Matrix Games Forums

I don't agree. The Oil rule balances the game towards the Allies (especially when playing with the destruction of factories/oil rule also)... The No ZOC on surprise impulse rule balances the game towards the Axis. Both of these have quite a large (and I think even a dramatic) impact on balance...

Resigned to it not appearing, but not being able to play as a particular nation while all the other nations were AI is going to be a shame.

Im more than prepared to accept that because of the cooperation between the US and CW, for instance, that it would be a mine field to code and involve potentially a lot of unsatisfactory compromises...... but i still say its a shame [;)]

The current plan is for all the optional rules to be included at some point. So not sure why you are resgining to something not occuring what it has been stated it will happen.

I believe he was referring to having the AI play specific major powers while humans play others.

Ah. More forum confusion I see.

I doubt that will happen. At least not at the start. Since the entire is based on just two sides. But who knows, maybe this is easier to code than we think [:)]

ORIGINAL: brian brian
The designer of the game has suggested from the beginning that the game can be balanced by adding or subtracting resources from the USA.

It may also worth considering simple resource adjustments for all major powers; e.g., Allied AI for France might need a boost in 1939/40 and USA adjustments wouldn't help with that. And again, for multiplayer games, it would also be nice for play balance to have something adjustable for individual players. It's not just an AI issue.

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: brian brian
The designer of the game has suggested from the beginning that the game can be balanced by adding or subtracting resources from the USA.

It may also worth considering simple resource adjustments for all major powers; e.g., Allied AI for France might need a boost in 1939/40 and USA adjustments wouldn't help with that. And again, for multiplayer games, it would also be nice for play balance to have something adjustable for individual players. It's not just an AI issue.

New optional rules are unlikely to be programmed. Play balance can be handled in a variety of ways.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
New optional rules are unlikely to be programmed. Play balance can be handled in a variety of ways.

I think we've got that, no new optional rules. But it's fair to discuss how players can adjust play balance, for either inexperienced human players or for possible AI weaknesses (TBD).

Toggling some optional rules on/off may be sufficient, but maybe not so much.

How about modding the scenarios for play balance, can resources be added/subtracted either directly or by aligning/de-aligning some minor countries, to provide either an Axis or Allied advantage? Can USA entry markers be added/subtracted? Not trying to beat a dead horse here, just exploring what options may be possible.

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
New optional rules are unlikely to be programmed. Play balance can be handled in a variety of ways.

I think we've got that, no new optional rules. But it's fair to discuss how players can adjust play balance, for either inexperienced human players or for possible AI weaknesses (TBD).

Toggling some optional rules on/off may be sufficient, but maybe not so much.

How about modding the scenarios for play balance, can resources be added/subtracted either directly or by aligning/de-aligning some minor countries, to provide either an Axis or Allied advantage? Can USA entry markers be added/subtracted? Not trying to beat a dead horse here, just exploring what options may be possible.

The data files are described in the appendices. If there isn't a data file for what you have in mind, then the data is embedded in the program. I've put a lot out there as CSV files which can be edited using a spreadsheet, a text file editor, or a database. But my task was not to create a WIF construction kit, so a lot of the finer details are internal to the program.

For the time being I think we should all just be grateful that such a massive and impressive game has finally been released. Very pleased with the amount of work and effort put into not only just the game mechanics, but all the fantastic documentation too. As a developer myself, I understand and appreciate how much of an undertaking MWiF project must have been. The AI is definitely something I look forward to as well. In order to release something in say mid-late 2014 (just speculating) it would be best to

- limit the AI to just Axis or Allied powers
- only for a set of standard variants (easier to code AI for) - can expand this as AI code grows.

Let's not start worrying about play balancing for the AI until we have some grounds to do so. I for one would like to see AI sooner than later.

I have to say that I am intrigued by the conceptual problems of simulating strategic and tactical decision-making for the AI under
uncertainty. The 'intelligence' available for the AI would have to be limited by the fog of war. Off the top of my head the AI
would have to consider optimal plans based upon its chosen maximum likelihood assumptions. The verisimilitude of the information
available to the AI would have to be variable depending upon time decay, communications (maybe a function of the robustness of supply lines?)
The programme would have to behave like an honest broker; knowing the truth of every unit's disposition and throwing a dice to determine the
outcome of each players moves.

Sounds more complex and interesting than programming chess!

Richard

You dont have supply in Chess And it is probably not possible to traverse the event space for even several impulses if you want to be feasible on a normal laptop.

You also need a (decision making) model for you agent to begin with in order to have ML or MAP criterions to base your decisions on. Question would be what a good scope for an agent would be. An HQ? Then you could solve a chess-like/-scoped problem for each HQ.

A chess-like minimax approach won't work for MWiF. I asked Steve about this many years ago. Too many terrain and unit types and too many possible moves. The AI thread from yonks ago would have more details of the Approach Steve is planning to take.

Cheers, Neilster

ORIGINAL: Neilster

A chess-like minimax approach won't work for MWiF. I asked Steve about this many years ago. Too many terrain and unit types and too many possible moves. The AI thread from yonks ago would have more details of the Approach Steve is planning to take.

Cheers, Neilster

The simple counter example for why minimax doesn't work is to consider your decisions making when going to the store. Too many variables explode the search space into infeasible. And for WIF, just consider how many possibilities there are for moving land units in one phase.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Too many variables explode the search space into infeasible. And for WIF, just consider how many possibilities there are for moving land units in one phase.

Roll on quantum computing!