What does AI mean to you?

[aaatoysandmore]

AI has always been an interesting topic. Seems so many have a different view of what an AI is. Some see an AI as a thinking animal that should be at least as smart as them.

Some see it as merely a number of numbers that react to other numbers in the face of a situation.

I see an AI as a combining of several things as a whole. I don't just see an AI as being only making tactical and strategic decisions by the numbers (fuzzy logic I think they call it) but adding in the handicaps and advantages as well as the difficulty level. That's what "I" look for in an AI, how well it combines them altogether as a whole to become challenging. I don't really care if it sees my moves or where I'm located or any of that. I'm not looking for a human opponent or a fair one out of an AI as much as I'm looking for a "challenge" out of it.

Too many games don't put enough difficulty levels for the AI and many games like a lot of Matrixgames/Slitherine games only put one. I'd like to see more handicaps and difficulty levels in future wargame AI.

What's your take on an ai and what would you like to see added or changed?

[TulliusDetritus]

What's the AI? Artificial Idiot?

Seriously, the thing that allows me to enjoy a game. So that "idiot" is a useful idiot in fact [:)] I always follow this rule of thumb: never ever break the AI. Doing that is just like a kid breaking his toy.

Human is the best option, that goes without saying, but it's a commitment I am not ready to accept (well, I did in WitE and AGEOD ACW 2). Exceptions. I'm an AI guy.

[zakblood]

the AI is everything to me, as i don't plan to or play online with others, so no AI or a poor AI means either once bought it doesn't get played, or it's so thick and un playable that i wished i hadn't played or bought it.

while i don't mind me cheating to gain an advantage against the AI, i don't wish the AI to have cheats built in to beat or make it un playable to me, one rule for me is fine, but a different rule for the AI isn't a good start, like it being able to see in FOW, then again i like it turned off for me so i get a easier ride, and only alter it if i win too ease and want more or a challenge, then again if i've bought it, i wish to play it how i like, and not how the developer has wished also, so i like quite a lot of freedom, no win games or battles can be rather boring quickly, and also pointless unless you wish to relive a history time frame etc

[E]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore
What's your take on an ai and what would you like to see added or changed?

I'm with Stephen Hawking on this one!

[wodin]

Be able to play a game that I wouldn't have been able to do with out it. That's it really. It's inclusion is vital if I'm going to purchase.

Also thankful I'm rubbish at games as I read a lot of people moaning about how useless AI's are and yet for me unless it's actually broke I've never had any problem with it! Hurrah for being rubbish.

[altipueri]

From the OP
"Too many games don't put enough difficulty levels for the AI and many games like a lot of Matrixgames/Slitherine games only put one. I'd like to see more handicaps and difficulty levels in future wargame AI. "

I agree so much with this. Give me as much latitude to play the game as possible. This applies to other things as well as difficulty.

"You like waving flags" - no I bloody don't, so let me turn them off.
"You like a hundred different pop up messages" - no I bloody don't - so let me turn them off easily, not requiring hours of work - mostly against Paradox that one

Bonus rant:

Update the ***king manuals.

[warspite1]

[Hand shoots up] Ooh ooh I know this one. It means Artificial Intelligence [:)]

[bairdlander2]

ORIGINAL: altipueri

.
"You like a hundred different pop up messages" - no I bloody don't - so let me turn them off easily, not requiring hours of work - mostly against Paradox that one

Bonus rant:

Update the ***king manuals.

The pop ups can be switched off in options.Takes approximately one and a half seconds, not hours.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: bairdlander

ORIGINAL: altipueri

.
"You like a hundred different pop up messages" - no I bloody don't - so let me turn them off easily, not requiring hours of work - mostly against Paradox that one

Bonus rant:

Update the ***king manuals.

The pop ups can be switched off in options.Takes approximately one and a half seconds, not hours.

You haven't played CK2 have you?

[bairdlander2]

Actually I was the assistant producer on that game,so I think I know what I am talking about

[Rosseau]

Back on topic, most AIs are okay until you learn the system. Fortunately, I don't read manuals much anymore and with so many games, and being slow anyway, I never learn the system. So AI stays pretty good.

Also, most people still play single player over MP, so AI is important. Unless that stat is changing due to all the MMO Steam games.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: bairdlander

Actually I was the assistant producer on that game,so I think I know what I am talking about

Don't think you do. You have to set each popup to different styles of information. Priority, 2nd class or 3rd class or message and whether to have the game stop or continue when the message pops up.

There is no button that turns them all off.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore
Some see an AI as a thinking animal that should be at least as smart as them.
Some see it as merely a number of numbers that react to other numbers in the face of a situation.
I see an AI as a combining of several things as a whole. I don't just see an AI as being only making tactical and strategic decisions by the numbers (fuzzy logic I think they call it) but adding in the handicaps and advantages as well as the difficulty level. That's what "I" look for in an AI, how well it combines them altogether as a whole to become challenging.

The typical game AI is certainly not a thinking/learning creature. It is a programmable computer opponent. That's neither good or bad, that's just the way it is. It can certainly be challenging or not challenging, depending on the solitaire player and his expectations. A lot depends on the programmer and how much time is devoted to including factors that make the computer opponent challenging: variability of decisions, probabilities that mimic what a human player does, difficulty levels not for "cheats" but as compensation for various AI weaknesses, etc.

A decent AI should play the game well by the rules and make reasonable choices at the strategic, operational and tactical levels. The player gets to play, whenever he wants to at his convenience against an always-willing computer opponent. And frankly, that's an important aspect of computer wargames for many players. It's just a game.

[operating]

When I see or read about an AI's shortcomings that are reported, also like to see or read that adjustments and play testing is being done as a result, it depends on how much expense the devs wish to dedicate to these problem areas.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore
Some see an AI as a thinking animal that should be at least as smart as them.
Some see it as merely a number of numbers that react to other numbers in the face of a situation.
I see an AI as a combining of several things as a whole. I don't just see an AI as being only making tactical and strategic decisions by the numbers (fuzzy logic I think they call it) but adding in the handicaps and advantages as well as the difficulty level. That's what "I" look for in an AI, how well it combines them altogether as a whole to become challenging.

The typical game AI is certainly not a thinking/learning creature. It is a programmable computer opponent. That's neither good or bad, that's just the way it is. It can certainly be challenging or not challenging, depending on the solitaire player and his expectations. A lot depends on the programmer and how much time is devoted to including factors that make the computer opponent challenging: variability of decisions, probabilities that mimic what a human player does, difficulty levels not for "cheats" but as compensation for various AI weaknesses, etc.

A decent AI should play the game well by the rules and make reasonable choices at the strategic, operational and tactical levels. The player gets to play, whenever he wants to at his convenience against an always-willing computer opponent. And frankly, that's an important aspect of computer wargames for many players. It's just a game.

The developers of Galactic Civ II last expansion tout a "learning" AI based on player moves at higher difficulties. Perhaps there are some that can finally learn as the player moves. I've always said this should be possible now with larger hard drives to be able to record the players moves game after game and look for patterns in the players movement. That's why I find Galactic Civ II a very good game and AI to play against. I was able to find one that could challenge me that appeared to be countering my moves.

[Franciscus]

For me a game HAS to have an AI, because I only play SP. I love a decent AI, and there are some games out there with them. I also prefer that the AI plays by the same rules as a human player, without cheats, although that is sometimes impossible.
Of course, if one tries to break an AI, sooner or later it "breaks". But that is not fun to me, I love to play "historically" and I am not a "top notch" wargamer so usually I get all that I want from a good AI.

I know nothing of programming, but know that an AI of an historical strategy/wargame, one way or the other has to have some form of scripts to help her play along what is historically expected/reasonable.
I personally have had lots of fun using some simple scripts- and an advanced form of "scripts" developed by Pocus ("Agents")- in HAN scenarios and some of AJE and PAR scenarios too - if you play against Hannibal "AI" in the second punic war scenarios you can expect the AI to be able to mount a proper Italy invasion across the Alps, which was something the "generic" coded AI never did (probably because it deemed it a completely crazy move [:D]) and to have a "plan" of what to do and how to do it once he gets to Italia [;)]

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Franciscus
I personally have had lots of fun using some simple scripts- and an advanced form of "scripts" developed by Pocus ("Agents")- in HAN scenarios and some of AJE and PAR scenarios too - if you play against Hannibal "AI" in the second punic war scenarios you can expect the AI to be able to mount a proper Italy invasion across the Alps, which was something the "generic" coded AI never did (probably because it deemed it a completely crazy move [:D]) and to have a "plan" of what to do and how to do it once he gets to Italia [;)]

And these scripts are public? Care to provide a link, please? [:)]

I usually play the 216 B.C scenario (after Cannae) as Rome, obviously. I would try to stop the Punic juggernaut trashing everything after the crossing of the Alps.

[Franciscus]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Franciscus
I personally have had lots of fun using some simple scripts- and an advanced form of "scripts" developed by Pocus ("Agents")- in HAN scenarios and some of AJE and PAR scenarios too - if you play against Hannibal "AI" in the second punic war scenarios you can expect the AI to be able to mount a proper Italy invasion across the Alps, which was something the "generic" coded AI never did (probably because it deemed it a completely crazy move [:D]) and to have a "plan" of what to do and how to do it once he gets to Italia [;)]

And these scripts are public? Care to provide a link, please? [:)]

I usually play the 216 B.C scenario (after Cannae) as Rome, obviously. I would try to stop the Punic juggernaut trashing everything after the crossing of the Alps.

They are not exactly public, but can be modded, of course. The modding of events and scripts in the game (as opposed to in the source DB that are not yet public) is not user-friendly, though...

[Rosseau]

That's probably the number-one reason I buy Ageod games - access to the scripts. But yes, I have learned my lessons how touchy modding that engine (and others) can be. However, I enjoy changing the unit stats and a few game events through the scripts.

Sorry, TulliusDetritus. Yes, altering or deleting that event might be quite easy to do, or could screw things up the event pipeline. I would try it for you but don't have the game installed.

It could be as easy as changing the date that the event fires to after the game, but another event might depend on its firing. Easy to test by finding the main XXX.sct event file for that scenario, searching for the event and backing up before changing anything.

[Qwixt]

In the context of PC gaming, simply put, it's the computer opponent. Outside of PC gaming, it means something different.