Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

A forum for the discussion of the World in Flames AI Opponent.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

Post Reply
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: stretch

Steve,

I wanted to point out that my reservations about an AI for WiF ever being any good is not a critique of your ability (or those who help). I (we all) deeply appreciate your hard work and I wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstood.

I just don't want it to hang up development, which it easily could. I think in order to get a really good AI we'd need to convert Froonp's brain into a computer program. (a-la Dr. Daystrom on Star Trek TOS, Ep 53, "the ultimate computer".. and no I’m not an uber geek I had to look that up) .

Different people want different things out of MWIF. However, at their core everyone wants me to do the same thing: work on what they want included in MWIF and ignore all the other stuff because "the game doesn't need it - and working on those 'extras' delays the release date."

If you have been following this forum for a while you have probably gathered that I work on multiple aspects of the game at once. My style is to push something as hard and fast as I can until either it pushes back too hard or I accomplish a milestone. I then go on to other things and cycle back to the stuff I have set aside later. My goal is to be as productive as I can and not sit worrying over some bizarre bug in the code for a week. Or to keep polishing someting until it glows in the dark. Problems left alone for a while often can be solved quickly when revisited a week later. Mostly completed stuff can be set aside and when new ideas arise days or weeks later, those improvements are better thought out.

This applies to your concern, in that I have been working on the AIO since before Matrix officially hired me. I now fit it in when I eat breakfast and lunch, during commercials, while driving, and when walking down a fairway. It is an item on my task list but it will be the last item completed before delivery. Eventually I will reach the point that a good friend of mine refers to as "when in doubt, ship it out." Perhaps a bit too cynical, but it emphasizes the fact that I am no McClellan.

So, I get the hot seat version working with the new graphics and into play test to see what I have broken (1).

While that is happening, I restructure how the sequence of play is implemented to support the game record log - and let the play testers see if it works (2).

While that is happening, I add a multiple player internet capability and send that off to play test (3).

While that is happening, I improve the interface (4).

Add PBEM (5).

Add the AIO (6).

While earlier versions are in play test, I will be working on the next major item to add to the product. I expect to be improving aspects of earlier play test versions in response to comments from the play testers. This is part of my general philosophy of incremental improvement. By the time I get to finishing the AIO, all the other pieces should be solid (that's the theory, anyway). The AIO is a potentially bottomless pit of opportunity for improvement, which brings be back to the "ship it out" quote. Of all the features, only the AIO won't be as complete as I can make it -and that is in deference to the obvious pressures on me to release the product ASAP (my wife is on my case about this every day on all of your behalf).

There is a ton of work to do - but I enjoy doing it. I want to see some money someday too.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
Glen Felzien
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun May 21, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Swan Hills, Alberta, CDN

RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

Post by Glen Felzien »

There is a ton of work to do - but I enjoy doing it. I want to see some money someday too.
LOL too true! One of the reasons I have great hope for this project is because you are a WiF player and understand the infinate complexity of the strategy that this game system allows. Because of the massively large number of possiblities, the AIO can indeed be a bottomless pit. I suspect you have already accounted for this but a cut off to AOI development has to be made after which, and depending on Matrix's level of continued post release support, the AIO could be patched (read enhanced) indefinately.

The bottom line is that the shipped AIO has to be at a level of competancy that you are comfortable with. I suspect anything less than that would result in you being (very) disappointed with the decision to release.
Glen
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Glen Felzien
There is a ton of work to do - but I enjoy doing it. I want to see some money someday too.
LOL too true! One of the reasons I have great hope for this project is because you are a WiF player and understand the infinate complexity of the strategy that this game system allows. Because of the massively large number of possiblities, the AIO can indeed be a bottomless pit. I suspect you have already accounted for this but a cut off to AOI development has to be made after which, and depending on Matrix's level of continued post release support, the AIO could be patched (read enhanced) indefinately.

The bottom line is that the shipped AIO has to be at a level of competancy that you are comfortable with. I suspect anything less than that would result in you being (very) disappointed with the decision to release.


Yes, you are right - but when to release is entirely my call.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
Davidt
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:34 am
Location: Denmark

RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

Post by Davidt »

Of all the features, only the AIO won't be as complete as I can make it -and that is in deference to the obvious pressures on me to release the product ASAP (my wife is on my case about this every day on all of your behalf).
[:D]

Great nothing will beat this "motivator" in making you hurry up finishing the game [;)]
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

Post by Froonp »

This applies to your concern, in that I have been working on the AIO since before Matrix officially hired me. I now fit it in when I eat breakfast and lunch, during commercials, while driving, and when walking down a fairway. It is an item on my task list but it will be the last item completed before delivery. Eventually I will reach the point that a good friend of mine refers to as "when in doubt, ship it out." Perhaps a bit too cynical, but it emphasizes the fact that I am no McClellan.
Wow. Am I understanding it correctly ?
You began working on the AIO before being hired by Matrixgames ?
Can I ask you why ? For fun ? Because of ideas you had that might fit in MWiF ?
I just ask for the sake of interest on how you came to MWiF.

Cheers !
Patrice
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

Post by Froonp »

I think in order to get a really good AI we'd need to convert Froonp's brain into a computer program. (a-la Dr. Daystrom on Star Trek TOS, Ep 53, "the ultimate computer".. and no I’m not an uber geek I had to look that up) .
Wow, thanks, but it should need a little more than that. I've got experience, but what may really help having a good AI is all of our combined experiences.
So what I say is, please, everyone, go back reading the countries AI threads, and see if you can amend them, react to them, to improve the ideas we give for MWiF.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
You began working on the AIO before being hired by Matrixgames ?
Can I ask you why ? For fun ? Because of ideas you had that might fit in MWiF ?
I just ask for the sake of interest on how you came to MWiF.

Cheers !
Patrice

I am a problem solver and I work puzzles of all types at almost every opportunity. It is my persona. AI is of special fascination to me (as it is to many others). Since I also am a WIF fanatic, the intersection of all three of these interests is writing the AI for MWIF. That is precisely why I first contacted Rob Crandall. 'MacGregor' is a friend of mine and he first suggested I look into how the rewrite of CWIF was proceeding. Little did he suspect I would be lead programmer less than a month later.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
c92nichj
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 1:15 pm
Contact:

RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

Post by c92nichj »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Personally, I prefer to give the AI some production advantage (in the range of +10% to +50%), as this allows the tactical AI to be unchanged on all levels.
Arrrgghhhh, Steve, the cross, the cross !!!!!!!

The devil is here again !!!!

If Steve will not succeed in writing an AIO that beats Patrice Forno, Mike Cobb or Kai Kunze, maybe it would be possible to make the AIO cheat on higher difficulty levels, but rather than increase the production of the AIO I would like him to have a slightly higher chance of rolling good die rolls.
Rexor
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 2:41 pm
Location: The Oort Cloud

RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

Post by Rexor »

Any news on the AI?
"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." (H.G. Wells)
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Rexor

Any news on the AI?
Not a thing for almost 2 months now. In that interim ...

The design issues for the map seem to be settled.

The design issues for the units at high resolution are done too. There is just the question of highlights and rounding the corners. I gave the status boxes a quick once over this morning too, so I at least have an understanding of what their role was in CWIF. Last on the list for the units is to design medium and low resolution depictions that have reduced detail but larger numbers. Then the interface will need to provide the player with the ability to change the unit resolution (1) at will and (2) automatically when the detailed map is zoomed in or out. For example, when the zoom level is at 5,6,7,8 use high resolution, at 3 and 4 use medium, and at 1 or 2 use low resultion. Player's discretion on all of that, of course.

I am now (as of this morning) spending time on: (1) the interface, (2) the new game engine, and (3) NetPlay (for the playing over the Internet).

The AIO has to wait for the new game engine to be finished before coding can start. PBEM has the same precondition.

I intend to implement NetPlay using the old game engine so I only have 1 new major piece of software to debug at a time. When that is fairly stable, I'll attack the task of replacing the game engine. Right now I spend time every day tinking away with my silver hammer on the 450+ game record log record definitions (54% done as of yesterday).
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
mlees
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 6:14 am
Location: San Diego

RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

Post by mlees »

Is NetPlay different from PBEM?

As in: NetPlay = Real time, over the internet, playing, with "chat" boxes so you can call the opponent a cheating bastage to his face, and each player can see each piece as it is moved.

PBEM = Play by Email = Much slower paced, non-real time, where moves are sent as entire packaged bundles that need to be imported into your last save spot. Typically punctuated by "Oh, resend your last urn. We're out of sync again...".[;)]
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: mlees
Is NetPlay different from PBEM?

As in: NetPlay = Real time, over the internet, playing, with "chat" boxes so you can call the opponent a cheating bastage to his face, and each player can see each piece as it is moved.

PBEM = Play by Email = Much slower paced, non-real time, where moves are sent as entire packaged bundles that need to be imported into your last save spot. Typically punctuated by "Oh, resend your last urn. We're out of sync again...".[;)]

For PBEM I have designed a revised sequence of play that drastically reduces the number of emails required for each impulse. I did that back in July/August with a lot of input from forum members. If you are interested in the details, you can find the whole discussion in older threads in this forum, or you can email me for 2 PDF documents that constitute the finished design documents I'll be coding from (Steve@ PatternDiscovery.us).
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
mlees
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 6:14 am
Location: San Diego

RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

Post by mlees »

Thanks for the offer, sir. If the PBEM system is going to be similar to the conclusions and hopes reached on these forums, then I think I have a close enough grasp on that.

I had not seen the term "NetPlay" used often, though.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: mlees

Thanks for the offer, sir. If the PBEM system is going to be similar to the conclusions and hopes reached on these forums, then I think I have a close enough grasp on that.

I had not seen the term "NetPlay" used often, though.
NetPlay is the term Dan Hatchen is using for the code he is writing for the Internet play portion of MWIF. I have adopted his label.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
wworld7
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 2:57 am
Location: The Nutmeg State

RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

Post by wworld7 »

Hello,

Fast and easy....I WANT TO PLAY THIS GAME. I believe it will take some of my time away from WITP.

Keep up the good work!!!

Flipper
Flipper
User avatar
ravinhood
Posts: 3829
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:26 am

RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

Post by ravinhood »

The problem I find in most AI design is that developers attempt to do the impossible and make an ai that "plays fairly". In their attempt to make a machine equal to a human many fail time and time again. A few like Meier, Mad Minute designers, Slitherine have moved away from this "must be fair and equal to a human" programming and created what I would think most game players want....a "challenging AI". Now, I'm one of those that doesn't care if the AI knows where my units are or if it gets experience or even die roll modifier advantages and these are things I've asked for time and time again some sliders or something where the individual player can modify the combat statistics in an options menu. It's one of the best things about the Combat Mission and Steel Panthers series where I can give the AI more units or myself less and also increase the experience levels of these units and add +1, +2 or +3 modifiers. I would like to see those options go one step futher with die roll modifiers as I believe the SSG games have.

Having the ai run thru all these decision codes for politics and resource gathering, I think just makes it harder for the ai to play a good game. I've always said less means better when it comes to an AI. An old game "Empire Deluxe" certainly will show most anyone what an ai with less can do to a human player. There's plenty of settings/options in "Empire Deluxe" for anyone to reach that ultimate "challenge" that I would think they are looking for.

Objectives are important and programming an AI to obtain and hold these are important, but, not to the point of banzai attacks just because there is one in the human players possession and going from a winning situation to a losing situation as the AI in the Combat Mission series does time and time again. The AI should definitely always do a victory check vs time left in the game. If it's ahead and there's very little time left there is no need to make advances to other objectives. It should go into a defensive or probing posture and force the human player to advance and take those banzai losses instead. ;)

Trying to make the game TOO historically accurate. Of course it shouldn't have modern day like tanks, but, it also needs to play against what the human player does vs what was done historically. It needs to "react to the situation" and not to what the history books says it should do. This comes to the question of "must" there be a D-Day invasion timed specifically to what happened realistically? To me if you make a game designed for a history lesson the game loses that "whatif" ability of change. If the AI always does this or that every single game, the human player is going to "react" to it every single game. Much like MTW's Horde invasion, we all know exactly the when and where it's going to happen and setup for it. Therefore there needs to be variables to given situations that change from game to game, but, not so much so that it is beyond believeablity. Probably easier said than done huh? lol

Bottom line is the AI's clear objective in every game should be to WIN, not just delay or harass the human player, but, actually play to WIN and that's one of the major issues with craptastic AI's today. They are merely programmed too much as a road block instead of with the mindset of WINNING!.
WE/I WANT 1:1 or something even 1:2 death animations in the KOIOS PANZER COMMAND SERIES don't forget Erik! ;) and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?


Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

1 - The problem I find in most AI design is that developers attempt to do the impossible and make an ai that "plays fairly". In their attempt to make a machine equal to a human many fail time and time again. A few like Meier, Mad Minute designers, Slitherine have moved away from this "must be fair and equal to a human" programming and created what I would think most game players want....a "challenging AI". Now, I'm one of those that doesn't care if the AI knows where my units are or if it gets experience or even die roll modifier advantages and these are things I've asked for time and time again some sliders or something where the individual player can modify the combat statistics in an options menu. It's one of the best things about the Combat Mission and Steel Panthers series where I can give the AI more units or myself less and also increase the experience levels of these units and add +1, +2 or +3 modifiers. I would like to see those options go one step futher with die roll modifiers as I believe the SSG games have.

2 - Having the ai run thru all these decision codes for politics and resource gathering, I think just makes it harder for the ai to play a good game. I've always said less means better when it comes to an AI. An old game "Empire Deluxe" certainly will show most anyone what an ai with less can do to a human player. There's plenty of settings/options in "Empire Deluxe" for anyone to reach that ultimate "challenge" that I would think they are looking for.

3 - Objectives are important and programming an AI to obtain and hold these are important, but, not to the point of banzai attacks just because there is one in the human players possession and going from a winning situation to a losing situation as the AI in the Combat Mission series does time and time again. The AI should definitely always do a victory check vs time left in the game. If it's ahead and there's very little time left there is no need to make advances to other objectives. It should go into a defensive or probing posture and force the human player to advance and take those banzai losses instead. ;)

4 - Trying to make the game TOO historically accurate. Of course it shouldn't have modern day like tanks, but, it also needs to play against what the human player does vs what was done historically. It needs to "react to the situation" and not to what the history books says it should do. This comes to the question of "must" there be a D-Day invasion timed specifically to what happened realistically? To me if you make a game designed for a history lesson the game loses that "whatif" ability of change. If the AI always does this or that every single game, the human player is going to "react" to it every single game. Much like MTW's Horde invasion, we all know exactly the when and where it's going to happen and setup for it. Therefore there needs to be variables to given situations that change from game to game, but, not so much so that it is beyond believeablity. Probably easier said than done huh? lol

5 -Bottom line is the AI's clear objective in every game should be to WIN, not just delay or harass the human player, but, actually play to WIN and that's one of the major issues with craptastic AI's today. They are merely programmed too much as a road block instead of with the mindset of WINNING!.

1 - Giving the AI an untoward advantage is not to my taste. For this kind of wargame I am a player before I am a programmer. Therefore the AI is a stand-in for me playing the game. Of course there are numerous things that are trivial for a human to do that are agony to get a computer to do. most of them have to do with 'seeing' the board. Be that as it may, I have had some success in the past programming AIs my design document intends to acheive that without extra units, production points, etc..

2 - Actually, WIF contain very little in the way of politics. Production is a big deal. Indeed, it could eeasily be argued that production is they primary focus of the game until you reach the end-stage.

3 - I agree completely.

4 - I agree completely.

5 - I agree completely.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 2989
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

Post by Neilster »

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

The problem I find in most AI design is that developers attempt to do the impossible and make an ai that "plays fairly". In their attempt to make a machine equal to a human many fail time and time again. A few like Meier, Mad Minute designers, Slitherine have moved away from this "must be fair and equal to a human" programming and created what I would think most game players want....a "challenging AI". Now, I'm one of those that doesn't care if the AI knows where my units are or if it gets experience or even die roll modifier advantages and these are things I've asked for time and time again some sliders or something where the individual player can modify the combat statistics in an options menu. It's one of the best things about the Combat Mission and Steel Panthers series where I can give the AI more units or myself less and also increase the experience levels of these units and add +1, +2 or +3 modifiers. I would like to see those options go one step futher with die roll modifiers as I believe the SSG games have.

Having the ai run thru all these decision codes for politics and resource gathering, I think just makes it harder for the ai to play a good game. I've always said less means better when it comes to an AI. An old game "Empire Deluxe" certainly will show most anyone what an ai with less can do to a human player. There's plenty of settings/options in "Empire Deluxe" for anyone to reach that ultimate "challenge" that I would think they are looking for.

Objectives are important and programming an AI to obtain and hold these are important, but, not to the point of banzai attacks just because there is one in the human players possession and going from a winning situation to a losing situation as the AI in the Combat Mission series does time and time again. The AI should definitely always do a victory check vs time left in the game. If it's ahead and there's very little time left there is no need to make advances to other objectives. It should go into a defensive or probing posture and force the human player to advance and take those banzai losses instead. ;)

Trying to make the game TOO historically accurate. Of course it shouldn't have modern day like tanks, but, it also needs to play against what the human player does vs what was done historically. It needs to "react to the situation" and not to what the history books says it should do. This comes to the question of "must" there be a D-Day invasion timed specifically to what happened realistically? To me if you make a game designed for a history lesson the game loses that "whatif" ability of change. If the AI always does this or that every single game, the human player is going to "react" to it every single game. Much like MTW's Horde invasion, we all know exactly the when and where it's going to happen and setup for it. Therefore there needs to be variables to given situations that change from game to game, but, not so much so that it is beyond believeablity. Probably easier said than done huh? lol

Bottom line is the AI's clear objective in every game should be to WIN, not just delay or harass the human player, but, actually play to WIN and that's one of the major issues with craptastic AI's today. They are merely programmed too much as a road block instead of with the mindset of WINNING!.

Many experienced gamers feel that AIs that are improved by cheating are highly unsatisfying to play. I raised this several years ago on the Yahoo WiF discussion boards and received replies that convinced me that this is not the way to go.

With regard to game AIs being generally crap, I posted this earlier...


1. The mechanics of MWiF have been playtested to death by thousands of experienced players. Hence, in comparison to most computer games there is a huge amount of background knowledge to assist in producing the AI.

2. The head programmer is experienced both in WiF and AI techniques.

3. Unlike most games, it's not being rushed out to get a quick return on investment ("We'll patch the problems later" etc).

4. MWiF's complexity is already nicely constrained by the turn/phase structure. I believe this will assist in writing the AI.

5. There will be a proper testing program.

As a result I'm confident the AI will be significantly better than that in the vast majority of games.


With regard to your concerns that the AI might be swamped by complexity, a look at the posts of composer99 and Froonp on the grand strategy threads might be worthwhile. If you've played WiF, you'll know that the game doesn't slavishly follow history. In fact, many players would like it to do so more and they can force it to, to a certain degree, with optional rule choices. Optional rules can also be used to change play balance, so if you're playing the AI and you feel it's too weak, choose some rules that help its side.

Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

Post by Froonp »

With regard to your concerns that the AI might be swamped by complexity, a look at the posts of composer99 and Froonp on the grand strategy threads might be worthwhile.
And every experienced WiF FE player is encouraged to post more to these threads, the more the better.
Even if to add only some bits, or some tactics that you use and we don't. Everything is good.
User avatar
ravinhood
Posts: 3829
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:26 am

RE: Artifical Intelligence for World in Flames

Post by ravinhood »

I'd like to give a little more input of why I don't mind the ai having advantages I don't have or as some call them "cheats". When you play a human individual who is of lesser experience than you are you can "teach" them to improve their game. This is something the player cannot do with a computer ai other than at least "options" to give it some distinct advantages. Most often it is in numbers of units, but, it is rarely Ever improved gameplay (slitherine uses a feature where the ai doesn't actually do anything for a certain amount of turns per difficulty level, I don't really consider this improved gameplay) whereas another human player usually can and will improve. Also since the majority of computer games sold are for the "solo" play (at least by all the polls I've seen), there definitely needs to be things that can at least improve the "challenge" of the game even for those that play hardcore highest difficulty from the start.

I've just never understood this philosophy of not adding "options" to increase difficulty beyond the norm. Why is it so hard to have something in the options that the player can adjust to make any game extremely challenging to them on an individual basis? Why is it so hard to add an option to increase the offense/defense stats of the ai units in % increments?? I've always thought a slider from 10% to 100% increase to offense/defense (one for each) stats would be perfect for computer wargames. Die roll modifier options as well. Maybe I'm thinking too much in board wargame play, but, it certainly was easy to do when giving a lesser experienced player some advantages when I played them.
WE/I WANT 1:1 or something even 1:2 death animations in the KOIOS PANZER COMMAND SERIES don't forget Erik! ;) and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?


Post Reply

Return to “AI Opponent Discussion”