Ai

[Velociryx]

I've played a lot of computer games.....I mean a LOT of computer games.

One of the very BEST wargame AI's I've ever come across was in an old SSI title "The Battle of Gettysburg." (CGA graphics, if that tells you anything of the overall LOOK of the game). It was....uncanny. I swear it *learned* my playing style. I felt it much the way the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end when you feel like you're being watched.

The first few games were easy to beat. I really didn't know what I was doing as the dauntless Confeds....only that I wanted the high ground Lee should have had his generals beeline for on day one.

Those first games were horribly bloody affairs, with me stoically defending the high ground, and the AI sending mass waves of blue-clad bodies to try and break me down.

Later, I got sneaky.

I still made for the high ground, sure, BUT I started setting brigades up with limited artillery support on nearby ridgelines with an eye toward ambushing the Union soldiers as they advanced toward the main portion of the battle, and then executing a series of fighting withdraws back to my main, heavily fortified positions.

That's when the AI started ambushing me back.

The first time I stumbled into one, I swear my jaw hit the table.

Using its numerical superiority, the AI from this piddly, OLD computer program from years ago had the good sense to outflank my force that was doing the fighting withdrawl, and set up an ambush *just like it had seen me do*

Soon, the game degenerated into a series of cat and mouse ploys, where the hunter very often became the hunted as my forces tried to thread their way back to my main battlegroup.

And the AI continued to learn from me. Every time I would try something new and different....EVERY time it worked, the AI would soon adopt the behavior.

It was one of the best war games I've ever played because of that.

My thinking is, KNOWING that it's possible....having played that, and other games where the AI could adopt winning strategies "on the fly" ....I'm wondering what the problem is?

Soren's AI kicks a$$! Witness the number of people, GOOD Civ2 and SMAC players who started out on Monarch and reported that ummm...they had to tone it down to Regent or Chieftan for the first couple of games.

But it's not adaptave. It doesn't learn by watching, or from its own mistakes. Of course, we're a long way from *actually* making a learning AI....I know that. But there have been some damn fine attempts made at simulating that....almost spooky attempts, actually.

I've also played a handful of games where the AI action was controlled by a series of script files, such that it could be Modded by the fans. Someone would create a ruthless KILLER AI routine, and the players would all be scrambling to meet the new threat.

Eventually, of course, some weakness...some means of handling the new AI would be found, but with the fan base constantly making new configurations available, there was always some new threat on the horizon.

Why can't we do that here? (I mean, why was this not built into Civ3? If the plan is to make a highly moddable game, surely one of the hallmarks of infinite replayability is an AI that can be tweaked, edited, and sometimes radically changed, yes?)

Moddable AI. In the hands of the fan base. What an adventure that would make a game like civ3....

-=Vel=-

[Libertarian]

It's difficult to know what you actually experienced through this mediate epistemology, but my WAG at this point is a series of coincidences. No one has yet figured out a way to make computers see "over the horizon". What they cannot evaluate by means of some predefined coda, they cannot do. In fact, they cannot even consider. Because they don't "know" it's there.

It is possible to emulate learning in a primitive sense by abstracting the code as much as possible, and then relying on dynamic data objects to dump appropriate values at appropriate times, causing a shift in branching. BUT, computers are notoriously weak at going the other way around (the way humans learn), i.e., by recognizing patterns in concrete behavior and then extrapolating analytical abstractions.

They just don't know what patterns mean.

True learning requires a context — or frame of reference — from which meaningful inferences can be drawn. The computer's only frame of reference is its program. And its program is a static entity.

I once toyed with the idea of writing a dynamic language; i.e., one that modifies its own instruction set in accordance with its own experience. It had my interest for a while, but then life happened and I had to move on to other things. I still think that that's the way to go for simulation of learning because it simulates experience, the sole context by which learning can manifest.

[ACooper]

You could define different sets of strategies and have to computer record the results of each one. Then after a significant number of games or sessions the computer could start picking strategies off the "top of the list". This is not a true learning AI but can produce semi-realistic results. It is also not adaptive but more branching.

The problem with making a learning AI that responds to human players is that it has no way to account for the most human of traits, unpredictability. Humans would quickly learn that this is their best way to win.

[Velociryx]

'k....let's say we're starting from the ground floor.

Let's say (hypothetically, of course!) that I decide...."What the Hell?" and start up a little bootstrap company intent on designing computer games....flying in the face of all logic and standing shoulder to shoulder with the Goliaths of the Industry.

The first thing I'd be interested in is AI code.

And, starting from the ground up, no limits but our collective imaginations, here's the beginnings of what I envision:

1) Create an AI that "sees itself" as a virus. It has two basic functions. Spread. Survive.

2) Introduce and describe the game world in terms of the two above functions. Every element (in Civ terms, this would be units, other civs, terrain tiles, government types, technology, culture, etc.) is seen as either a help, hinder, or be "neutral" to the AI's spreading and survival (specifically, other AI civs would be seen as "neutral" at game start, while the human player would be seen as a hinderance). Things that are seen as a hinderance make the AI go into aggressive mode, while things that help make the AI go into spread mode (with more elaboration later).

3) Moddability. The AI should be created such that the priorities places on the different aspects of the game world can be re-organized by players (creating an AI whose primary means of spreading is cultural strength, and whose primary means of survival is rampant growth, coupled with strong defensive units....creating anothe AI model whose only goal is to maximize productive output, standardize growth rates, and make the most lethal collection of military units possible to hunt the nearest rival to extinction....etc).

4) "Teach" the AI a number of basic battle strategies, and teach it how to assess enemy strength. (this can be done by assigning values to every unit in the game, and having the AI arrive at a sum total....the trick tho, is in determining relative values....how much is a library worth, vs. a swordsmen, in terms of evaluating an enemy's strength?...that sort of thing). Teach the AI how to execute a flanking move. How to ambush. How to overrun (or underrun). Armed with a viable strength assessment forumla, and with basic strats and how to use them, the AI on the battlefield should be decent. (actually, there'd have to be two forumlas in play here....a "top level" formula for determing overall relative strength - taking stuff like libraries into account, and a "warfare only" formula, which focused only on collections of military units for determining the viability of getting into a fight with a rival army)

So....my question is:
Would such an AI be possible? (we'll worry about what game it is associated with later....for the moment though, let's take a specific game out of the equation and just focus on the AI's "viral" tendencies....is it a doable thing?

-=Vel=-

[xRamsesx]

Frankly i think that within the limited scope of a game, a learning AI can be fairly easily implemented. Let it know what to watch the human player do and give it a ranking system to analyse the players action (ranging from "works every time" to "dismal strategy"). Obviously this would need to be fine-tuned considerably but I think its possible.

Why isn't it implemented in current day games? I think it's mainly because of processing limitations. In order for an AI to analyse a players actions it needs to be constantly doing calculations and monitoring (for eg, is the player actually planning a strategy or is he just goofing around toying with his empire?) which takes up a considerable portion of system resources. This takes away from and degrades all the nice graphics, animations, and sound we expect in current day games, which obviously is a nono since how would a developer pitch a game to a publisher with archaic graphics?

It would be nice if games came with the option of reducing the amount of graphic detail on the screen in favor of a better AI. That way games would satisy both sides of the gamers spectrum. But that's just wishful thinking

But there's hope The way the CPU speeds are increasing I'd say we'll probably see smart games emerging in the near future!

[Libertarian]

Would such an AI be possible?

In essence, yes. So long as you clearly define the two main objectives (spread and survive) in evaluatable terms, you can write a program that will spread and survive in as perfect and efficient a way as is possible. 'Course, that's less like artificial intelligence, and more like artificial instinct. All in all, I'd say it's doable.

The way the CPU speeds are increasing I'd say we'll probably see smart games emerging in the near future!

Brute force evaluation is not equivalent to intelligence. No matter how fast the CPU, it still can't see over the horizon.

[korn469]

Vel,

you might not be the greatest SMAC player ever, but few people probably understand the game as well as you do.

So in your opinion, what would the chances of winning be under the following conditions?

Your faction is either Gaians or Cult of Planet. Difficulty is Transcend, the world standard size and set on max fungus. In your opinion would it be possible to not found a base, but instead use your starting troops to capture enough worms to take over a base, then you go on to win a one city zero facility Transcend win?

If that is the case, then just think how far we have came in terms of AI from SMAC to civ3!

as to your question

Would such an AI be possible? (we'll worry about what game it is associated with later....for the moment though, let's take a specific game out of the equation and just focus on the AI's "viral" tendencies....is it a doable thing

ys i think it would be possible, also i would offer up the following bit of advice

in civ games, the AI apparently only takes in its overall strength into account (which is usally inflated, they need a better strength formula) and ignores local situations for the most part. This allows a player with a vastly smaller army that has high mobility and firepower than the AI to always achieve local superiority. The Ai should divide the world up into subunits and then compare its relative forces in each region, so it would be harder for the player to always achieve local superiority, and it would allow the AI to maybe even surprise the player once in a while by achieving local superiority itself.

[Heliodorus]

We've had some interesting insights on AI with the Civ3 discussions. I think I've learned more about the Civ3 AI with Analyst Redux's deconstruction (his was one of those posts that makes me add a layer of modesty to my thinking...).

I have NO programming experience but...
Why can't an AI recognize certain human strategies and have foils for them? Since a great deal of what we humans do is actually predictable, shouldn't programmers think of ways to deal with those issues?

For instance, shouldn't the computer recognize a military buildup by a neighbor and understand that it ought to be building some forts and some cavalry, etc. But if the considerations so taken become unnecessary, I would want the AI to be able to "stand down" by disbanding units that are counterproductive to its economy, or upgrading, or, starting a war with a power that it can achieve victory against.

As I read strategies, what comes to mind is that the human goes through phases, knowing how to move from one style of play to another. The styles are remarkably similar, however, from person to person. Can't we incorporate counter-styles into the AI, and, more problematically, can't you design a weighted system by which the computer examines which style the human is engaged in so as to implement the proper foil? In my non-programmer's mind, you would want to have counter-strategies to pursue, and a queue of other counter strategies to prepare for. Maybe the computing power just isn't there yet.

I think FPS games have come a long way in that regard, the better ones, at least. The coordination of the half-life AI was something to behold, and in the new X-Box game, Halo, I think you really have good evidence that there are a lot of if/then strategy options available to the AI units. Maybe it's tons simpler in a FPS game, though (I would imagine so, less variables in the kill or be killed framework of decision making, and no long-term implications).

Now, on another note about the AI.
One of the most disappointing aspects of the Civ3 AI is its lack of understanding of combined arms. To watch the AI waste its navy bombarding coastal land squares is depressing. Moreso with bombers. The computer seems to have no concept of economy of force, force protection, and force multiplication. It cannot take advantage of bombard options - why?

I always figured that there ought to be a way to program an economic value into fighting decisions so that the computer would recognize attrition consequences. If the computer can recognize probabilities built into the combat calculations, and can recognize cost benefits destroying an infantry unit in a context of the likelihood of success versus the cost detriment of losing a tank, can't it make better decisions.

If the computer can attack your town with infantry, tanks, howitzers, and bombers, shouldn't the programmer incorporate a prioritization scheme where the computer would bombard first, then decide based on plausibility of victory whether the tank should attack or the entire effort should wait for another turn of bombardment? And if you can do that, can't you also program another level of decision making where, if the tanks fail, but the likelihood of the infantry still taking the city remains likely, it could pursue that or decide to wait again?

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one...

Okay, I swear that's the first time I entered a John Lennon quote, and frankly, I feel a bit dirty for having stolen from him.

[Libertarian]

Why can't an AI recognize certain human strategies and have foils for them?

It can — so long as those strategies have been predefined for it in such a way that it can evaluate them against a known template. That's what we mean by seeing over the horizon. The computer can't take meaning from events or behavior.

Think of it this way: all a computer does is route current through gates. And when it comes to the program itself, only one pulse can go through at a time. That's von Neumann's principle. There's no way around it.

That's why, until Big Blue became capable of brute force analysis that outweighed human strategic planning and tactical execution, the first thing grandmasters did was make a non-book move as soon as possible. Instantly, the computers would begin to grind and grind, with the horizon way out of sight.

And remember that the definition you give the computer of a human strategy is rendered moot by the slightest variance on the part of the human. Computers are incredibly stupid.

That reminds me of my favorite quote about computers by, of all people, Pablo Picasso: "Computers are useless; they give you only answers."

[xRamsesx]

The computer can't take meaning from events or behavior.

Libertarian, why not? I agree with you that the idea of AI seeing over the horizon for a real world environment is somewhat far-fetched, but for the scope of a game ... its possible?

Think of it this way, games have a limited number of variables that are good results and bad results (some game-types more than others, strategy games vs. FPS). If the computer were to look at what the player did every time one of those variables changes and analyses why it changed, it can start to build a library of actions to recognize those events when they happen again. Granted this is cheating since the computer needs to play a few games before it "learns" and adapts to each players strategies, but the goal here is to create a more challenging game not a true AI.

This way, the AI always remains a challenge while varying in difficulty from one player to the next based on each one's skill.

[Velociryx]

Good name, Lib! I like it! Let's adopt that for purposes of this discussion. From here on then, we're NOT talking about Artificial Intelligence, we're talking about Artificial Instinct....giving the AI the basic tools it needs to survive in a game world with a human player.

Further defining and refining the two basic objectives:

First, it's not something we can do without bringing in at least *some* game-specific notions, so for the moment, let us say that we're working on a Civ-type game....further, for ease of comparison, we'll say that our "civ-type game" is, in fact, very much like Civ3, with all the essential game elements present and accounted for.

That being the case, the AI's definitions of its two prime directives are as follows (each factor is given a value between -200 and +200 (relative importance), tho these factors can be changed by the game editor, allowing players to rearrange them to alter AI strats).

1) Spread - Grow. Go out and expand, because if you are bigger, you are correspondingly harder to destroy. Growth may be accomplished in the following ways:
a) Excess Food (default value = +150) - Maximize food outputs in increase total population quickly. Use this population advantage to occupy and control more *terrain tiles* (one of the defined world elements mentioned earlier).

b) Culture Capture (default value = 0) - Maximize cultural outputs relative to rivals who border you. This relies on a focus on technology, with beelines toward cultural enhancements, in particular (lesser emphasis on techs that further increase research capabilities)

c) Military Capture (offense)(default value = +50) - Mix food/shield output to even amounts, allowing for fairly brisk growth, and good production. This places a secondary emphasis on research, per "b" above, with a focus on techs that lead to more effecitve troop types (and a lesser emphasis on wonders that enhance the military (heroic epic, sun tzu, etc). This essentially utilizes the "survival" routines to *accomplish* growth.

d) Research: (default value = +100) - A subsidiary growth strategy, not a growth strategy per se (but it ties in with the above, and so deserves its own mention). This essentially is the mod-script that controls how much priority the AI will give to research, compared with the other stuff.

e) Defense: (default value +150) - Another subsidiary of the growth strategies, this relies on basic protection to keep territory grown into - also ties in with Research (specifically, researching techs that lead to better defensive builds/units (forts, pikemen, walls, etc).

2) Survival - When faced with a hinderance to your survival, you MUST drop into "survive" mode and do all you can do to ensure your continuance. Assess the threat along the following lines:
a) Compare the hinderance's sum total attack values to your regional defense values (in the areas within 10 tiles of his units). Build accordingly, mixing attack/defense units to maximize their chances of survival (taking full advantage of terrain)...computers are pretty good at min/maxing, so this part shouldn't be too hard!

b) Aggregate production values (yours vs. his). If yours are less, send workers to modify terrain tiles to bring yourself to parity without sacrificing current population.

c) Settlers and colonists are given a null priority until the hinderance has left the area ("left the area" to be defined later).

d) Reference playbook and decision tree to determine nature and type of operation against the Hinderance (hold, stonewall, overrun, flank, scortched earth retreat, etc). (playbook to be outlined later).

e) focus - Make every effort to only deal with one hinderance at a time. If involved in a war with an AI rival, and attacked by a human player, make peace with the AI immediately, to give your full attention and all available resources to surviving vs. the human player (and the AI rival should recognize the human threat to call off the dogs, even if he is winning, UNLESS he is allied TO the human player--which should be VERY difficult to arrange, and take quite a lot of work to maintain).

f) cooperation - enlist the aid of friendly AI virii (other civs) to help beat the human menace. (sliding scale, the MORE menacing the human player is percieved to be by the AI's various measures, the easier it'll be for the AI's to "gang up")

Other stuff for our conjectural Artificial Instinct?

-=Vel=-

[Heliodorus]

One aspect of computers versus chess masters which does not have to exist with our style of game is that in a chess match, both sides must play with the same set of rules.

Obviously, programmers can allow the AI to cheat on rules which the human must follow, and every iteration of Civ we've seen incorporated this design decision at some difficulty level.

I'm getting too far away from things that can actually be done to Civ3, but continuing the debate:

What if the computer foils incorporated certain rules cheats? For example, if the computer found itself deciding on a a foil preparing to pre-emptively strike a human opponent, you incorporate temporary rules cheats such as "double computer movement values" and "no war discontent" that are temporary.

You have to design foils very carefully, and you have to design the architecture of decision making very carefully so that human flexibility and deception techniques can be dealt with by an inflexible construct. Granted, there's only so much you can do, but it should produce a fun result if done properly.

In fact, given what I learned in Analyst Redux's post, virtually all of what we see in the AI behavior was accomplished by rules cheats (albeit ones that both human and AI must follow) that made previous decision making architectures more successful.

Fascinating stuff.

It must be hard to be a game programmer - working so hard to make things challenging, knowing the end-game is that you build something that will be deconstructed, exploited, and defeated.

[Velociryx]

Korn - *excellent* question re: Zso's astonishing series of legendary games. IIRC, when the challenge was posed, even for all my understanding of the game, I thought it patently impossible to pull off, but no one was happier to have been proven wrong when he actually did it!

Is that possible/would it be possible in Civ3? Doubt it. And you're right....that points to what I'd term a "significant upgrade" in AI capabilities.

And by the way, thanks for the SMAC plug! (Oh, I *know* I'm not the best player--not enough killer instinct--but I like to think of the SMAX guide as a mighty good terrain leveller, allowing beginning players to open up a pretty good can of whup a$$ on even seasoned veterans with a bit of study!)

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Heli - I *really* like the idea of building in foil-specific cheats, rather than general purpose cheats (tho perhaps both!).

When the Artificial Instinct recognizes a threat from its "threat database," depending on the nature OF that threat, a certain cheat toggle is activated (if the civ is in Dem, it mobilizes immediately, and gains immunity to war weariness, perhaps gets 2-3 free (no unhappiness) draft rounds as well...good, goooood call, and it would give the AI advantages that would be an attempt to counter human ingenuity and unpredictability.

-=Vel=-

[korn469]

Vel et al,

if you are serious about making a better AI then I highly recommend checking out the following Alt Civ site.

Civ Evolution

it is a Civ2 clone, but the interesting thing about it is that AI development is one of the centerpieces of the project. The following is from the site

Implement your own Artifical Intelligence module, an absolute focus of this project. The AI development manual comes with the game package. Good luck!

The Game Core does neither contain any AI algorithms nor any surface code. In fact, each nation is controlled by a separate module, which can be a user interface or an AI algorithm - or even a mixture of both, usually called "macro management". The module may also be a network connection to a remote player. To create such a module you'll need a compiler that is capable of generating Windows DLL files. (And you'll need to know how to use it, of course.) For more information see the AI development manual included in the game package.

This section will become more important after some really good AIs have been written. I think there'll be some competition, strength rating or similar things. For now, visit the Files section to find out what alternative AI modules are already available

there are already a couple of user created AIs floating around out there, and the developers could maybe help get you started

[Velociryx]

On my way to check it out now!

[ACooper]

A customizable AI would be great.

One thought in education is about "multiple intelligences" which basically mean people have different intelligence levels in different areas. (music, math,sports, etc.)

Well why couldn't we do that with the Civs AI. Break it down into areas such as Military, Defense, Science, Domestic, Culture, etc. (we could call each module an "advisor" or "cabinet member") We would still need a master AI or rules table to determine which advisor would take precedence if there was a conflict.

What I like is the idea of being able to mix and match AI components to form a new AI. Maybe the "out of the box" Civs would have an optimized "Cabinet" of advisors but can be customized. It could even be that "advisors" could change with certain thresholds are reached. For Example the Military advisor could go from a peaceful AI to a warlike one.

To sum it all up ('cause I at work) I guess I would like to see the AI Object Oriented and customizable.

[Spaced Cowboy]

Wow,

That Civ Evolution site looks pretty awesome. It is strange how I go from nothing to keep me interested to overload. Tournament game, Vel's mod, and now my chance to write an AI; I'll be busy for weeks.

I think that it is possible to make an AI that mods itself via test files, but LIB is correct in saying that the code will not change, only the parameters, however, it is still unclear to me how much text files can be used.

Vel, I also remember playing games that touted that they will use your stategies against you. Can't remember if they actually did though or what the context was. I've been playing computer games since 1977 (on mainframes) and then later on anything that I could get my hands on.

[Velociryx]

A simplified example for our AI discussion:

Let us simplify the discussion further still so we can more completely focus on our theories for Artificial Instinct

The name of the conjectural game is: The Courts of Candle’Bre (and yes, I’m making all of this up off the top of my head, so forgive me if it’s a little unpolished….I’ll polish it as we go along).

Background: Candle’Bre is a tiny kingdom, surrounded on all sides by vast stretches of mountains. Extremely isolated, and little contact with the outside world (note – for game purposes, there is NO outside contact. Candle’Bre is an entirely closed system).

Recently, the kingdom was ripped asunder by murder most foul, when the ENTIRE royal family was slain in a single night of madness and bloodshed.

Now, the Lords of Candle’Bre stand on the brink of war, each making a bid for the throne of the tiny Kingdom.

OoO

Notes: There are five Royal Houses of Candle’Bre, each having different traits and abilities that affect gameplay. Specific notes on them are as follows:

The Furies (default human player) – Led by Lord Michael Fury, this family has a long, proud history of serving as the King’s right hand. The Furies are good, noble folk, and boast the finest, best Cavalry in the realm (cavalry attacks at +2 and defends at +1) (Two special Leaders: Sir Kenna Fury – Cav. Commander, and Lord Stephen Fury – The Grand Marshal of the King’s Guard)

The Mourngrym Family – Led by Lord Flavin Mourngrym, this family is far and away the wealthiest in the Kingdom (perhaps even wealthier than the King himself, tho this has never been proved). It is whispered in dark corners that Mourngrym sold his soul to the Devil in exchange for his fabulous wealth. Whispered, because people who speak too loudly of such things often vanish without a trace. (special powers – Mercenaries can be hired at half the normal rate, chances for espionage success are 50% more likely to succeed – money to grease the wheels).

The Castillar Family – Led by Gloriana Castillar, this family’s power base is centered around religion. For sixteen generations, the men and women of the family have found their calling in the service of the Church, and as such, they hold tremendous sway over the commoners of the realm. (special powers – provincial defection: 30% more likely to succeed for this family than any other, 50% more likely if Gloriana is in an adjacent province – resistance to enemy espionage attempts at causing provinces to rebel/defect). Special Leader: Gloriana Castillar (General/Clergywoman).

The Council of Seven: The Kingdom’s “Lower House” was long ago given stewardship over a large tract of Candle’ Bre to serve as the basis of their power. Special Power = The wise men of the council are well respected by all in the Kingdom, and attempts to make war on them would generally be frowned upon by all – warring on the Council of Seven would result in a loss of Honor, AND an increase in the likelihood of rebellion in the attackers’ territories for the duration of the war. Additionally, the Councilmen have a special unit: Praetorians (Elite, bada$$ defensive unit).

The Council of Five: The Kingdom’s governing “Upper House” is made up of five mysterious, reclusive wizards, who were also given stewardship over a large tract of land during the King’s reign. Little is known of their powers, but they are greatly feared nonetheless (special powers: Choose one at game start: Pestilence, Probability, or Divination)
Pestilence: Requires X spell points to cast. Any military units moving through the target province are subject to triple normal attrition rates. Leaders suffer a 2% per turn (cumulative) chance of dying. Every turn the pestilence remains, the territory has a 3% (cumulative) chance of rebelling against its controller.

Probability: Requires X spell points to cast. The wizards may use their magic to impact the outcome of a battle (this amounts to “redoing” the battle (new random number seed) for a better or more desirable result). (x is paid on a per battle basis, no battle can be refought more than twice).

Divination: Requires X spell points to cast. The wizards may “spy on” any other house, and gain perfect information on their enemies. (is is paid on a per territory basis)


Game Concepts to introduce to the AI:
Honor: X # of Honor Points will win you the game by default.

Combat (standard A/D/M valuations for middle ages units, and giving the AI recognition of them)

Rebellion % (and other espionage abilities)

Special Leaders (attributes, and the AI should be given a desire to actively destroy them – adjustable).

Diametric tensions: Two ways to win the game: Accumulation of Honor and Controlling 2/3 rds of the provinces that make up the Kingdom.

How can we make Honor a different, and viable form of victory?

Honor is gained by:
Combat
1) Mercy (captured leaders are ransomed, not killed)
2) Captured troops are released or disarmed, not slaughtered
3) Allies are aided with gifts of money
4) Alliances are not broken (+x for every N Turns that an alliance is kept in good standing –note that these gains are doubled then subtracted if an alliance is broken….meaning the longer the alliance is in good standing before the betrayal, the deeper the impact on Honor).

Honor is lost by:
1) Getting caught using Espionage techniques (penalty depends on the severity)
2) Slaughtering captured troops/leaders
3) Attacking the Council of Seven

Thus, it should be theoretically possible to ally yourself with the Council of Seven (or anyone, really) and win by gifting them units and cash (the family that can hire cheap mercs could hire an army and gift it to their allies,for example, letting the allies do the heavy lifting, while they accumulate honor by being good and worthy allies).

More later, I gotta go to lunch, but it strikes me that this would be a MUCH simpler game to write effective AI for. Smaller in scope, less variability (we could limit units to just a handful, but I’ll flesh that out when I get back!)

-=Vel=-

[Analyst Redux]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Soren's AI kicks a$$! Witness the number of people, GOOD Civ2 and SMAC players who started out on Monarch and reported that ummm...they had to tone it down to Regent or Chieftan for the first couple of games.
-=Vel=-

I wouldn't read too much into that. I was one of those who admitted to experiencing a learning curve that forced me to drop down to Regent to experiment for a game or two.

My problem was more a failure to grasp the implications of new rules than the devastating quality of the AI. I was rarely pop-rushing, for example, and it took me a bit of time to draw the line connecting the AI's startling new capacity for early growth to the pop-rushing rule. I'd have saved myself a lot of brain-work if I'd just read Absimiliard's thread on the subject--an outstanding bit of analysis there.

Between the different terrain-improvement options and pop-rushing (not to mention the fresh-water irrigation rule), early game managment is very different, and has to be relearned, but that's a learning curve issue unrelated to AI. For obvious reasons, I preferred to back down the pressure a bit to re-analyze the best early game strategy.

After I mastered the econometrics of working people to death the only surprise I had after that was the somewhat greater level of warfare aggression, most especially, the hyper-agressive counter-attack pattern. Somewhere along the line, I also realized it was a good idea to try to anticipate when I'd need a right of passage agreement, and secure it sooner, rather than later. Again, that was more learning curve adaptation to a new rule than AI difficulty.

Doing good AI is a really really hard task. As nostalgically attached as I am to the cool and quirky game line of Sid Meier (my nostalgia goes back to Pirates!), I think that the time when a single programer, or small group working above the proverbial garage, could startle us with AI ingenuity has come and gone. It just ain't as easy to do as it looks.

[Velociryx]

Economic Model:
To add a layer of complexity to the game, I’ll attempt to broadly outline the economic model here. The goal is to create a system strong enough to facilitate a good many divergent strategies, but not so overwhelmingly complex that the AI is bogged down and unable to fight its way out of the proverbial wet paper bag.

Candle’Bre is composed of Provinces. For the moment, we’ll say that there are a total of 60 provinces in the game. A player going for a military win would need 2/3rds under his control, or 40.

Each Province has an Income Valuation, expressed in a number visible on the main map (similar to Axis and Allies). This is the BASELINE per turn gold value that the Province rakes in. The sum-total of these values represents each players’ income.

Income is used for a variety of things:
1) Paying upkeep costs of your standing forces
2) Building Improvements in your Provinces
3) Hiring Mercenaries
4) Hiring Special Units
5) Training New Troops
6) Research

Each of these will be covered in turn.
1) Paying Upkeep for your standing forces: Each company of soldiers in your service requires 1g in upkeep each turn. If this fee is not paid, the unit is not lost, but simply deactivated. It may not move. It will not initiate an attack, but it WILL defend (half strength).
2) Improvements: A Province may contain no more than three (3) improvements, forcing the player to make strategic choices about what to build where. Building Barracks near the front line of a looming battle will have the effect of allowing you to churn out troops close to the action, but you run the risk of losing the territory AND your ability to defend those behind it. Available builds depend on your level of research.
3) Hiring Mercenaries. Normal combat units (ones you train yourself) have static combat values, mercenaries do not. Their combat values are floating, depending on the level of salary you provide them (the higher you set your per turn upkeep, the better they fight). Note though, that even the best paid mercenary force is no match for an elite “standing” fighting force. 1:1, the Mercenaries will lose every time. Their main strengths are a) They do not require a Barracks to train, and b) They can be hired en mass to achieve a specific objective (adjusting their salaries to whatever level of effectiveness is required). Note too, that attrition rates are higher for Mercenary units (double)
4) There are, at present, only four types of special units available (but more may be considered later: a) Sages (increase your research rate – Each Sage has a speciality – see below) b) Justicars (decrease the chance of rebellion in the province they are assigned to) c) Spy (used to conduct espionage missions) d) Taxman (used to increase the baseline revenue value of the province they are assigned to)
5) Training New Troops – This is, when the dust settles, a war game, so training troops will be where the bulk of your money ultimately goes. All the Provincial Improvements are simply a means to an end…allowing you to field a large enough army to claim the Kingdom of Candle’ Bre as your own.
6) Research – Is broken into four categories: Military Research, Infrastructural Research, Espionage Research, and Lifestyle Research. Military Research gives you better weapons (expressed as attack bonuses, and sometimes new combat abilities…also the occasional new unit). Infrastructural Research gives you additional buildings for provincial improvement. Espionage Research opens up more “sneaky stuff” to do to your opponents. Lifestyle Research increases the quality of life for those living in Provinces you control. This leads to happier people who are more able to resist attempts made by others to sow the seeds of rebellion. It also (over time) increases the per turn gold values of your Provinces.

“Techs” For the moment, we’ll leave the techs unnamed, simply referring to them as M1, M2, M3, etc(military techs), I1, I2, I3 (Infrastructure techs) and so forth. Eventually, we can get around to giving them names, but for now, this gives us a good “thumbnail reference.”

Builds: It is unknown at this time just how many total builds will be available, or what techs will make them available. For the moment tho, the ones in my head are:
Bank: Each bank pays a 1% interest on any money carried over from turn to turn. (taxmen may only be assigned to provinces with a bank)
University: Each University contributes 2% per turn to research in the fields you are currently researching in (Sages may only be hired and assigned to provinces with a university)
Barracks: Allows for the training of troops
Fortress: Provides defense bonuses in the event of an attack
Castle: Provides greater defense bonuses than a fortress in the event of an attack
Courthouse: Provides a +5% resistance to rebellion factors (justicars may only be hired in provinces with a courthouse, but may be assigned to any province that is adjacent to the province containing the courthouse, or the courthouse province itself).
Temples: Each temple constructed provides you 1 influence point per turn (influence is covered later, and has one, and only one very specific use)
Thieves Guild: spies may only be recruited from provinces with thieves guilds in them. The thieves guild itself provides counter-espionage abilities for that province, making it more difficult to conduct espionage therein.
Guilders’ Hall: Reduces the cost of non mercenary units by 10% (may only be built in provinces that contain a barracks)

· Note that no province may contain more than two special units, and the special units in question may not be of the same type!

Influence: Influence is a means of assisting your allies. Temples provide you a per turn influence total which is stored until used (ie – you don’t lose it at the end of each turn). For the price of 20 Influence points, you may interrupt any in-game attack (the clergy in your provinces send representative to the field of battle and demand a halt of hostilities….given the power of the Church, such decrees are always heeded!). Caveats to this are as follows:
1) If you use your influence to spare an ally an attack, you gain honor
2) If you cowardly use such tactics (hiding behind the coattails of the Church) to prevent an attack on one of YOUR territories, or on YOUR troops, you lose honor

Plenty more stuff of course, but this should be enough to at least provide a skeletal frame for the game. So my question now is, given the above, (and granted, this stuff is nowhere nearly as complex as SMAC or CIV), could we reasonably expect to make an AI that could be “taught” the ins and out of this (admittedly, somewhat hastily constructed) game world to such a degree that it could give a human player a decent run?

(and, if there’s interest in persuing this further, I’ll throw some additional ideas out, including an event engine to toss odd happenings into the game for unpredictability, and a few other things!) OTOH, if nobody really gets into the idea much, we’ll just let it quietly die out….

-=Vel=-
PS: Not to Analyst: I hope you're wrong about the little guy not being able to surprise us with decent AI. Admittedly, as the complexity of a game increases, so too, does the complexity involved with getting the AI to understand how to survive in the game world, but it is my fervent hope that the little guy has one or two tricks left that the monied folk have not thought of yet....

-V.

[Heliodorus]

Trying to follow along with Vel, here are some questions:

Is your map static, as in Axis and Allies?
Is your mercenary pool also static in a game? (I imagine a Magic: TG deck in which you know who's in there, but not who will be available next turn...).

I'm not a programmer, so it would be ludicrous for me to say it can or can't be done. However, I can see from the human perspective a major prioritization scheme occurring around the idea that you can only build 3 infrastructure builds per province. It strikes me that strategic implications begin there, and filter down into the decisions about combat, about influence, honor, and whatnot.

Interesting idea so far.

[Velociryx]

Hey man! Glad you're liking the idea so far! I'm currently thinking about even more builds, and perhaps a few "wonders" as well, to make the strategic placement a bit dicier (ie - Let us suppose that if you built six universities, you could then construct an Great Library/Great Academy kinna build....it would cost about triple what a University would, and would count as a University for purposes of answering the question "what all has been built in this province?" but would provide additional benefits as well--in this case, perhaps it would provide a 5% bonus on accumulated research in all categories currently being researched in, and, if you weren't doing any research in a particular category, it'd still give you a flat number of research points IN that area....something like that).

I envision the map as being flat and fixed, like Axis and Allies, and the Mercenaries being an infinite (and somewhat generic pool), with the following exception:

Sometimes, the games "event engine" will make special Mercenary units available to you for that turn only. If you hire them then and there, you can bring them into your fold. If you can't afford it, the event passes, and you lose your opportunity. This hybridized approach would allow for rapid, "in bulk" hiring of cheap troops along with highly skilled specialty units (per your M:TG example).....Now, if we can pique the interest of a programmer or two....

-=Vel=-

[Analyst Redux]

Originally posted by Velociryx
PS: Note to Analyst: I hope you're wrong about the little guy not being able to surprise us with decent AI. -V.

Actually, so do I.....

[Libertarian]

Libertarian, why [can't the computer take meaning from events or behavior]?

Because it has no ontological reference frame through which meaning can be derived. In other words, it is unable to formulate any sort of new concept other than what has been programmed into it. A computer is not analogous to a brain. If it were, it would rewrite its own code as its experience increased.

Take, for example, the famous scenario in which the computer sends a fleet of attackers to your weakest coastal spot. You can simply move a sufficiently threatening force around and around the coast just ahead of the fleet such that the AI will behave as though you have a strong and thoroughly fortified border without a hole anywhere. It will behave this way even though you are threadbare all the way around, except the one mobile spot.

Unless it has been specifically programmed to respond a certain way to your behavior, it is powerless to do anything about it.

There simply is no such thing as meaning outside a cognitive conscience.

[Velociryx]

Units:
The following units are available at game start:

Skirmisher/Scout – Lightly armored infantry based unit – The only foot unit that can keep pace with cav (2 moves)
Archer – Ranged attacker, lousy at hand to hand (1 move)
Cavalry – Speed unit, devastating for their ability to execute flank attacks (2 moves)
Pikemen – Provide defense against cavalry, extra vulnerable to archers (1 move)
Infantry – The grunts of the army that do most of the real fighting (1 move)
Siege Engine – Abstracted to represent a variety of engines, the presence of these units do not affect combat per se, but weaken the defensive modifiers gained by enemy fortresses and castles. (1 move)

*Technological Advance through the Militaristic branch of the tree may allow for other types of units as the game progresses.

Combat:
Each unit represents a company of 100 Men. Units can be stacked and combined into groups with the following considerations:
1) The group moves at the rate of the slowest member of the group.
2) The group fights as a cohesive unit (ie – all a/d values are added together).
3) Losses taken by the group are spread out as evenly as possible
4) In the absence of a leader, no more than 4 units (400 men) can be stacked together.
5) With a leader, this number jumps to eight (8) units as a maximum.

Combat occurs in rounds, and in the following order:
1) Ranged units fire (attacker/defender)
2) Losses are taken
3) Cavalry Flanking maneuvers/charges are performed (morale check for those receiving the charge)
4) Losses are taken
5) Ground troops attack
6) Losses are taken
7) Morale Check and Repeat.

Note that a charging/flanking cavalry unit may only attack “every other round.” (spending the off rounds re-grouping and gaining position).

Combat continues each round until:
1) One side is eliminated
2) One side’s morale breaks

If morale breaks, some portion of the breaking army is captured, and the rest retreat to the nearest friendly province. Captured units may either be ransomed or killed at the player’s option.

Weak Units:
Can be restored to full strength by spending a turn not moving, attacking, or defending, and for a gold value equal to x, where x is the % cost of the unit (ie – let’s say you have a company of Infantry that’s down to 50% strength. It’d cost you 50% of that unit’s full price to bring it back to full strength).

Unit Experience:
The REASON for wanting to restore weakened units is to keep their experience. Every three victories the unit participates in, they gain a “level” of experience, expressed in terms of higher unit morale (+10%). As the unit is weakened through attrition and later replenished, the raw recruits DO negatively impact morale, but only 1% per 20 Recruits added to the unit.

Leaders: Have a combat and morale enhancing attribute (both expressed as percentages). Units or groups with leaders at the head do more damage pound for pound, defend better, and are less likely to break in battle.

Elite units (150%+ morale) that win battles have a 20% chance of spawning a War Leader (the elite unit is lost, the War Leader is gained).

Mercenary units can NEVER generate War Leaders.

More later, if interest in this conjectural game continues….almost time to go home!

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

Hey Vel, I have a idea for you. Feel free to use or discard

In the Civ series, research was simply a matter of choosing what percentage of your empire-wide trade went to science. What if you could (if you wanted to) adjust it province-by-province, such that if you had a province with good trade and a great library type wonder thingy built in it, you could set it to 100% research - it would be the research center for your empire. Thus, you could maximize something like the Civ "SSC" while the rest of your empire paid the bills. Of course, that's putting all your eggs in one basket, so you'd damn well better protect that province.

Just a thought.

-Arrian

[Libertarian]

I think it's a great idea. Naturally, I dislike being unable to model a libertarian government, but your idea would go a long way toward helping in that regard.

[Velociryx]

Oh! I like it! And in fact, you could just have a toggle switch for the player to employ.

If you just wanted to control your research at the "top level" you flip the switch and set your percentage. OTOH, if you wanted "Full, Province-Level Control" you flip the switch, but then must micromanage each individual Province. VERY cool idea!

-=Vel=-
(glad to see people getting into the spirit of the conjectural exercise....and who knows, if we generate some real excitement talking about this game that exists only on this thread, perhaps some brave soul will offer to put some code together and see what happens!)

I think the key thing is, if we stick to a relatively simple concept and design, we should be able to construct a game which has:
1) Good, player moddable AI
and
2) Lots of replayability

I dunno about the other folks reading this, but in my head, I'm already contemplating various approaches to the game using all five of the houses outlined...lol

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Oh! I like it!

I dunno about the other folks reading this, but in my head, I'm already contemplating various approaches to the game using all five of the houses outlined...lol

First off, I'm glad you like it. The last bit there is because you're a strategy game junkie like the rest of us. Of course your mind is already contemplating how you would play.

What I would really like to see is what you (and many others here) would do with a good editor for Civ III, which is supposedly on the way. Sure, the AI would still be dumb, but I've played games that had dumb AI all my life.

-Arrian

Edit: I just saw your post, Lib. Thanks. How would you model a libertarian gov't in a game such as this, btw?