) about why good AI counts when choosing whether to buy and perhaps AI development will become better resourced\more justifiable.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

The programming solution can only follow a project management change, that values AI development more highly than at present. That in turn needs customers to change their behaviour. Only buy games with recognised strong AI, post in forums (like this) about why good AI counts when choosing whether to buy and perhaps AI development will become better resourced\more justifiable.

That's a good idea but many buy on impulse and graphics and of course the few multiplayers. But, if that practice stopped I believe you are right, developers would have to make a better ai or go out of business and get a daytime job.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: wings7
Alot of complaints, let's hear some AI programming solutions...

Strategic Command series has an outstanding generic fuzzy logic AI plus text editable event and AI scripting. It takes a lot of time to understand the generic AI strengths and weaknesses, and then add more specific scripting. It is an iterative process. Again, it takes a lot of time to do it well and keep up with bug fixes and enhancements and players using gamey tactics. Unfortunately, game development usually ends before sufficient AI development is complete, and developers need to move on.

Empires in Arms fell into that trap and languished for a few years. I'm hoping to implement a few bug fixes and AI programming solutions to pump some new life into an otherwise outstanding grand strategy Napoleonic Wars wargame. At the end of the day, I too want a challenging AI for my SC3 Advanced Third Reich mod, Empires in Arms, and other wargames.

[sPzAbt653]

Alot of complaints, let's hear some AI programming solutions...

Program the basics, let the modding community do the rest. As one example:

Strategic Command series has an outstanding generic fuzzy logic AI plus text editable event and AI scripting.

TOAW is another example where the basic [ok, its not basic at all, but you know what I mean] programming for the computer opponent is in the code, while the user can program the actual forces for each side.

I'm sure none of us really expects a challenging computer opponent until an actual AI is developed. What we do expect, and have expected since games made the move to computers, is that the computer opponent shows up to play, and never quits like our silly human opponents do. We don't expect the developers to spend 17 billion on a competent computer opponent, just give us something respectable.

Currently I am personally only interested in TOAW and SC3. Both of those are certainly respectable.

[altipueri]

Just look how much money and effort it took Google to develop a winning AI in Go where there are only about 361 pieces and they don't even move once placed. Yet there are moaners on this forum who expect little wargame companies to come up with a challenging AI on games where there can be hundreds of pieces that do move and enter diplomatic negotiations and handle supply, trade, recruitment.

Most people who moan about the AI probably couldn't code a kettle to turn on. In fact perhaps it should be a pre-requisite before moaning about AI to show that you can script an event or decision.

[MrsWargamer]

I'd like to ask a question, which I don't expect to get answered.

Why do war games HAVE to have an AI?

In the great before time (prior to machine driven games), a war game was still playable even if you lived in the middle of nowhere and were something of an anti social hermit. you could still play the game even if the designer intended for you to play another human.

So it's not like the advent of efforts to make AIs was ever actually required. Because you CAN make a PC war game ever bit identical to a board game war game, and just as playable and just as potentially enjoyable played without the presumed human opponent.

If they had never made a single PC war game with any form of AI, we'd have still bought them in the same numbers we were buying the board game war games. And the designers would make about the same amount of money off of them that they do when they make them with AIs.

In the commercial world, just because you make something, doesn't necessarily mean the market needed it or wanted it. And if you get a small pool of fans demanding it, it doesn't automatically mean there is enough demand to justify the effort.

I think AI development is the greatest and the dumbest waste of game development time and resources. But that is just my opinion.

If I were to develop war games for a machine, the only thing I would be interested in doing, is eliminating all of the nuisances that bedevil board game war games. Dust collecting, catapocalypses, set up time loss, and only one copy limitations to name 4 easy examples. I would not create an AI, and would flat out refuse to make an AI and that would be a firm no regardless of temper tantrums by the usual crowd that freak out over "all the money I'm going to lose from doing so".

I know nothing of AI design, and I plan to keep it that way actually. I know plenty about board game war game design. But I am not a programmer so it is unlikely I'd ever create a PC version (I'd need someone to translate a board game into a program meant to clone the physical environment).

And if you must ask, "why am I on a thread about war game AIs sucking?", well it's a discussion, and there is no rule saying I can't participate.

I wish war game makers would stop wasting so much effort trying to make war game AIs better than the morons they currently are. They could be making so many more war games successfully without them. AIs are a waste of effort. They're costing the hobby game development time.

[Grim.Reaper]

Completely disagree that AI is a waste of time....without them, most games would not sale as well since not everyone has playing partners available to play whenever they want or they don't enjoy playing solitaire mode against themselves. I guess I am just one of the lucky people who don't always find AI bad or easy to beat so typically have little issue with my opponent. If no AI was included, I would no longer purchase any of these games since I have no desire to play against myself and really no desire to play a game that meets multiple people's schedules and time commitments.....I want to play when I want to play.

[zakblood]

i only play solo, won't play online, PBEM has no interest to me what so ever, or hotseat for that matter, it's AI or it doesn't get bought, maybe another reason i gave up on board games, as i wanted to play when no one else was around, while some could do it, most couldn't and wasn't that much fun either

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

I'd like to ask a question, which I don't expect to get answered.

Why do war games HAVE to have an AI?

In the great before time (prior to machine driven games), a war game was still playable even if you lived in the middle of nowhere and were something of an anti social hermit. you could still play the game even if the designer intended for you to play another human.

So it's not like the advent of efforts to make AIs was ever actually required. Because you CAN make a PC war game ever bit identical to a board game war game, and just as playable and just as potentially enjoyable played without the presumed human opponent.

If they had never made a single PC war game with any form of AI, we'd have still bought them in the same numbers we were buying the board game war games. And the designers would make about the same amount of money off of them that they do when they make them with AIs.

In the commercial world, just because you make something, doesn't necessarily mean the market needed it or wanted it. And if you get a small pool of fans demanding it, it doesn't automatically mean there is enough demand to justify the effort.

I think AI development is the greatest and the dumbest waste of game development time and resources. But that is just my opinion.

If I were to develop war games for a machine, the only thing I would be interested in doing, is eliminating all of the nuisances that bedevil board game war games. Dust collecting, catapocalypses, set up time loss, and only one copy limitations to name 4 easy examples. I would not create an AI, and would flat out refuse to make an AI and that would be a firm no regardless of temper tantrums by the usual crowd that freak out over "all the money I'm going to lose from doing so".

I know nothing of AI design, and I plan to keep it that way actually. I know plenty about board game war game design. But I am not a programmer so it is unlikely I'd ever create a PC version (I'd need someone to translate a board game into a program meant to clone the physical environment).

And if you must ask, "why am I on a thread about war game AIs sucking?", well it's a discussion, and there is no rule saying I can't participate.

I wish war game makers would stop wasting so much effort trying to make war game AIs better than the morons they currently are. They could be making so many more war games successfully without them. AIs are a waste of effort. They're costing the hobby game development time.

I'd say there are fewer people/players like you than there are players that want an artificial opponent. I'd say the sales say so. [:D]

It's fine to make a game so that one can play "both" ways though but at least make the AI way challenging and not just a by the numbers type game.

Norbsoft does it well in his civilwar and napoleonic wargames where he does teach the ai to flank and surprise you. That's all I'm asking from most tactical games. But, when you have them that just frontal assault all the time you get pretty used to it and tired of it.

I still say make the AI in the games more open to scripting new patterns and paths of building and movement and priorities and certain things like stay put if winning. First they gotta tell the AI to WIN like they did in Spartan. It was one of the more easy games for me to mod and make the AI very challenging "for me". That's all I'm really asking. Open it up a little more.

[altipueri]

ORIGINAL: zakblood

i only play solo, won't play online, PBEM has no interest to me what so ever, or hotseat for that matter, it's AI or it doesn't get bought, maybe another reason i gave up on board games, as i wanted to play when no one else was around, while some could do it, most couldn't and wasn't that much fun either

This for me too.

Lots of different games and a regular change of game keeps all AI opponents fresh enough for me.

[sullafelix]

" Better playtesters.

I can understand designers overlooking AI problems; but how come the playtesters don´t find exploits that the players find within 3 days after release?

Answer: Not enough time given for testers after AI completion, or wrong playtester activity focus, or the wrong playtesters.

Either nobody is listening to the testers, or the testers are fans who marvel at the graphics or the chrome or whatever gimmick of the day instead of single-mindedly trying to do this to the AI:"

I am a bit confused over this attitude. If you bought a game that you were interested in why would you look for exploits in it, and if you accidently found one what would that mean?

Would you uninstall the game and never play it again?

I have several games, perhaps a lot more I don't know about, that have game ending exploits. I just don't use them, and have great fun playing the games.

I will give you that playtesting is much more about checking WAD then about trying to find exploits in the AI.

My confusion comes because of this. Say I buy a truck, and I find out on the web or by myself that if I am in drive I can physically move the gear into reverse and strip the gears in the transmission.

Yes, it is a problem and should be rectified, but I don't park the truck and never drive it until it is fixed. I just don't put it into reverse while driving.

I have played against myself, as Mrs wargamer writes about, with board wargames for decades.

Of course, I could have always done stupid moves or nothing if I was on one side of the table. But, why would I do that?

To illustrate my point, I found out by accident how to beat a tough monster in witcher 3. I was reading about it and someone posted an exploit without putting it in a spoiler.

Okay, so now I knew. It really didn't matter, I didn't use it. It took me about ten tries but I beat it without it.

[MrsWargamer]

We can speak of sales figures till we are all expired. We don't have those sales figures so it's pointless conjecture.

Would a war gamer buy a no AI PC war game if there were no PC war games with AIs?

Good question. And neither you nor I have that answer.

But I do know that even the greatest of the great board game war games have never reached sales that permitted the makers to live life comfortably sans real day job.

I simply don't accept that war gamers would refuse to buy sans AI PC war games if they had no alternative.

I think it is interesting that the war gamers who state they will not buy sans AI war games, consistently buy game after game with AIs that are simply inadequate as a challenge. And no, I don't think I'm a brilliant war gamer. But the AIs are no challenge for me.

[sIg3b]

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer
And if you must ask, "why am I on a thread about war game AIs sucking?", well it's a discussion, and there is no rule saying I can't participate.

As the thread starter I hereby declare that I am perfectly happy with you participating. [:)]

I would like to point out though that many classic -and even commercially successful- computer strategy games could never have existed without an AI: Empire, Civilization, Master of Orion, Master of Magic,...

At least 4X games are usually too unwieldy for multiplayer and would be absolutely boring solitaire.

[Grim.Reaper]

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

We can speak of sales figures till we are all expired. We don't have those sales figures so it's pointless conjecture.

Would a war gamer buy a no AI PC war game if there were no PC war games with AIs?

Good question. And neither you nor I have that answer.

But I do know that even the greatest of the great board game war games have never reached sales that permitted the makers to live life comfortably sans real day job.

I simply don't accept that war gamers would refuse to buy sans AI PC war games if they had no alternative.

I think it is interesting that the war gamers who state they will not buy sans AI war games, consistently buy game after game with AIs that are simply inadequate as a challenge. And no, I don't think I'm a brilliant war gamer. But the AIs are no challenge for me.

Can only speak for myself....

- No, I would not buy a PC wargame (or any PC game) that did not have an AI. You don't have to accept it, but it is very true.

- I find most AI challenging and enjoyable based on my own skill level..again, you don't have to accept it, but it is true for me.

[sIg3b]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore
Was that "hard mode"?[:)]

Honestly, I don´t remember. But as you insist it is as good as BN, I will see if I find the game somewhere and give it another try.

What exactly do you mean by hard mode? Any specific setting I should put up to 5?

[sIg3b]

ORIGINAL: sulla05
I have several games, perhaps a lot more I don't know about, that have game ending exploits. I just don't use them, and have great fun playing the games.

I will give you that playtesting is much more about checking WAD then about trying to find exploits in the AI.

The problem for me is when a perfectly natural strategy becomes an exploit because the AI can´t cope with it.

Example: Steel Panthers AI suicidal tanks on the advance outrunning the infantry and throwing themselves onto Mines, into ambushes etc.

How am I supposed to *not* exploit this? Not using Mines, no ambushes?

The annoyance where the AI has a big weakness is that sound tactics become an exploit because they work too well...