Matrix Games Forums

Mike,

Wouldn't you need to build an AI that "thinks" at the operational level? As far as I can see, the operational level stuff is handled by the scenario designer and the AI works at the tactical level.

Or is it there and I'm just not smart enough to see it? [:)]

JD

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

Mike,

Wouldn't you need to build an AI that "thinks" at the operational level? As far as I can see, the operational level stuff is handled by the scenario designer and the AI works at the tactical level.

Want yes. Need no. Generally if you give gamer's the tools to work with they can piece together an experience that is probably good and smart enough for most. That's probably a good initial goal. Operational Ai probably after human AI. MPer will probably be the best implementation.

Or is it there and I'm just not smart enough to see it? [:)]

JD

Huh? Problem?

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
Huh? Problem?

No, not at all. I may have confused things by throwing out terms without a word of explanation to level set.

In my mind, and in the context of this game, an operational AI would be one that could automatically handle an evolving situation over an extended period of time without having to be pre-programed for every foreseeable eventuality by a scenario builder on a per scenario basis. One that would continually evaluate a game situation during the course of a scenario and adopt an appropriate response.

For instance, lets say you want to build a "campaign" involving a fight for control of SLOCs lasting two or three weeks. This might be the familiar Red vs Blue cold war thing, where the Blue side needs to move men and materiel from point A to point B, and the Red side wants to deny access and prevent that from happening.

Red can "procure" and apply various forces, air, surface and sub-surface, to accomplish the goal, with the assumption that forces cost something to deploy... either in terms of an abstract weighted points system, or some sort of actual game world inducement to maintain a reserve or a commitment for other purposes.

Blue can adopt either an aggressive take-them-out-where-they-live approach, or a passive take-them-as-they-come approach. Again, this may be influenced by the number and nature of forces committed to the task.

This all seems doable, based on my understanding of how the scenario editor works.

The piece I'm not sure of is the ability of the AI to adapt to a changing balance of forces as successes and loses are incurred by either side during the course of the scenario. Would the AI be smart enough to run away and regroup so that it could come back to fight another day (eg, later in the scenario when reinforcements may be available) if the balance shifted against it? Would it understand that an early success might enable it to shift strategy and go for the jugular?

This is what I meant by an "operational thinking" AI.

I haven't tried to create a scenario like this therefore I have no idea whether or not you've made any sort of provision for it. So I wondered aloud if it might be in there, but I just haven't stumbled across it yet.

JD

Got it.

The AI doesn't understand win/loss etc. It does literally what its told by the static AI either by routines the player calls on (plotted, mission editor) and a few tactical behaviors (engaged offensive, defensive etc) added. What D's working on now (conditional logic in the event editor) will actually open this up a little more as you could use it to activate or deactivate missions. I think once we get the drop/add units action to the event editor this will round out things nicely as you can now have units do more than one thing and have some conditional logic to dictate that. Halsey it won't be but it should add a lot to what the game can do.

A smarter operational AI is going to be a challenge because air, sea and likely land by then are so entirely different and the scope of our models for each is very deep. So its complex, time consuming and would take considerable effort and testing to get right. The sad thing is even after that we still won't be able to match what Multiplayer's Human AI can do so it makes more sense to make sure the AI scripting tools (scenario editor, event editor) are in place so that human AI's can do their thing well.

Thats my take for now. Maybe D can add some thoughts on this.

I think we should work on a multiplier mode instead.
A scenario designer create a large setting, the it's up to human players on both sides to fully utilize their forces based on the situation.

On the other hand, maybe if we get more options in the events editor, then designers can cleverly script a dynamic or conditional opponent strategic / operational AI. Varying mission targets and loadouts for units come into mind.

One thing that could be done today without any additions is a "campaign" similar to Battlefront's Combat Mission series. Campaigns there are a storyline of linked scenarios but without real physical connections. Older Harpoon had some similar battlesets that followed a story. It does not provide what you are looking for where a long term campaign is linked together however it does provide the feel of gaming a long campaign.

Scenario sets like that could be built, and options could exist to go to a different scenario next depending on result.

Just a thought.

Yes, the Battleset concept is a good approach given the current tool set. This is something scenario designers can implement right now, and it adds significantly to the game experience (IMHO).

As you can probably tell by now, I'm a big advocate of campaign style game play. [:)]

The scenario linking option would probably be the best near term compromise given what Mike stated in his reply above. It would require additional development, but it would provide a huge boost (again, IMHO) in the "campaign" area. I would like to be able to re-cast my enhancement vote for this option.

I don't like the multi-player option at all. Not as a substitute for single player functionality at any rate. I just don't do multi-player... at all... ever.

JD

I don't like the multi-player option at all. Not as a substitute for single player functionality at any rate. I just don't do multi-player... at all... ever.

Totally agree. I hope the devs will put there time into any other option instead of MP.

ORIGINAL: Stevechase

I don't like the multi-player option at all. Not as a substitute for single player functionality at any rate. I just don't do multi-player... at all... ever.

Totally agree. I hope the devs will put there time into any other option instead of MP.

ditto for me

Well I'm sure there are some how do like the idea of mp. I for one would like the idea of cooperative play where friends can play together against the ai.

Don't misunderstand... I'm not lobbying against multi-player. I just don't want to see multi-player used as a substitute for single player functionality. That doesn't work for me.

JD

Multiplayer should be a LOW priority. Here is why. This is a niche game. We dont have a very large pool of players, much less ones who have the time to sit down and devote time to a multiplayer session. This isnt Xbox Live with a million people online. Right now as Im typing this, there are 25 people including me logged into the forum. I would like to think that those 25 people are some of the ones who would have the time to play an MP game. But more than likely not.

I would very much want to see a host of things improved on/or fixed before we see the devs start worrying about multiplayer. The various posts on this forum and the wish list reflect this.

People prob wont like me for stating all this, I would like to see MP added in the future...but lets concentrate on making the single player experience the absolute best it can be without having a security clearance.

ORIGINAL: SSN754planker

Multiplayer should be a LOW priority. Here is why. This is a niche game. We dont have a very large pool of players, much less ones who have the time to sit down and devote time to a multiplayer session. This isnt Xbox Live with a million people online. Right now as Im typing this, there are 25 people including me logged into the forum. I would like to think that those 25 people are some of the ones who would have the time to play an MP game. But more than likely not.

I would very much want to see a host of things improved on/or fixed before we see the devs start worrying about multiplayer. The various posts on this forum and the wish list reflect this.

People prob wont like me for stating all this, I would like to see MP added in the future...but lets concentrate on making the single player experience the absolute best it can be without having a security clearance.

+1