a new .map to improve AI?

[Gandalf Parker]

OK I think we still have time for this. If someone modifys the Aran .map file (eye is overused already) to provide the AI some of these items maybe we all can see what these "needs" are?

1. The AI is massing weak troops

How about if each AI started the game with another army of hvy and elite units? Or even 2 more armys.

2. The AI wont protect his pretender/commanders/priests/mages

If I actually BUILT the pretenders for each AI then I could assign bodyguards to it. I can also bodyguard priests and mages but only if the .map file gives them.

3. The AI wont build forts

I could start the AI's with a couple of additional provinces and forts/temples/labs

4. The AI's battlefield tactics could be better

Hmmm I dont see where I could help this much. I could toss in a bunch of ally commands so that the AI's dont waste time and resources fighting each other.

5. The AI is making very odd things. IE. wandering around with his pretender alone etc.

Hmmm bodyguards is all I can think of.

6. The AI won't stay in a province, it is always moving his armies.

I think this is a good tactic for an AI. If you cant make it capable of good decisions based on whats coming then moving around alot helps.

7. The AI won't make complex strategic maneuvers. IE. Making a focused attack against a province.

Not sure what can be done here unless a new map image (tga file) is created with more bottlenecks.

8. The AI won't equip his supercombatants..at least I've never seen that in the demo.

That would tend to be very late game but if I create the pretenders I CAN also give them magic items.

The problem with so much pre-placement on such a map is that it wont have alot of replay value. The AIs would always start in the same provinces.

Also, should I only do this for the AI's that cannot be selected for human play? Or should I do it for all the races. If its all, then the human player will also have his pretender pre-selected and extra troops at start.

[licker]

Not to belittle your efforts Gandalf, they are quite appreciated, but I have a little pet peeve

I don't think its accurate to characterize senerio design or map scripting as improvements to the AI. Merely giving the AI handouts (ala HI, forts, labs, ...) does nothing other than to add a handicap to the playing field. I'm not saying that these types of actions are not fun or interesting or useful, just that they do nothing to actually improve the AI directly. It makes for a more challenging experience, which is what many people (myself included) are after, but it reminds me of the old parable, "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime."

Without unfairly characterizing your (and Alex's) work as being band-aid solutions, that's what they are *when talking about improving the AI*. I think there is more to this AI issue than merely making a challenging senerio for people to enjoy.

Anyway, I enjoy and appreciate your work, it may just be an issue of semantics, but I see some danger in claming that AI weaknesses can be overcome by scripting map files. I fear that it can lead to an environment where not enough attention is paid to the underlying problems in the AI, the assertation being that all you need is a good user made map to find a challenge. There are more challenges to be had than simply that.

Again I don't mean to detract from what you are trying to do, hopefully it will prove valuable to the more general discussion of the AI, as well as entertaining to play. All I'm asking is that some care is taken when saying that these maps are fixes to AI problems, I just don't see how that can be the case.

Again, respectfully submitted

[-Storm-]

Originally posted by licker:

I don't think its accurate to characterize senerio design or map scripting as improvements to the AI. Merely giving the AI handouts (ala HI, forts, labs, ...) does nothing other than to add a handicap to the playing field.

Exactly. Still thanks for the map.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by licker:
Not to belittle your efforts Gandalf, they are quite appreciated, but I have a little pet peeve

I don't think its accurate to characterize senerio design or map scripting as improvements to the AI. Merely giving the AI handouts (ala HI, forts, labs, ...) does nothing other than to add a handicap to the playing field.

Im sorry but I disagree. I think this IS an effort to fix the AI. It doesnt apparently seem to be the massive programming effort fix that you want but it IS a fix.

For one game only? yes. Not as good as programming smarts into the AI? Yes. But then just as your image of fixing the AI is above mine, there are still levels of fix above yours. In fact, if you read the AI newsGroups there is a standard joke that AI means Almost Implemented since anytime its completed it gets named something else with a new level assigned to the desired AI not yet achieved.

Anyway, just as the previous thread was for a purpose, so it this one. In the short time left before the full game comes out, maybe we can whip out a .map that some of the unhappy people might enjoy. Do you see any way that .map commands could be used to simulate a poor Version of the AI fixes that people have asked for?

[licker]

I'm not sure where you infer that I want a massive programing fix to the AI. I'd be happy with the ability to externalize some/many/all of the inputs and responces for the AI and allow modders to tweek them. That request is somewhat similar to what you are actually doing, but its on a general level, not for a specific map.

I think though that we are hung up on the meaning of AI, or at least how we are applying it in terms of current game play, that's fine. I still don't see scripted senerios as improvements to what I term AI, though they are, when well done, improvements to gameplay. There is, in my mind, a difference that's all.

[licker]

"Do you see any way that .map commands could be used to simulate a poor Version of the AI fixes that people have asked for? "

Well I don't really know what you can do with the .map commands, but I'd have to say no. At least from my perspective the AI fixes are fixes that are meant to be employed by the AI throughout the course of the game, not merely handicaps at startup. Even if you can script in additional HI every turn, or script in free temples, etc. for every xth province captured, its still not an improvement to the AI.

It is an increased challenge, it is an improvement to the computerplayers (don't want to use AIs there...) ability to Last in a game, but it is 'artificial' for lack of a better word. Its a crutch, its a bonus that has no bearing in reality (reality being what it is for an computer game ) I don't mind devs or modders using the tools they have to make games that do this, but I don't call it 'improving the AI' I may call it improving gameplay or increasing the difficulty, but it's a band-aid fix, it doesn't do anything to effect how well the AI can actually manage it's empire, its a crutch.

And therein probably lies our difference in what we mean by AI, I mean the algorythems that control the responses to whatever inputs are measured, not the computerplayed nation itself. That said, I understand that it is a tall order to make a truely competative AI for a game like Dom, however, I also think that there are probably some simple improvments or tweeks that can be made to the existing set of inputs and responses. I outlined this generally in the big AI thread so I won't do it again here, other than to say that I hope it is possible to externalize some of these resonses and inputs into text files (ala MoO3 and SEIV) so that modders can make their own attempts at creating a tougher AI. Again I'm talking about improving unit selection, research selection, province build up (forts, labs, def, ...) army compostion, pretender design, ...

All of those aspects (and many others) can exist in tables with values dependant on various inputs from the game situation. Thats what I want, that's how I see 'easier' improvements to the AI. Of course all those ideas could be moot if its not possible or too difficult for those tables to be externalized. But that's not really my point, my point is that handicapping and making scripted senerios is an excellent way to provide a better challenge, it is not however, a direct change to the AI, as I have termed it.

Anyway, I think we are after the same thing, better game play, I just think we are a bit crossed on our use of the term AI.


-edit Oh and I'm sorry if you feel that I'm corrupting your thread, I do think that your maps are excellent and entertaining, it is not my intention to draw this thread away from promoting your work and getting more feedback on it, though I fear I may have...

[ November 04, 2003, 21:00: Message edited by: licker ]

[-Storm-]

Originally posted by licker:
"Do you see any way that .map commands could be used to simulate a poor Version of the AI fixes that people have asked for? "

Well I don't really know what you can do with the .map commands, but I'd have to say no. At least from my perspective the AI fixes are fixes that are meant to be employed by the AI throughout the course of the game, not merely handicaps at startup. Even if you can script in additional HI every turn, or script in free temples, etc. for every xth province captured, its still not an improvement to the AI.

It is an increased challenge, it is an improvement to the computerplayers (don't want to use AIs there...) ability to Last in a game, but it is 'artificial' for lack of a better word. Its a crutch, its a bonus that has no bearing in reality (reality being what it is for an computer game ) I don't mind devs or modders using the tools they have to make games that do this, but I don't call it 'improving the AI' I may call it improving gameplay or increasing the difficulty, but it's a band-aid fix, it doesn't do anything to effect how well the AI can actually manage it's empire, its a crutch.

And therein probably lies our difference in what we mean by AI, I mean the algorythems that control the responses to whatever inputs are measured, not the computerplayed nation itself. That said, I understand that it is a tall order to make a truely competative AI for a game like Dom, however, I also think that there are probably some simple improvments or tweeks that can be made to the existing set of inputs and responses. I outlined this generally in the big AI thread so I won't do it again here, other than to say that I hope it is possible to externalize some of these resonses and inputs into text files (ala MoO3 and SEIV) so that modders can make their own attempts at creating a tougher AI. Again I'm talking about improving unit selection, research selection, province build up (forts, labs, def, ...) army compostion, pretender design, ...

All of those aspects (and many others) can exist in tables with values dependant on various inputs from the game situation. Thats what I want, that's how I see 'easier' improvements to the AI. Of course all those ideas could be moot if its not possible or too difficult for those tables to be externalized. But that's not really my point, my point is that handicapping and making scripted senerios is an excellent way to provide a better challenge, it is not however, a direct change to the AI, as I have termed it.

Anyway, I think we are after the same thing, better game play, I just think we are a bit crossed on our use of the term AI.


-edit Oh and I'm sorry if you feel that I'm corrupting your thread, I do think that your maps are excellent and entertaining, it is not my intention to draw this thread away from promoting your work and getting more feedback on it, though I fear I may have...

Once again, I totally agree with you. You've got the point about this.

[Gandalf Parker]

I wont quote an entire post for a short answer. True that by AI I meant the computer player rather than the code. I still think any real fix to the AI whether internal or external is a long way off. At minimum it would be when people have played the full game and had a chance to comment on it.

And I feel that playing with some of the settings requested would bring some points to light.

In any case this thread isnt serving its purpose since no one has responded to the project. This thread should probably be deleted.

[Particle]

Gandalf, you have my thanks for this map, I have lot of fun with it.
Indeed it is lot harder to play on your map, however it won't solve the problems of the AI.
((I won't play 'normal' games with the demo, it offers no challenge. Your map offers challenge.))

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by Particle:
Gandalf, you have my thanks for this map, I have lot of fun with it.
Indeed it is lot harder to play on your map, however it won't solve the problems of the AI.
((I won't play 'normal' games with the demo, it offers no challenge. Your map offers challenge.))

Im not sure yet if the "problems" with the AI are problems, except in quick rush games. Giving the AI player certain starting advantages might solve those problems for demo play while not destroying the long-game late-play tactics of the AI.