AI Extra Cost When It's Released?

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Has Steve mentioned whether the AI will "cheat" to give itself an advantage, or will it be a straight-up AI?

No artificial advantages for the artificial intelligence opponent.[:-]

We'll see how this goes as it develops, but presently my thinking is: "Be afraid, be very afraid."[:D]

Steve is the only person in a position to make a judgement at this stage. Wait and see. [:)]

[Dabrion]

I would freeze the AI project and concider put it into the public domain. That will decrease development time drastically, for MWiF and for a computer opponent. The gained dev-time could be spent on improving the boardgame sandbox and UI/UX!

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think that the more optional rules are left truly 'optional', the harder it will be to program a good AI. Not in terms of being impossible, but in terms of how long it will take to create one. And the longer it takes, the more unhappy people will be. So the best route will be to make some fixed decisions on which optionals to use or not use in the AI. Which will make people unhappy.

I would also think a "Learning Level" AI setting would be entirely possible and easy to create in the two introductory scenarios, which is where people learn to play the game. After that I'm not sure adding that to the To Do list would gain that much.

As for "learning level", that can be partially accommodated by probabilities of different strategies & tactics. For instance, the more predictable the AI Opponent is, the easier it is to defeat. Continuing that thought, if the AI Opponent always chooses an inferior tactic, then it will be weaker. A simple example: setting the odds ratio for what is a good attack by the Germans in Barbarossa can make the Germans overly aggressive or overly fearful.

Note that none of the above requires anything more that changing the value of a couple of parameters.

As everyone should know, the true difficulty in writing the AIO is making it play well. Dumbing it down won't be a problem.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

I would freeze the AI project and concider put it into the public domain. That will decrease development time drastically, for MWiF and for a computer opponent. The gained dev-time could be spent on improving the boardgame sandbox and UI/UX!

If you were going to build a 30 story condominium, would you want hundreds of untrained people to help you? For the AIO, some helping hands would be nice, but involving everyone who has a stray idea to write a script would be foolish. Sorry, but that's a solid truth in my opinion - see the next paragraph.

There must be an underlying structure and organized implementation layered onto that structure. That means the group has to work as a team, not a mass of individuals with each working on what he thinks is a good idea. All of that implies each person has an understanding of the structure and his role in the overall implementation. There will be a need to do some learning before writing scripts.

On the other hand, I am always willing to read other players ideas about how to play WIF well. The existing AI Opponent threads, one per major power plus dozens for setting up the minor countries, attest to that. Writing in those threads does not require any particular skill other than knowing how to play the game. You don't even have to be a genius at playing WIF, since many great ideas have strange points of origin.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


As for "learning level", that can be partially accommodated by probabilities of different strategies & tactics. For instance, the more predictable the AI Opponent is, the easier it is to defeat. Continuing that thought, if the AI Opponent always chooses an inferior tactic, then it will be weaker. A simple example: setting the odds ratio for what is a good attack by the Germans in Barbarossa can make the Germans overly aggressive or overly fearful.

yes, including that style of tweakable parameter (plus recommending the list of which optional rules favor Axis or Allies) should do the trick.

[Dorb]

ORIGINAL: norvandave

Steve, my apologies in advance if this was covered in another thread (searched but no luck). A couple of questions please on this masterwork..

Will there be an add on extra cost when the AI is released?

Do you have a rough timeline for the AI deployment?

Thanks. Looking forward to getting MWiF in the future...

Yes, this has been told up front ... just like the books and the maps!

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
...
On the other hand, I am always willing to read other players ideas about how to play WIF well. The existing AI Opponent threads, one per major power plus dozens for setting up the minor countries, attest to that. Writing in those threads does not require any particular skill other than knowing how to play the game. You don't even have to be a genius at playing WIF, since many great ideas have strange points of origin.

I would consider it essential to have a few klutz setups that pop up now and again. This would reflect reality...

"Hey Adolf... look over there at the Ardennes ... I think the French forgot to garrison a hex"
"Hey Josef... the front with the Germans is secure. I've got all of our troops adjacent to the border with the aircraft parked in nice neat rows in the middle of the airfields".
"Hey Benito ... lets declare war on the CW now before all of our transports are safe ... who needs merchant ships anyway?"

So even the newest of the noobs can assist by writing a half-baked, strategically-suspect tactically-indefensible setup which Steve might assign a 1% chance of appearing in a game. Just imaging the AAR when it does appear [:D]

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

I would freeze the AI project and concider put it into the public domain. That will decrease development time drastically, for MWiF and for a computer opponent. The gained dev-time could be spent on improving the boardgame sandbox and UI/UX!

And just who is going to fix bugs when they come up?

Too many cooks spoil the soup after all.

[76mm]

No disrespect intended toward Steve at all, but I find it difficult to believe that this will be the first commercial wargame ever to have a competent AI, especially when you consider the implications of the various combinations of optional rules which may/may not be activated. Maybe possible OK for shorter scenarios but hardly for the campaigns

[celebrindal]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

I would freeze the AI project and concider put it into the public domain. That will decrease development time drastically, for MWiF and for a computer opponent. The gained dev-time could be spent on improving the boardgame sandbox and UI/UX!

If you were going to build a 30 story condominium, would you want hundreds of untrained people to help you? For the AIO, some helping hands would be nice, but involving everyone who has a stray idea to write a script would be foolish. Sorry, but that's a solid truth in my opinion - see the next paragraph.

There must be an underlying structure and organized implementation layered onto that structure. That means the group has to work as a team, not a mass of individuals with each working on what he thinks is a good idea. All of that implies each person has an understanding of the structure and his role in the overall implementation. There will be a need to do some learning before writing scripts.

On the other hand, I am always willing to read other players ideas about how to play WIF well. The existing AI Opponent threads, one per major power plus dozens for setting up the minor countries, attest to that. Writing in those threads does not require any particular skill other than knowing how to play the game. You don't even have to be a genius at playing WIF, since many great ideas have strange points of origin.

I'd be willing to PM a team of folks working on it if you need.

As for AI, i'd prefer to see it going faster than PBEM.. i'm just not satisfied that PBEM lends its self well to something that has so much interaction between folks in various phases...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: celebrindal

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

I would freeze the AI project and concider put it into the public domain. That will decrease development time drastically, for MWiF and for a computer opponent. The gained dev-time could be spent on improving the boardgame sandbox and UI/UX!

If you were going to build a 30 story condominium, would you want hundreds of untrained people to help you? For the AIO, some helping hands would be nice, but involving everyone who has a stray idea to write a script would be foolish. Sorry, but that's a solid truth in my opinion - see the next paragraph.

There must be an underlying structure and organized implementation layered onto that structure. That means the group has to work as a team, not a mass of individuals with each working on what he thinks is a good idea. All of that implies each person has an understanding of the structure and his role in the overall implementation. There will be a need to do some learning before writing scripts.

On the other hand, I am always willing to read other players ideas about how to play WIF well. The existing AI Opponent threads, one per major power plus dozens for setting up the minor countries, attest to that. Writing in those threads does not require any particular skill other than knowing how to play the game. You don't even have to be a genius at playing WIF, since many great ideas have strange points of origin.

I'd be willing to PM a team of folks working on it if you need.

As for AI, i'd prefer to see it going faster than PBEM.. i'm just not satisfied that PBEM lends its self well to something that has so much interaction between folks in various phases...

When the time comes, I'll ask for people who want to help with the AIO and organize the group according to each individual's interests and skills. It shouldn't be difficult to find a role for anyone who is interested. But there will be an upper limit to how many cooks can gather around the broth.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

No disrespect intended toward Steve at all, but I find it difficult to believe that this will be the first commercial wargame ever to have a competent AI, especially when you consider the implications of the various combinations of optional rules which may/may not be activated. Maybe possible OK for shorter scenarios but hardly for the campaigns

Ever played TOAW 3 or the Command Ops series?

Cheers, Neilster

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: Neilster
Allowing AIs to "cheat" is a bad idea. It warps the game. Better to use optional rules for play balance.

Ideally, if the AI is really good, then the optional rules should provide sufficient flexibility. But whatever rules are selected, they apply for all players. Since MWiF could have up to 6 players, there could be multiplayer games of less than 6 where some players could be set to AI or human players get replaced by AI. In these cases, depending on how the AI turns out, some specific bonuses and/or difficulty levels for individual AI players may be needed or desired. I don't necessarily see cheats as a bad idea, they're just compensation for AI weaknesses. And for some newbie human players in multiplayer games, this might also be a nice feature to have.

As far as I know, the AI will either play the Axis or the Allies, not individual powers. Hence optionals that clearly help one or the other side will be able to be chosen.

Very early on on I suggested giving the AI an advantage but I was completely dissuaded. I can't remember the details but I think it involved the humans changing the way they would normally play because they knew the AI had an unfair advantage. That's why I suggested it warps the game. From what I've seen, I'm confident the AI will be quite strong. Expert players will load up the AI with advantageous optionals or play each other.

Cheers, Neilster

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Ever played TOAW 3 or the Command Ops series?

Dabbled TOAW 3 years ago, never played Command Ops.

I should also say that I have seen competent AIs for shortish scenarios, but for all the games that I buy, I typically play the longest scenarios available, and inevitably the AI breaks down sooner or later as the scripting runs out, the game takes an unforeseen turn, etc. To the extent that an AI can stay in a long scenario at all, it is generally because of "AI cheating".

[Rasputitsa]

All of wargaming is a cheat, not only for the AI, but also for human players, no real commander ever had the amount of information that human players have access to in these games, movement allowances set for weather effects that haven't happened yet, instant obedience from subordinate units, etc..

A realistic representation for the Soviet command in June 1941 is that you wouldn't see the correct positions for most of the axis units and neither would you see where a good number of your own units were. A large proportion of your moment orders would not be carried out, but no game reproduces this fully, because nobody wants to play that way, games have to be playable and enjoyable, so we cheat history to get a better game.

The AI is unlikely to be good at imaginative blitzkrieg actions, but those were rare, most of WW2 was an attritional slugging match with logistics and planning more important (WIF territory).

The AI doesn't have to be a genius to simulate Allied performance in the early years, or the Axis digging in to hold their gains for the later years. By choosing the right scenarios and setting suitable options, it is easily possible to get a challenging game out of the AI in many game titles and hopefully WIF with offer the same.

The AI will probably not be able to do everything a human opponent could achieve, but it doesn't have to, with a little imagination a good game can still be had.[:)]

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Ever played TOAW 3 or the Command Ops series?

Dabbled TOAW 3 years ago, never played Command Ops.

I should also say that I have seen competent AIs for shortish scenarios, but for all the games that I buy, I typically play the longest scenarios available, and inevitably the AI breaks down sooner or later as the scripting runs out, the game takes an unforeseen turn, etc. To the extent that an AI can stay in a long scenario at all, it is generally because of "AI cheating".

The consensus is that the AI in TOAW 3 is good. The AI in the Command Ops series is the best in wargaming. I really suggest you have a look at that series. It's really excellent and you might be surprised.

Cheers, Neilster

[Neilster]

Chess AIs often don't do anything spectacular but are hard to beat because they don't make silly mistakes and they don't miss oportunities. This is an aspect of the MWiF AI that will be important.

Their human opponent may be much better at strategic planning and lots of other things but may overlook that a paradrop on some port is possible, has a high probability of success and can lead to more units then being shipped in with dire consequences etc etc. The very complication of the game and wealth of possible moves will assist the AI in this respect.

Cheers, Neilster

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Neilster
As far as I know, the AI will either play the Axis or the Allies, not individual powers. Hence optionals that clearly help one or the other side will be able to be chosen.

I noticed this reading through the manuals the other day. Ditto for PBEM too apparently. So multiplayer will only work with NetPlay, when all players must be logged in at the same time. So not much flexibility switching between NetPlay, pbem, and swapping players with AI? That may need reconsideration in the future.

But since plan is for AI to play an entire side, the optional rules should provide sufficient play balance. That should work for most players, but again the multiplayer community may want some more flexibility down the road.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Neilster
The consensus is that the AI in TOAW 3 is good. The AI in the Command Ops series is the best in wargaming. I really suggest you have a look at that series. It's really excellent and you might be surprised.

Excellent, thanks. I've been waiting for Command Ops to come out with a East Front game and then will check it out. I'm not big on TAOW's interface and am not sure I'll pick that one up again.

[brian brian]

There are actually only a very few optional rules that have a dramatic impact on balance. The majority of them add detail ("chrome"), with slight subsidiary effects on game results. Most of those are because if a rule favors the attacker, this can favor the Axis, which then has an easier time expanding. And the Allies get that attacking benefit in the 2nd half of the game.

One 'balancing' rule already in the game could be considered an AI cheat - the Food in Flames optional. It generally gives the CW 3 extra production points per turn as long at they maintain a convoy link to the other CW Home Countries. There isn't really much on the Axis side that is similar; perhaps playing without an Oil rule would help the Axis as much, though probably more. But ignoring oil in a game about WWII, even with an AI opponent, might not appeal to people interested in history, rather than just some complicated gaming.

The designer of the game has suggested from the beginning that the game can be balanced by adding or subtracting resources from the USA. Not sure if this would be considered an "AI Cheat", but it would be a very simple way to do it for either side in either direction, without changing any of the decision logic the AI uses at all.