AI vs Rules

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

If you don't mind, I'd like to add a few noodles to the bowl of spaghetti. 

As a beta tester for some years now, I'm very encouraged at the steady progress Steve has made.  The codebase that was inherited from Windows 98 had to be merged with modern technology so that it would behave properly. I confess to screwing things up by bringing up architectural issues that needed remedy, so that the game would work on future platforms.  Frankly, Steve is some kind of genuis for unraveling assembly someone else wrote, and then writing documented functioning routines.

As far as AI goes, I have a lot of faith in some of Steve's ideas.  Take some time to read all of what Steve's written.  I suspect he could pull off a fearful AI.

Cheers & Happy 4th!

Hey Zora I thank you for your input and respect your opinion as a beta tester which is far beyond my scope of how things ought to be, I have Cwif, as you already know there is no AI, I think ADG is the smart ones around, they did not have to input one probably they felt it was impossible to do a good one and if they did not think it impossible why didn't they do it? I will most likely hear from people why they did not do it but the facts are THEY DID NOT DO IT! Maybe someone from ADG could explain why.



Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

ORIGINAL: bo

Flipper if you and I cant rag each other in good nature I have to give up on these posts and this game[:)] I took no offence to anything you said, actually it made sense but that does not solve the problem of too much coding for Steve to do, and trully I would like a complete game with all the rules intact, I know you want a complete game and there is nothing wrong with that but at what cost to players patience in the coming years.

Bo

Bo,

I am not into ragging on each other, I just didn't want you to think I (not that my opinion is important) was dismissing your idea without providing a explaination as to why (and I only covered a couple of the many reasons it could lead to problems). It wasn't meant to solve the problem you think Steve has with coding "too much". Steve has a project plan (I'm sure of this) which includes X hours of coding/testing time (NOTE: X is a variable as it needs to handle issues and changes in a project). Eliminating say 50% of the rules would not automatically reduce this time by 50%. Since coding and testing are forged together (in a good project plan) an option could be the remainng 50% of the rules are given this extra time for more fixing and better testing before release. Maybe I should have used this yesterday as it is simpler.

Also, don't put too much weight into the number of people posting, many people are following this project just by checking this forum every month or two. It doesn't mean they have given up on it, it is just a way to keep tabs until the project is finished (that's how I followed CWIE project (Computer War in Europe) by Decission Games).

Anyway, I'm tired and need to sleep.

Have a nice weekend.

Im tired to Flipper, tired of reading posts, just want to play MWIF, I am a dingleberry dunce, I need elaborate explanations for my feeble mind, for instance if one rule has many multiple facets to it and it takes a good amount of time to do that one rule then by my deduction the next rule will take X amount of time and so on and on, again I try to use common sense and common sense says to this person something is wrong with your deduction, one rule x amount of time two rules x amount of time one hundred rules EGADS. I have no idea where Steve is on rule whatever, maybe they are all done and just need testing, hope so.

Bo

[Skanvak]

The point is that the rules, optionals one, are quite important for the people who have been playing with them for a long time. So asking to take off rules will upset most of us, included me. The game will already come without an editor

The second point, is the AI. Preparation work as been done as I have seen on this forum. The more intersting question Brian Brian raised is to limit the option the AI, I REPEAT FOR GAME AGAINST THE AI, so limit the option avialable when you play again the AI. I have no point of view on this one. I just wonder if it would not speed up writing the AI?

By the way it is always good to let the player edit the AI as AI scripting comoetition result in stronger AI.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

The point is that the rules, optionals one, are quite important for the people who have been playing with them for a long time. So asking to take off rules will upset most of us, included me. The game will already come without an editor

The second point, is the AI. Preparation work as been done as I have seen on this forum. The more intersting question Brian Brian raised is to limit the option the AI, I REPEAT FOR GAME AGAINST THE AI, so limit the option avialable when you play again the AI. I have no point of view on this one. I just wonder if it would not speed up writing the AI?

By the way it is always good to let the player edit the AI as AI scripting comoetition result in stronger AI.

Truely I did not mean to upset you about less rules, if all these rules are that important to you then you must be prepared to wait several more years for the game and reading your post it does not look like you will mind that even though I know you would like it as soon as possible, Im sorry I cant believe all those additional rules can be that important to hold up this game for an indefinite period of time, but could be wrong.

Bo

[Skanvak]

The point is not that they are important or not, is that we are used to them now. It will be headhache to reach an agreement on which rule to drop and not. The group that did not get there favorite optional rule might just not buy the game. What I try to say is that for grognard to buy it, it will need to be as the paper game is, otherwise it will lose its appeal for those that have played the game before and more so to those who are still playing it regularly. I hope I can make you understand the feeling. btw most optional rule where here to simplifie the boardgame to make it more manageable for poor human mind, nearly all optional rules are consider a plus or to say otherwise are the true rules, and the option is to not use then if you dont have the time or place. I hope it helps you umderstmds our point of view.

I am very happy that people who don t know the game are interested in it, don t take me wrong.

[fallgelb]

I can hardly imagine an AI that is competitive. For example:

In my last game, the Russian player suddenly concentrated two white circle and two other TAC4 around Dneprpetrowsk. In this time I had five Oil Ressources.
So this was of course a very crucial situation. In this situation Ploesti has to be guarded quick and effective (more than the usual one FTR and rum. Corps). The AI would have to reconginze the threat of PARA and StratBomb and the combined "one-two-punch-scenario". I can not imagine an AI recognicing this threat accordingly.

So the gamer in MWIF will at best be able to play vs. the AI (like in any other game) competitive standard situations but not any "gimmick" strategies, operations or tactics.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

The point is not that they are important or not, is that we are used to them now. It will be headhache to reach an agreement on which rule to drop and not. The group that did not get there favorite optional rule might just not buy the game. What I try to say is that for grognard to buy it, it will need to be as the paper game is, otherwise it will lose its appeal for those that have played the game before and more so to those who are still playing it regularly. I hope I can make you understand the feeling. btw most optional rule where here to simplifie the boardgame to make it more manageable for poor human mind, nearly all optional rules are consider a plus or to say otherwise are the true rules, and the option is to not use then if you dont have the time or place. I hope it helps you umderstmds our point of view.

I am very happy that people who don t know the game are interested in it, don t take me wrong.

Thank you Skanvak for your clarification on how you feel about rules, I feel your pain[where have we heard that before[;)]] You speak of the Grognard buying this game well IMHO this game wont make any money for Matrix or Steve if the general gaming public does not buy it, and do you think they will care about all these extra rules they only want a game that is playable, remember War in the Pacific great game if your retired and dont have a family to feed and take care of and have 12 hours a day to give to it [time element] It seems to me everytime I ask a legitimate question about this game it turns into a semi-war which is not what I meant it to be, Geez guys every rule cant be that important could it [&:] I am sure every board game player will buy this game, is there any idea [estimate] how many players have the board game?

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: fallgelb

I can hardly imagine an AI that is competitive. For example:

In my last game, the Russian player suddenly concentrated two white circle and two other TAC4 around Dneprpetrowsk. In this time I had five Oil Ressources.
So this was of course a very crucial situation. In this situation Ploesti has to be guarded quick and effective (more than the usual one FTR and rum. Corps). The AI would have to reconginze the threat of PARA and StratBomb and the combined "one-two-punch-scenario". I can not imagine an AI recognicing this threat accordingly.

So the gamer in MWIF will at best be able to play vs. the AI (like in any other game) competitive standard situations but not any "gimmick" strategies, operations or tactics.

Fallgelb how true, I waited with nerves quivering[&o] for the release of computer 3rd Reich, within several days I never played it again, Berlin was under attack from the Russians the British and the Americans, very few German units were defending Berlin, where were the AI Panzers, down fighting in Rumania, the game had a very good repositioning feature and in one move could have put a slew of units surrounding Berlin and maybe not change the final outcome but at least delay it, never played it again biggest waste of money of any war game I ever bought, the programmers who shall be nameless made a disgraceful game and should have refunded everyones money, I actually talked to them on the phone about the AI and their answer was well it will help you understand the board game better NICE HUH! But that was many years ago and we know how the AI has vastly improved[>:]

Bo

[Phelan]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

The point is not that they are important or not, is that we are used to them now. It will be headhache to reach an agreement on which rule to drop and not. The group that did not get there favorite optional rule might just not buy the game. What I try to say is that for grognard to buy it, it will need to be as the paper game is, otherwise it will lose its appeal for those that have played the game before and more so to those who are still playing it regularly. I hope I can make you understand the feeling. btw most optional rule where here to simplifie the boardgame to make it more manageable for poor human mind, nearly all optional rules are consider a plus or to say otherwise are the true rules, and the option is to not use then if you dont have the time or place. I hope it helps you umderstmds our point of view.

I am very happy that people who don t know the game are interested in it, don t take me wrong.

Thank you Skanvak for your clarification on how you feel about rules, I feel your pain[where have we heard that before[;)]] You speak of the Grognard buying this game well IMHO this game wont make any money for Matrix or Steve if the general gaming public does not buy it, and do you think they will care about all these extra rules they only want a game that is playable, remember War in the Pacific great game if your retired and dont have a family to feed and take care of and have 12 hours a day to give to it [time element] It seems to me everytime I ask a legitimate question about this game it turns into a semi-war which is not what I meant it to be, Geez guys every rule cant be that important could it [&:] I am sure every board game player will buy this game, is there any idea [estimate] how many players have the board game?

Bo

I´m not sure the analogy to War in the Pacific is accurate. Games designed as computer games from scratch have a LOT of little details and values for each and every unit etc, simply because when you are not limited to a set number of counters with fixed values you can do that. MWiF, being based on a boardgame, is actually... shall we say "chunky" in comparison. The tactical and strategic options in WiF are at least as interesting, but the time you spend on the game are spent on making choices, not micromanaging a zillion units. (Most strategic computer games these days, <hrrmmm Paradox hrmmm>, swamp their games with a thousand details and chrome to cover up the fact that the AI sucks, hoping people will be happy just building detailed stuff.)

A lot of the optional rules are actually such a standard to most WiF groups. They add a lot in play value but don´t really require a lot of extra time to play. If one wanted to make AI programming a little easier with regards to effects of optionals, I think it would make more sense to make some of the optionals always included instead of discarding any.

[fallgelb]

And there has to be a "seperate AI" for each permutation of important Options:
1. Oil (see example above)
2. Japanese compulsatory peace
3. Night Air Missions
4. AMPH Rules
etc.

[oscar72se]

Here´s a crazy idea. Wouldn't it be simpler if Steve just created a set of options which are available when playing with AI enabled? That way it just might be possible to finish the AI within the next couple of years... When AI mk 1 is finished, it will be possible to expand the "AI game" to include some variation to the options available. Just an idea...[;)]

[BallyJ]

ORIGINAL: oscar72se

Here´s a crazy idea. Wouldn't it be simpler if Steve just created a set of options which are available when playing with AI enabled? That way it just might be possible to finish the AI within the next couple of years... When AI mk 1 is finished, it will be possible to expand the "AI game" to include some variation to the options available. Just an idea...[;)]

At first sight this sounds like an idea worth thinking about.
regards John

[Skanvak]

Yep, this was just the idea of brianbrian, that I put up again. I'd like that there is some meaningful thinking on this one.

[pzgndr]

Since the game will have default options for novice, standard and enhanced levels of play, it may be worthwhile to prioritize AI performance accordingly. Ensure the release version AI is fully capable at the novice level and continue to improve the higher levels with patches. It may also be worth restricting the AI to the three default options? No telling what may happen with some of the option combinations some folks may want to experiment with...

[brian brian]

I'm pretty sure the first few decisions along those lines have already been made actually, and contrary to what you may think, plenty of players of the game choose a stripped down version to play. Of two of the best players I know, one prefers to play without divisions and another prefers not using pilots. It is easier for humans to reach the end of the game that way. Another good friend of mine just had to mothball a game on orders of the ultimate Commander-in-Chief ... the game's host's wife. They have been playing a game of Super Deluxe with every bell and whistle, meeting once a month; their game was proceeding in about real-time that way in that in just over three years of gaming, they had just reached 1943. Playing World in Flames electronically will be good protection from the nemesis' of monster games, cats and significant others, but it still takes a loooooong time to make all the decisions for hundreds if not scores of hundreds of pieces, and plenty of electronic games don't make it all the way to 1945 either. It might not seem that way in the heady days of 1940 when the action is brisk, but start fighting a half-dozen Bounce Combats per impulse from the mid game onwards and things start to drag. So an AI with a bit less of the esoterica that _could_ be included won't be that much of a compromise. In My Opinion.

[brian brian]

Oh and I'm positive Steve's AI will be able to protect a hex like Ploesti from any threat, though even human beings can have a tough time defending key hexes from the cunning double moves possible in WiF. There are very few hexes in the game with more than one resource in them, and they are all crucial places to defend, whether oil rules and the option to let some bomber units drop paratroopers is in use or not. In fact the routine to recognize such threats is already mostly done from the work already completed to set up the minor countries. Where I see the AI potentially creating the most difficulty is in teaching it smart but esoteric things to do while on the offensive, such as repairing captured factories with engineer units, or using a good screen of light cruisers to maintain a solid naval perimeter when using Cruisers in Flames and the Presence of the Enemy rule. Plenty of players pass on doing those two things in 3D games and I wouldn't miss them in the AI.

In a game this weekend, my Royal Marines were presented with a very decent chance to march on Berlin in the late fall of 1942, but I know how to play the game and I passed on this opportunity. Nothing crushes a newbie to the game more than triumphantly marching the Polish cavalry in to Berlin in October 1939 only to discover they get essentially no reward for that.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Phelan

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

The point is not that they are important or not, is that we are used to them now. It will be headhache to reach an agreement on which rule to drop and not. The group that did not get there favorite optional rule might just not buy the game. What I try to say is that for grognard to buy it, it will need to be as the paper game is, otherwise it will lose its appeal for those that have played the game before and more so to those who are still playing it regularly. I hope I can make you understand the feeling. btw most optional rule where here to simplifie the boardgame to make it more manageable for poor human mind, nearly all optional rules are consider a plus or to say otherwise are the true rules, and the option is to not use then if you dont have the time or place. I hope it helps you umderstmds our point of view.

I am very happy that people who don t know the game are interested in it, don t take me wrong.

Thank you Skanvak for your clarification on how you feel about rules, I feel your pain[where have we heard that before[;)]] You speak of the Grognard buying this game well IMHO this game wont make any money for Matrix or Steve if the general gaming public does not buy it, and do you think they will care about all these extra rules they only want a game that is playable, remember War in the Pacific great game if your retired and dont have a family to feed and take care of and have 12 hours a day to give to it [time element] It seems to me everytime I ask a legitimate question about this game it turns into a semi-war which is not what I meant it to be, Geez guys every rule cant be that important could it [&:] I am sure every board game player will buy this game, is there any idea [estimate] how many players have the board game?

Bo

I´m not sure the analogy to War in the Pacific is accurate. Games designed as computer games from scratch have a LOT of little details and values for each and every unit etc, simply because when you are not limited to a set number of counters with fixed values you can do that. MWiF, being based on a boardgame, is actually... shall we say "chunky" in comparison. The tactical and strategic options in WiF are at least as interesting, but the time you spend on the game are spent on making choices, not micromanaging a zillion units. (Most strategic computer games these days, <hrrmmm Paradox hrmmm>, swamp their games with a thousand details and chrome to cover up the fact that the AI sucks, hoping people will be happy just building detailed stuff.)

A lot of the optional rules are actually such a standard to most WiF groups. They add a lot in play value but don´t really require a lot of extra time to play. If one wanted to make AI programming a little easier with regards to effects of optionals, I think it would make more sense to make some of the optionals always included instead of discarding any.

Hi Phelan thank you for your thoughts appreciate it, I think I am being a little misunderstood about the rules thing, what I was comparing was MWIF vs WITP time element meaning both are a monster[size] of a game and I have seen posts where a lot of players have now put it in storage, on the hard drive of course. The reason seems to be in donating so much time to it at the cost of family needs and if your single your social life [married people dont have any[:D]] My whole point and now it seems not a good one was how do we [meaning Steve not us] get this game to the customer, Steve showed me a couple posts back what he has to go through just on a small segment of naval moves and if he has to do that with every rule coming down the pike I think our wait will be very long indeed, it is not a dig of anykind, to me its telling it like it is.

Bo

[bo]

sorry about this one how do you delete a post?

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: oscar72se

Here´s a crazy idea. Wouldn't it be simpler if Steve just created a set of options which are available when playing with AI enabled? That way it just might be possible to finish the AI within the next couple of years... When AI mk 1 is finished, it will be possible to expand the "AI game" to include some variation to the options available. Just an idea...[;)]

OUCH, next couple of years whew nice, yo Oscar I will be in nursing home, the cheapest one my wife or children can find[>:][:@] without internet[:@]

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I'm pretty sure the first few decisions along those lines have already been made actually, and contrary to what you may think, plenty of players of the game choose a stripped down version to play. Of two of the best players I know, one prefers to play without divisions and another prefers not using pilots. It is easier for humans to reach the end of the game that way. Another good friend of mine just had to mothball a game on orders of the ultimate Commander-in-Chief ... the game's host's wife. They have been playing a game of Super Deluxe with every bell and whistle, meeting once a month; their game was proceeding in about real-time that way in that in just over three years of gaming, they had just reached 1943. Playing World in Flames electronically will be good protection from the nemesis' of monster games, cats and significant others, but it still takes a loooooong time to make all the decisions for hundreds if not scores of hundreds of pieces, and plenty of electronic games don't make it all the way to 1945 either. It might not seem that way in the heady days of 1940 when the action is brisk, but start fighting a half-dozen Bounce Combats per impulse from the mid game onwards and things start to drag. So an AI with a bit less of the esoterica that _could_ be included won't be that much of a compromise. In My Opinion.

AMEN Brian

Bo