sage Posted November 14, 1999 Share Posted November 14, 1999 Wargame with better AI? That's easy: TacOps. By far. Ask, and you shall receive. Why does TacOps have a better AI (aside from the fact that it doesn't have to worry about 3d pathfinding and is generally a simpler model)? This (as I understand -- MajorH can probably do a better job of explaining than myself) is why: Pre-scripting. Each one of this battles has a number of different pre-scipted possibilities for the enemy. There are enough of these, and enough that look "close" to each other that it is not immediately obvious what the AI's plan is. Because the tactical AI is very good at reactively changing the line of advance, you can't even be sure once you have figured out the line of advance that it will stay on that line. Why is multiple (or, in this case, many) scripts for an attacking AI preferable? Well: teaching an AI to defend is easier than attacking. So defending is basically taking care -- but attacking is where AI's suck. Why? Because they don't often come up with a credible "plan" like a human player. The slowness and lack of deciveness that the CM AI gets attacks off the ground is a prime example (I say this after complete anhilating the American attack on what's it town -- why? Because while he was pussyfooting his tanks around, he managed to drive them into my 88's LOS, one at a time -- he should have charged through the killzone -- probably would have lost, at most, 2. Ditto for infantry). Scripting + a reactive AI creates a situation that is much close to real life. Afterall, what is a battle plan? It is a script for your forces. (Okay Coy. A to here, provide covering fire while Coy. B advances to here. Keep your platoons close. Rush when you get close.) Naturally, the plan goes all to hell, and the reactive AI kicks in. TacOps is great at attack decively (or feinting AI, while attacking B, or having a large attack at AI, while keeping enough pressure on B that you can't adjust your forces, or or or...). So, technically, does TacOps have a better AI? Probably not. But I dislike the term AI -- it is misleading. When I play against the computer, I don't want an "Artificial Intelligence." I want a "Computerized Opponent." If the scenario designers has the option to provide it with "rally points," "killzones," and good defensive locations and half-a-dozen different scripted plans, then great. I think the Compterized Opponent will become more challenging. Sage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark L Posted November 15, 1999 Share Posted November 15, 1999 Well, I've only finished two games so far (as the Yanks in Riesberg and Last Defence). From what I've seen so far, I don't think the AI in the CM demo will give me too much problem in terms of victory. (although, perhaps this impression will change after a few more playings ). I've also been using the random computer set-up option, rather than the predefined set-up for my first games. Maybe the predefined set-up is better optimized? However, even if I don't have too much trouble defeating the AI, it still has presented me with some pretty cool and interesting situations to respond to, which keeps the game interesting, IMHO. (besides, it's nice to WIN ) I also tend to set my own goals (minimize casualties, total victory or nothing, etc.). And in the release version, if I think it's too easy, I can always use the scenario editor and beef up the computers forces (TWO Tigers in Last Defence, anyone? ). I think Sage's observations regarding scripted vs. non-scripted AI is correct. The downside of a scripted AI is that it makes scenario design far more difficult (tedious) if you want to povide for a scripted computer opponent. However, I think it would be kind of neat to allow for a scripted AI, as an option. It's sometimes interesting to go back and replay a turn from the autosave file (I've gotten in the habit of saving the autosaves of interesting turns). A turn can play out quite differently each time, with a wide variety of AI responses. It's also been noted that the AI doesn't "remember" things from game to game, and doesn't have foreknowledge of reinforcements ot OOBs. It wouldn't bother if it DID have such knowledge and could use it somehow. And what would be REALLY cool, is if the AI could learn from repeated replaying of a scenario, and adapt somewhat to a persons particular playing style (on a scenario by scenario basis). I don't know diddly about AI programming, however, and from what I gather, this kind of AI is very sophisticated and may not be realistically feasible; but maybe it could be done in some limited way? Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted November 15, 1999 Share Posted November 15, 1999 MarkEzra, of COURSE there hasn't been an AI yet that you can't beat. You have REAL intelligence. Computers may be able to do math faster and more accurately, or count faster, or perform dozens of complex tasks simultaneously, but the human brain still has an edge in the sort of problem-solving that CM requires. The way I see it, we can see a 3D map and draw conclusions, make plans, etc just on the basis of the map we can see. A computer cannot *see* the map; it has to render it into points in space, as well as lots of other things, things that humans do automatically. When a computer translates map points into formulae, works with them, and then translates them back, something is bound to get lost in the process. Humans don't have to think about that; we just do it. Add to that the fact that even with fuzzy logic and stuff, a computer's behavior still comes down to formulae. They may have lots of probable outcomes, but they will be nowhere near as unpredictable and inventive as the human brain. (Now I'm considering DeepBlue as a possible retort to my argument) Keep in mind that the pieces in chess do EXACTLY as told; therefore, it's possible to make plans for 50 moves ahead. It's impossible to do that in a game where the pieces will not always do what they're told; it's like trying to predict the weather--we're pretty accurate out to 24 hours, but after that all bets are off. It was supposed to be all-cloudy, cold, and rain most of the day here in NJ. Instead it was mostly-cloudy, about 65 degrees (YARDWORK!) and the sky was clear at about 6 pm. My point with all this? Until humans can generate TRUE artificial intelligence, rather than an imitation, common sense and ingenuity will allow gamers to win more often than not. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted November 15, 1999 Share Posted November 15, 1999 DjB: Well now if I can only get me wife to think I'm intelligent! LOL... You and I have no disagreement. I mean only to say that I fully expect to beat the AI in balanced scenario as these demos are. I can't see what all the fuss is about. It certainly seems to be a great/pro-active AI compared to any I've played (Steel Panthers (all, Panthers in Mist/Shadows, PG Ect.) I think you have the impression I was disapointed with the AI which is far from the case. Perhaps I should re read my post...or maybe it's one of those peskey flash backs from the 60's again! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted November 15, 1999 Share Posted November 15, 1999 For evidence of the AI's ability, look at my bigass post in the "Still too easy" thread. I exposed my bitter defeats for all the world to see... DjB ps MarkEzra, after I get done with my current PBEM (assuming my ego survives!) how 'bout a game? Email me in private. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts