Edwin P. Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Perhaps at the start of the game the AI secretly selects a personality that will guide its actions - perhaps one that favors a conquest of North Africa or perhaps it is one that favors a Sea Lion or one that favors a large armored force or lots of airpower. [ July 24, 2005, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted July 26, 2005 Author Share Posted July 26, 2005 A simple way to implement this would be to create personality files that the AI would select randomly from at the start of each game. This would add variablity to games vs the AI. Example (in Sc1 terms) AI UK Personality 01 --Opening Strategy - Attack Ireland, Send Egyptian fleet to Atlantic --Research Strategy - Jets and LR AI UK Personality 02 -- Opening Strategy - Send UK fleet to Italy to Sink Italian Fleet. -- Research Strategy - Jets and AirDefense AI UK Personality 03 -- Research Strategy - Bombers and Long Range -- Bonus Units - 1 Bomber every six months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rleete Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 I disagree. Scripted AI is way too easy to beat, once you see which plan it uses. A more flexible attack/defense strategy is a lot harder to counter - one reason a human opponent will always be tougher than the computer. Some of the best games have been ruined by an AI that plays the same way every time, regardless of what opposition it faces. Should the AI use generalized plans? Certainly. It's also (probably) easier to code. But it needs to be flexible, too. For example, in your #03 above, if the axis gets AA tech, and is shooting down a bomber (damage of 5 or more) every other turn, it should "rethink" the bomber strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted July 27, 2005 Author Share Posted July 27, 2005 I agree with what you are saying. What I was trying to present is a simplified method, that would not require a lot of complicated programming and yet vary the game for those that play against the AI. Take case 3 for example. The bomber strategy is essentially a bonus that gives the AI a free bomber unit every six months (1 in 1939, 2 in 1940, 2 in 1941, 2 in 1942 and 2 in 1943)and forces the Allies to respond to this threat, perhaps even leading them to divert resources towards AA tech. The key as you mention is that the AI has to know when to rethink the bomber strategy and "NOT" to waste MPPS reinforcing bomber units that have been severely damaged. That said, the AI also needs some fine tuning so that it will know how to properly use the bomber units, something that it does not know how to do in SC1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rleete Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 Originally posted by Edwin P.: The bomber strategy is essentially a bonus ...Ooooh, I really hate those "more for the computer to ramp up difficulty things". It happens a lot in resource gathering games, where the (lazy) programmers give more to the AI, because they can't figure out how to make it play smarter. It usually isn't that much harder, just longer (or more of a clickfest). "Normal" difficulty is 1 to 1, and then tougher levels just give progressively more stuff to the computer side. All that means is that I have to wade through more units to get to my objective. Cannon fodder is just that, and having 2 times as much to kill doesn't make for a better game. No offense to you, I see you are just throwing out suggestions. But, I'm hoping that Hubert has more to it than that, or it won't be much fun to play for very long. And, as you said, the AI doesn't use bombers very effectively. Just giving them more won't do much good, unless it's all re-coded anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rleete Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 Oh, and just as an afterthought: We have quite the "personalities" here already. I'm sure most of them will be squabbling over SC2 soon enough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 Oh man, I hate that about harder levels vs. AI. Just boost xp and resources. Oops, HC did that for SC. That's ok, 1st game ever lets not get overcomplicated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rleete Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 Experience levels I can tolerate, because I can counter that with better play. And, I often play games where I deliberately don't conquer the capital until I have killed off all the units (France is a good example), just to boost my unit's experience levels for the inevitable Barbarossa. More resources is the part I dislike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 As originally posted by rleete: And, I often play games where I deliberately don't conquer the capital until I have killed off all the units (France is a good example), just to boost my unit's experience levels for the inevitable Barbarossa. Well, if you should do that in this version, You'll receive LESS plunder. Plunder is now partially based on Units still standing, and, What is yet to arrive from the build-delay queu. Similar to late nite chatter, It can be a delicate matter. How many, and which units do I kill off? How many should I let alone. How important is gained experience? Eventually you'll sort of intuit What these things should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Wow, that is some sweet programing by HC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinp Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Now, if the AI could send you an occassional pithy text message from a library of messages or audio message that would be really cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rleete Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Originally posted by Desert Dave: Well, if you should do that in this version, You'll receive LESS plunder.That's good. More tradeoffs. It makes it a more delicate balancing act. I like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 That's good. More tradeoffs. It makes it a more delicate balancing act. I like it. Right you are rleete, for these small, truly unobtrusive "trade-offs" will make the game deeper and you'll have to "think on it" a bit more. However, having played 5 or 6 games now, I can tell you that this process becomes "second nature" and hardly interferes with your fun & frolic factor. There are MANY of these sorts of "balancing acts," as for example: Do I, as GErman OKW Commander, build up more anti-aircraft in Brest and the port there, so UK cannot bomb it into such a ruinous state that I might not be able to - at that critical invasive juncture, Op move vital units there? Or, do I spend the MPP's and have my Engineer construct more fortifications along the north coast, making it... a true "Fortress Europa?" Well, I could do both, but then... you won't have that one extra "anti-tank enhanced" Corps that might prevent the T-34s from running rough-shod all over the stand-fast place! It's gonna be VERY interesting, these new games and tournaments, because there are SO MANY ways to play it. Each person on this board will have a UNIQUE style and set of preferences. No need for board names ennymore... we'll know the Cat by his... Strat & Tactical predilictions, LOL! Hey! There goes Joe... no, I mean to say... The assault-you Dude who uses massed artillery to get what he wants! May not be what he NEEDS, but, OK, to each their own. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted August 1, 2005 Author Share Posted August 1, 2005 I wonder if the AI will be just as varied in its strategies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts