AI for strategy games

[J Von Zeppelin]

Other than deep blue for chess, has anyone found a truly challenging AI opponent for any strategic level wargame? AI's that use the compu-cheat method of just building 10x the normal number of units do not count in my eyes (this just chages the game to the point where it is not the same game)

I sadly have not! Even more sadly, the best I have seen (for a "strategic level" game) is for RiskII. The AI can actually hold its own for a few turns. On occasion I have come close to losing to it. but this really is a VERY simple strategy game.

[J Von Zeppelin]

The reason I ask is the following. Would anyone really miss the AI in a strategy game. I usually use the AI for "tutorial" purposes only. That is when a game is new I play the AI to figure it out. Once I know how to play the game I can usually beat the AI pretty soon after. If I want to enjoy a game for longer I need to play another human being. This is the only way I get any longevity out of a game.

So would anybody really cry if a strategy game was purely multiplayer (with no AI)?

[J P Wagner]

Of course people would care if there was no AI...not everyone has the time or inclination to play pbem/multiplayer games, so an AI is needed....hopefully as time moves on, the AI in games will continually be improved...

[ December 01, 2003, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: J P Wagner ]

[pzgndr]

The AI can actually hold its own for a few turns.

Are you trying to be funny or have you not played Strategic Command at all?

The AI in SC is known to be incomplete, in that several important strategies (eg, Norway, Sealion, North Africa, Italy, etc.) are lacking and these weaknesses can be exploited by experienced players. But for what it does have, particularly air/ground operations on continental Europe, the AI is very good. Not perfect, but very challenging. It will definitely hold its own and take advantage of an inexperienced player.

Would anyone really miss the AI in a strategy game.

Yes.

[J Von Zeppelin]

For the last year or so I have been writing a strategic wargame. The main goal being to balance simple game play with some level of realism. Let me tell you, this has been a lot of work. I am finishing up hot-seat play first. Then I am hoping to implement multiplayer (TCP/IP etc.) I have thought about AI and the task seems very daunting. It would be difficult to write a functional AI, never mind a challenging one. So I must admit that this puts a severe (self-justifying) bias on my dislike of AI.

Just so you know where I am coming from.

[J P Wagner]

Well, World in Flames is already out there, and has been for some time...it is a WWII strategic sim that is for hotseat and pbem play....but even ADG recognized that this game needed an AI, which is why they have handed the project over to Matrix Games....for me, WIF and SC2 are my two "cant wait" games to get...I have great confidence that the AI for SC2 will be much better than it is now....

[Edwin P.]

But for what it does have, particularly air/ground operations on continental Europe, the AI is very good. Not perfect, but very challenging. It will definitely hold its own and take advantage of an inexperienced player.

I agree tactically the AI is very good. If the new AI concentrates its Air Fleets on one front it would be even harder to beat.

[pzgndr]

this has been a lot of work

Yes it is. There are plenty of PBEM software packages out there so that just about anyone can design a strategy board game and play it on a computer. Further refinement and customizing can put more bells and whistles on such a game, but it remains essentially a board game played via computer. The real challenge for strategy game designers and programmers is getting an AI to work well.

SC experimented with fuzzy logic on three different levels to get an AI that is challenging and unpredictable enough to make each game different. That's an accomplishment for a first effort. There's enough of a foundation to build on to expect SC2 to be much better. :cool:

While some gamers refuse to play any AI and others refuse to play any humans, most customers want and expect both. An AI may not equal an experienced human player, but it is convenient and always ready when the player is. It's an old argument with lots of pros and cons. Just recognize that a computer game these days without a decent AI will have limited appeal. Good luck.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

I could care less if a game had an AI, I am happy to play hotseat and talk to myself while I play both sides

But i recognise I am an oddity, and the market requires a game have a reasonable attempt at an AI.

[J Von Zeppelin]

I am probably a lot like you here. Although, I prefer to play a friend than to spend the time talking to myself.

But I think it is true that the market requires AI.

I am primarily building this game for myself anyway... but I always want to keep my options open.

[SeaMonkey]

I just had to chime in here. Les and JVZ have it right but need some more refinement. Yes I prefer the hotseat against myself but you must develop temporary amnesia to make it work. How do you do that, easy. Start a bunch of games against the AI and a bunch of games PBEM and confuse yourself to such a degree that you don't know what game is which and what you are trying to accomplish in any of them. Then each time you open the game you have to start fresh, but with the knowledge of the general flow of the game its not to hard to get reoriented. So you see the AI is a must........must add to the confusion.

[J P Wagner]

During the 70's I only played with myself...uh..let me rephrase that... besides that, during the 70's most of my wargaming was solo as I could never find anyone interested in the genre'..there were occasions when I was able to go to The Complete Strategist in Montclair New Jersey, and play against some human opponents, but my ability to get there were too few to my liking...I understand the virtue of playing against a Human opponent, and as Rambo has pointed out more than once, playing against the AI does not count...for me though, it is a matter of time and perhaps pbem is the way for me to go...but, I do enjoy playing against the AI and there are titles from Matrix, HPS, and Shrapnel that have a decent AI opponents within their games....

[Edwin P.]

I too find it more conveinent to play against the AI. Over the past few years I have come to appreciate games the include several AI's with different personalities and strategic/tactical orientations.

[General Brock]

I have a kind of contrary wish to many on this thread. Not only do I enjoy A.I. in games and am fascinated by how good many are. But I would like to see SC as well as the CM games have both sides controlled by the A.I. For all the old SSI games this was standard. I'm annoyed that most newer wargames don't have this option.

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

East Fronts AI was not that bad. It used its own pre-programmed ability combined with it's cheating ability to see your units to put up a pretty good fight. Especially when your units were understrength.

Right now I am dealing with Sudden Strike as a friend lent it to me. This makes up for it's poor AI by giving them a gob of units. And I don't mean a little gob, I'm talking about a horde. When a mass of AI's Panzer I's are driving around knocking out my KV-1's then I get mad. This is one of the worst games for historical realism I have ever seen. It doesn't take into consideration weapon type, so a PZ-I can destroy a KV-1 and a panzerfaust can destroy and infantry squad. Definate thumbs down.

SC's AI is decent. Hope it improves with future editions. It can be too predictable.

Worst AI was SSI's War in Russia. It would punch a hole in your line, charge it's tanks through. Then not put a unit in to hold the hole open. All you had to do was seal off the hole, cutting their supply, then destroy the units whenever you pleased. Thereby wrecking the offensive capability until they rebuilt the units and did the same thing over.

But just think how AI gameplay has evolved since we started seeing it in the first few wargames. It will definately get better.

[Orange Devil]

On AI: I've scripted an AI for Age of Empires 2 once. I made one map I thought was extremely cool, but the default computer AI messed it up everytime. So I went through the painful process of scripting (not writing, big difference, I used someone else's script, just putting in variables and IF THEN lines, LOADS of IF THEN lines) and got meself a fairly decent linair AI. Nothing fancy, just something that had a good chance of kicking your ass the first time you played it. You figured out exactly what it was going to do by the third time though so that killed it.

About your game: Since I know how damn hard it is to write AI, especially with fuzzy logic etc it will eat up great amounts of your time. So basically if you want to make a free game and put it on the net, you can afford not to put in an AI. However if you want to make a game your actually going to sell, especially for the 'niche-community' of wargamers (theres not that many wargamers out there on the net) you will need an AI, and a challenging one is preferred.

On the other hand, you could finish multiplayer stuff first, then throw it on the net or sell for comparatively low price and then start with the AI. That way you can incorporate strategies that real people invent into your AI. As said before though, AI can take up serious amounts of time.

[Edwin P.]

The AI being the most difficult and time consuming part of a program to write I think that the designer made a good choice in focusing his initial efforts on combat in Continental Europe where most combat occurs.

At the same time I think if a scriptable AI could be added such an feature would add greatly to the game.

For example: Recently a played a game against the AI with FOW Off and when I was not paying attention it invaded Norway with 4 armies and took Bergan. Opposing it was 2 corps and a HQ unit near Oslo. The invading force was defeated. Why? The AI did not support its invasion by sending in airfleets and landing a HQ unit. If it had launched a proper invasion it could have easily liberated Norway and Sweden, depriving the Axis of much needed MPPs.

Perhaps a script editor would have allowed me to write a routine that executes if the AI takes Bergan and there are less than X enemy units in Norway and Sweden and No allied forces are engaged in France etc, etc.

[Dan Fenton]

I would not buy a game unless it included an AI for solitaire play.

All of my Strategic Command games have been against the AI. I like being able to instantly turn on the computer and play. I enjoy the convenience of not having to set up a board game and not having arrange my busy schedule with someone else's busy schedule.

Some day I may play against a human. Unfortunately, there has been no local interest for a hot seat game. I have never yet played any games of any kind over the Internet.

[Orange Devil]

Dan: the PBEM support SC has doesnt require you to match busy schedules, just play your turn in your own time and wait till you get the other's turn back... play the AI meanwhile

[Pochenko]

I agree with Dan. I like AI I know that it hasn't developed it maximum level by now but perhaps someday... And I also agree with his schedules problems. I like AI because it doesn't complain about being restarted again and again, I'm not saying I'm a coward, I don't quit games if I'm loosing, that's what makes a game interesting but sometimes I begin a game, play a few turns and then I cannot play it for 10 days or weeks, when I start playing again I'm not interesting anymore on that old (and forgetted) game. I like new blood and I like new frenchies to roll them up with my panzers. Of course I always end games if I have time but sometimes you win them much earlier you finish them (conquering russia with the germans, taking back the germans to warsaw, etc)

................................................

And never forget that GUNS N' ROSES rules

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

Konstantin V. Kotelnikov, I have Sudden Strike II actually, it sucks like a whore though (and I mean that seriously).

But if you like Sudden Strike even vaguely, don't waste time on it, go and download the demo of Blitzkreig (be warned its a 400 meg file).

I totally hate the environment of the RTS game gone crazy effect of Sudden Strike and Blitzkrieg myself. The units behave like grade 3 kids with weapons.

If the style appeals to you, you might as well at least play the latest version of the experience. But don't say I didn't warn you.

Chances are you should be playing Airborne Assault Highway to the Reich if you want real time and realistic.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

J Von Zeppelin in looking at your comment ie wanting to make a game, I might be inclined to say, that if you expect to make money from it, you might want to consider it will be competing with Computer World in Flames.

Or put another way, like me racing against an Olympic sprinter. Don't bet any money on me winning

If it is a learning process intent, then I will only say, it can be done and done well. Hubert is proof of that.

He did a fine job first game out of the starting gate.

[Orange Devil]

I've actually got the entire SS (Gotta hate the abreviation, especially in relation to a wargame) series as well as Blitzkrieg.

I think SS was ok in single player. Its the most realistic real time WW2 RTS ive seen and the missions are a challenge (just because youre outnumbered 10:1 or worse doesnt mean you cant win).

Blitzkrieg I didnt like at all. Theres 2 types of missions, the historical ones (quite detailed, interesting objectives and challenging (among others because you are outnumbered)) and the stupid fodder missions you have to play countless times to gain 'experience' and new core units (get enough experience and you get an extra tank and/or artillery unit for all further missions).

Basically those fodder missions could usually be ended by simply using 1 scout and 3 or more artillery pieces and blasting away, sometimes literally plowing the whole map. Make sure you've got 1 or 2 AA guns set up and maybe a small line of defence (some entrenched infantry and 2 tanks are usually enough) and you can kill all the enemies right from the starting position, they wont return fire because they usually dont have artillery and they wont launch any serious assault to shut your artillery up. On top of that the maps are randomly generated which gives bland maps that usually resemble each other quite alot (basically its just a few hundred puzzle pieces matched together in a different way everytime).

The strenght of both games lies in multiplayer though. If you've ever played a 4v4 Sudden Strike 2, or worse/better yet a Sudden Strike Forever (expansion to 1) game you will know what a slugging fest means. Basically at the start of the game you rush all your units to the best defendable positions as near to the middle of the map as possible. Then you quickly deploy and creat a small line with infantry and some AT guns. Then wait for your tanks and artillery to arrive, set up more AT guns, infantry and tanks. Maybe some mines and tank blockades and then fire away those artillery pieces at each other for literally hours. Sometimes a small commando infantry team will attack to spot enemy tanks, sometimes some tanks will attack to attempt to conquer a ridge or otherwise slightly defendable position and once in a while an airstrike can be called in. After several hours of slugging (if played properly) you can finally launch a decent offensive and maybe capture another strategic position (marked with zeppelins), if you have enough of said positions you get new reinforcements. But usually the maps are build so that the further one team gets driven back, the better their defensive positions become.

In short, my longest SS 2 match was 4v4 and lasted 9 hours, no pauses or breaks of any kind. Basically we were constantly firing artillery and maneuvring tanks out of harms way. At the end everyone ran out of artillery ammo and we wun because we had hidden 2 Elephant tanks as a strategic reserve very deeply in the back of our territory and in a forest to prevent spotting. When we used those 2 tanks the enemy realised they didnt have any artillery heavy enough left to injure those tanks and they got pounded to hell.

Blitzkrieg is about the same only on a smaller level. Games of 1 hour and up are considered quite long and usually you get alot less units and smaller maps then in SS series. The thing I dont like about Blitzkrieg though is the fact you get unlimited ammo. In SS if you could find out where an enemy had a supply stash and you bombed it then that made a huge difference. In Blitzkrieg its not about the supply stashes but about the trucks delivering the supplies, once you run out of trucks you cant get the supplies. Unrealistic and alot less fun IMO.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

Your description of the game seems to tell me a game of Battlefield 1942 would be more practical though OD.

Better graphics, better fun, and just as silly sounding.

But at least Battlefield never pretended to be anything else.

You get a number of buddies to meet, and you bang away at the other guys.

I hated SS and Blitzkrieg primarily because they looked dumb, but tried to imply they weren't.

[Orange Devil]

Hmmm I gave up on looks long ago (in the games area that is). I mean honestly, look at SC, then look at another (completely different I know, but still same genre, being strategy) game like C&C Generals. SC looks like it was made 10 or more years ago. Ofcourse, SC is just a map with counters on it but even a game like Risk 2 had 'combat animations'. So basically SC looks crap, especially compared to whats possible. But it's still a really great game.

Now i'm not calling SS and Blitzkrieg great games, I couldn't stand Blitzkrieg for longer then 1 hour max, and the SS single player campaigns were more fun to imagine how your perfect plan was going to wax the enemy then actually proceeding to execut said perfect plan (and yes, making a perfect plan in SS was quite easy, only problem was that if you made 1 small error by sending a tank in late or anything like that and you'd get waisted)

I'm just saying that the potential for those game was in multiplayer, just like SC's main potential is.

WW2 RTS games still have a long ways to go before they get anywhere near realism, but SS and later Blitzkrieg was the best out there, and better then any predecessors. The Blitzkrieg 2 thing they are making now should be more realistic, I hope they changed their supply sytem and AI, if they did i'm definately getting it.

About the banging away bit... exactly what are we doing in SC multiplayer? We get an opponent to play against and we bang away at each others units... hmmm sounds familiar. Only difference is that units in SC resemble armies and corps instead of single units. Personally I agree that controlling single units one by one in a WW2 setting is to much micromanagement, either you need to make the game on an extremely small scale or give lots and lots of units. Sudden Strike went with the second option, people complained that they lost control and overview in big battles.

So in Blitzkrieg infantry were only selectable in groups of about 10. Also they made the scale a bit smaller and they fixed most issues with that.

What I'm trying to say is is that WW2 RTS gaming is evolving, and im really hoping something truely great is going to come out of it one day, since I overall like real-time games better then turn-based games.

If you dont like real-time games in general then that is your opinion and your right to have and express, but IMO its not very fair to bash just about any game just because its real time; my dad has the same phenomemen (sp?), he cant stand anything real time because he doesnt get the time he wants to think. On the other hand he plays Jagged Alliance 2 (great game) so much that it makes me want to pull my hair out.