is the braindead AI going to be solved???

[dauphan129]

There will NEVER be an AI for this game that is good for anything more than training until we have true artificial intelligence.

I disagree with this statement in that the game could be programmed to follow certain paths. Perhaps have three or four profiles for each nation in which the AI prioritizes it's options in different ways, I just think it would be exceptionally hard to do.

In anycase, at least getting the AI to start focusing on ending wars (moving and using troops better and make it invade and sit on Red Cities) and maybe setup some conditions that have to be met before Wars are declared (like before Austria and Prussia would go to war with each other in most real games they would both have to have surrendered to or gotten a surrender from France). I think alot of the "Random Declarations" come from the AI not backing down on Minor DOWs. Establishing a pecking order (for backing down DOWs) and placing priority on Minors for the AI countries would help too. Finally, maybe in the vein of what Jimmer said, an easy fix maybe would to set the AI to "always have at least the number of corp a general can command as a minimum and never more than double that number as a maximum for AI Generals. Also prioritze them somehow. I would never give Blucher 1 militia corps to command! Why would AI Prussia do it?

Still, this game was designed to be played Multi-player, all Humans. I think someday it will be a great single player game too but that was not the initial design and I think it is awesome for what it is.

[Joram]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Civilization is vasty less complicated game than EiA. There will NEVER be an AI for this game that is good for anything more than training until we have true artificial intelligence.

I pray that you are wrong but if you happen to be right, this will be why these games always will be a small niche market. I'm waiting for a few patches myself before I make any judgement on getting this game.

[pzgndr]

As soon as the first update is out to address critical issues and bugs, we'll be looking at ongoing AI improvements as the top priority.

Well said. Many players look forward to ongoing AI improvements. [8D]

Still, this game was designed to be played Multi-player, all Humans. I think someday it will be a great single player game too but that was not the initial design and I think it is awesome for what it is.

I disagree with some of this.

First, the original board game was obviously designed to be played by humans as multiplayer. But, ALL humans? By design, UMP rules were included to allow less than 7 human players and still provide for all 7 major powers to play. The ideal game would have 7 human players, of course, but one can also argue that the game was in fact "designed" for some non-human UMP players (although UMPs were controlled by human players based on "AI" rules).

Second, the initial design of the original board game is not necessarily the final design of this computer adaptation. I think Marshall Ellis and Eric Rutins and others on the development team fully recognize the potential of AI for computer opponents, and the market reality of providing challenging AI for computer games. Some players may not care for computer opponents and that's fine, but for others it is an expectation. Take away the AI completely and you may as well play EiA and all other board games via CyberBoard or some other PBEM software. THIS is a computer game and the AI is not going to go away.

The good news is that Matrix is trying to satisfy all players, not just one group at the expense of another. So there really is nothing to argue about, and no call for petty criticisms of AI development efforts. I wouldn't expect the AI of this game to become brilliant, but I would agree that someday it can be a great single player game too (or for small playgroups of 2-4 human players). And I would expect even the grognard board game veterans may someday appreciate a challenging & full function AI in lieu of the original & limited UMP rules for one or more major powers. So I'd say there is incentive for all players to support ongoing AI improvements. [:)]

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
So I'd say there is incentive for all players to support ongoing AI improvements. [:)]

For me, no AI, no buy.

[Mynok]

So I'd say there is incentive for all players to support ongoing AI improvements.

I don't think so, but we'll agree to disagree. I frankly don't care about AI in any computer game, as I have little interest in playing non PBEM stuff. UMP rules, certainly. That would be helpful. Much more than attempts to create a satisfactory AI for game so intricately based on human interplay and intrigue. Every dollar going into AI "improvement" is a dollar that's not going into PBEM or TCP/IP improvements.

Try PBEM or hotseat folks. It is the raison d'etre of this game. Don't make excuses. Where there's a will there's a way.

[yammahoper]

I would like AI improvements.  But I also want to LAN this with friends without having to hot seat. 
 
I have had the best battles by going with smaller stacks.  The AI has flaws, but it does fight very well.
 
yamma

[Adraeth]

I think that every game must have a challenging AI, and for sure has to be a good engine for multi; but the Single Player feature can't be "sacrified" to the MultiPlayer God.
 
A game to be pointed as complete has to be playable both in Single Player and in Multi; there are plenty of game that are enjoyable in SP, multi is not the final answer forever.

[saintsup]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

So I'd say there is incentive for all players to support ongoing AI improvements.

I don't think so, but we'll agree to disagree. I frankly don't care about AI in any computer game, as I have little interest in playing non PBEM stuff. UMP rules, certainly. That would be helpful. Much more than attempts to create a satisfactory AI for game so intricately based on human interplay and intrigue. Every dollar going into AI "improvement" is a dollar that's not going into PBEM or TCP/IP improvements.

Try PBEM or hotseat folks. It is the raison d'etre of this game. Don't make excuses. Where there's a will there's a way.

Same here. Without AI I can go to cyberboard or vassal.

[lancerunolfsson]

I frankly don't care about AI in any computer game, as I have little interest in playing non PBEM stuff

You might want to care! I used to pbem a lot, so I have nothing against pbem. But out of the actual real life computer gamers I know only 2 (including myself) ever pbem at all, out of 9 guys. If the AI sucks and no effort goes in to developing them you are going to lose most of the people that actualy buy these games;^)Which translates in to fewer game releases.

[pzgndr]

I don't think so, but we'll agree to disagree. I frankly don't care about AI in any computer game, as I have little interest in playing non PBEM stuff.

There is absolutely nothing to disagree about. Marshall Ellis and Eric Rutins have clearly stated their intent to provide ongoing AI improvements. End of story. Period.

For board gamers who care only for PBEM, there is VASSAL. Why should Matrix waste its time and money trying to make a fancier VASSAL-style PBEM game engine for EiA?? [8|]

This is a totally silly argument. PBEMers can fully enjoy the Matrix computer game without ever using the AI. Fine. For many others, the convenience of a challenging computer opponent is a major attraction of computer games and Matrix is committed to supporting these paying customers also. Like I said, Matrix is trying to satisfy all players, so why raise a stink about it??

Try PBEM or hotseat folks. It is the raison d'etre of this game. Don't make excuses. Where there's a will there's a way.

You make it sound as if playing with 5, 6 or 7 human opponents and using only the original UMP rules is the only way to play. That may be a raison d'etre of this game, and hopefully newbie players will eventually rise to that challenge, but what about the smaller playgroups of 2, 3 or 4 players who want a PBEM game using a challenging AI for the other major powers rather than the old limited UMP rules? That is also a raisin d'etre of this computer game adaptation. Again, Matrix is trying to satisfy both of these objectives. [:)]

[DodgyDave]

there should be an ok AI, but it all comes down to, what is fastest to do, because what i really would like is, a game, which can link players together, so that we like could play 1 day for what 6 hours and do like 3 to 6 months of play, then we play again next week same time.

this pbem is slow and annoying, seems to easy for just 1 tiny mistake and you need to redo parts of it.

so what to fix first! because this game is about player vs player, i am sorry, not player vs ai, for that there is tons of games out there, then please fix the multi player part first and then fix ai, as i would also like that

[tevans6220]

As you can see by my post count, I don't post much but I feel so strongly against what's being said regarding the AI that I felt the need to respond. For a vast number of you PvP or PBEM is just fine for this game. However for players like myself who have no interests in PBEM or PvP this causes a problem not only with this game but many other games as well. This game wasn't marketed or sold as just PBEM or PvP only. It was intended to have an AI and contrary to some opinions it's my impression that it was to be more than a "training" AI to prepare for PvP or PBEM. Look at any forum here or on other websites and if somebody asks "How's the AI" of a particular game it's almost a definite guarantee that somebody will give some type of lecture on how difficult it is to program AI and how that particular game was really intended for PvP or PBEM use. It's not only in the Matrix forums but in practically every forum related to computer wargaming. If the majority of these types of games are going to be geared as PvP or PBEM then let them be marketed that way. I have no way of knowing how many purchased Empires in Arms but I would venture to say that if it had no AI that a large percentage of those who purchased would not have bothered. To some PBEM and PvP may be where's it at but if I'm going to go to all that trouble I may as well just play a boardgame. The one major advantage a computer wargame has for me is a computer opponent. Take that away and I really don't have a need for purchasing. Of course as with all things YMMV and this is all just my opinion.

[Mynok]

Actually this game was marketed as a computer version of a boardgame, which happened to have a computer player.

World in Flames is being marketed the exact same way. It too is a very complex game and will not have a competent AI, only one useful for training purposes.

With current technology, the only games that will have decent AIs are those designed from the ground up to have decent AIs. Both EiA and WiF were designed to be recreations of boardgames, which is going to put major hurdles in the path towards a competent computer player.

Until we get AIs that can *learn*, that is going to be the case for any game like this. It's just reality folks. You are *never* going to be happy with an AI in this game, and you are never going to actually *play* EiA until you play against humans.

[dodod]

I agree with tevans.
 
I think good programming will lead to a good AI.  My intentions were to play AI and PBEM and TCP.  Only the PBEM is well implemented and that has its problems.  I believe the game is great, and the conversion to computer form is great as well, but I would like to have a great AI so that I wouldn't need 7 players for every game or if I want to play more than an hour at a time by myself I could. 
 
I don't think it is fair to say this is only a game for multi-human players....or there would have been no AI.  And for 60 bucks per person, that's 420 bucks to play a game of one boardgame..with 7 players.  Hardly worth the price for most people.
 
This was not marketed as "for experience EIA players only."  I think most intended this to have a decent AI.
 
Why all the bickering, anyway.  use the constructive criticism, and just program a better AI.

[Grapeshot Bob]

ORIGINAL: dodod

I agree with tevans.

I think good programming will lead to a good AI.  My intentions were to play AI and PBEM and TCP.  Only the PBEM is well implemented and that has its problems.  I believe the game is great, and the conversion to computer form is great as well, but I would like to have a great AI so that I wouldn't need 7 players for every game or if I want to play more than an hour at a time by myself I could. 

I don't think it is fair to say this is only a game for multi-human players....or there would have been no AI.  And for 60 bucks per person, that's 420 bucks to play a game of one boardgame..with 7 players.  Hardly worth the price for most people.

This was not marketed as "for experience EIA players only."  I think most intended this to have a decent AI.

Why all the bickering, anyway.  use the constructive criticism, and just program a better AI.

I completely agree with everything in this post.

Paying 60 bucks so I can play a boardgame with other people is silly. If the game was intended as a more convenient boardgame (so there are no rules disputes, it is easier to play PBEM, and the cat won't tip over the gameboard) it should be marketed to people in that specific niche market.

Still, I'm not sure that a boardgame was the objective of the developers. Have any of them actually stated this someplace? I've read through this forum quickly and I don't see anything like that.


GSB

[Grapeshot Bob]

ORIGINAL: MilRevKo

This is a PBEM game. We will not see a computer program that is capable fighting against humans at this level of complexity in our life times. The utilization of income, manpower, military production, strategy, intuition, and diplomacy (stabbing a person in the back is still diplomacy) are beyond the silicon chip at this point.

Have you ever played any of the Civilization series of games? They all have wicked AIs. They are also very complex games. They pretty much have exactly the same features you list in your post (The utilization of income, manpower, military production, strategy, intuition, and diplomacy).


GSB

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

The Civilization game is not that complex when you really think about it.  Effects of new buildings are quite predictable.  Choice of what units to build is fairly obvious.  At about half of the AI levels, the computer gets production bonuses that give it the big economy.
 
The key to beating that game is realizing that it is better to use combined arms than it is to build the strongest unit available.
 
The main thing holding back development of game AI is that players will not sit around for 20 minutes (or 20 hours) while the computer examines the possibilities in a 'depth-first' search.
 
 

[joviel]

I have to agree with tevans6220's point above. I for one would not have bought the game if it had been issued without an AI opponent. To now say that we were naive to expect a decent game against the computer would smack of "bait and switch" had it been said by a Matrix representative.

Scott

[Grapeshot Bob]

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

The main thing holding back development of game AI is that players will not sit around for 20 minutes (or 20 hours) while the computer examines the possibilities in a 'depth-first' search.

I respectfully disagree. A lot of what the AI needs to do could be done during a human player's phase. It should always be working in the background (with no advanced knowledge of the other player's moves). The AI for each country should be doing more than just reacting to another player's moves. A simple increase in agression would help a lot. This should be coupled with a simple, more stable strategic algorithm. The AI shouldn't be switching it's mind all the time.

I also disagree with your analysis of the AI in the Civilization series. I contend that the proof lies in the fact that the game is so good: thousands of people have been buying the Civilization series since it came out. It is one of the most successful games in computing history. The game is played by newbies and hard core players alike. I personally have played it since version 1.0 (1991) and I still find it challenging each time I play it. No game I have ever played unfolds the same way twice. The game board in Civilization can be random each time you play, further challenging the AI. The gameboard for EiA is the same each time.

Is the AI in Civilization perfect? No. But it is very good. Good enough to support the interest of a rather large fan base.

Having said this, there are no computer games that don't give the AI some built-in advantages. This fact, if balanced properly, can make a game challenging to play. Will it be exactly like playing against a real person? No. But it will be fun to play.

Fun is the whole reason we play games, right?


GSB

[Mynok]

You AI guys are missing the point entirely. You think the AI in Civilization is good? It isn't. It's just a game designed for an AI that works out to be fun and challenging.

EiA was and is designed to be a multi-player human game. And yes, it absolutely was based on the boardgame design, with some minor deviations. Heck, the manual is almost exactly like the boardgame manual.

EiA was not designed to be an AI game. It was designed to be a multi-player human game. That is the best way to get the full flavor and feel of the design. Maybe they will come up with some AI that makes you happy. You still will not be playing Empires in Arms.

EiA has more in common with WoW than Civilization. You wouldn't play WoW solitaire against the computer and expect to get the real feel of the game would you? Of course not.

Paying 60 bucks so I can play a boardgame with other people is silly.

ROFL! You must be young. Us old boardgamers paid way more than that to play boardgames with other people. Why? Because it was fun. A lot more fun than playing some idiot computer program. [:D]