CA's Wikiman on the AI

[Watchman]

On the other hand, modders don't have release-date deadlines breathing down their necks...

[HalfThere]

IMO, if a modder can improve the AI, the company screwed up. No one should know an AI better than its creator, so the AI should be at its best in the vanilla version. For example, if an AI constantly bankrupts itself, and a modder comes in and teaches the AI how to better manage its economy, the company obviously didn't do a very good job, because an unpaid layman designed a better mousetrap than a paid pro.

Modders have more time and testing at their disposal. Plus, they really haven't made any better AIs. Darthmod is, I suppose, better in that the AI doesn't start in one big line, but it's a marginal improvement at best.

If the company gives the tools for complete AI modification, then there SHOULD be some modders out there who eventually make something that excels in at least a few aspects.

[Ludens]

This is good news. The R:TW A.I. did have some improvements over M:TW, but overall it made too many mistakes to provide a challenge. It is good to hear that they at least are not trying to make the game challenging by pumping up A.I. units (not that I am against a little cheating by the A.I.; but in R:TW it was definetly too much).

[TosaInu]

On the other hand, modders don't have release-date deadlines breathing down their necks...

True, and speaking from experience: modders can take some 'risks' and do 'odd' things and/or focus on one thing and ignore all other modes (such as a MP only mod).

The worst that can happen is a person not liking your free mod.

[Dead Moroz]

On the other hand, modders don't have release-date deadlines breathing down their necks...

There is another decision how to deal with deadlines - to hire more workers. I guess that after commercial success of RTW CA should have enough money for it.

[TB666]

There is another decision how to deal with deadlines - to hire more workers. I guess that after commercial success of RTW CA should have enough money for it.

And CA did.
They were hiring more staff after RTW and it was for the australian office as well.

Edit: And I just check their website and they are still hiring people.

[Papewaio]

So in other words, the AI can win just fine on only an open playing field, yes? That sounds like what you're saying, anyway. Sorry, IceTorque, but that's too many qualifiers.

It is because the AI is poor that it suffers from a shortage of funds and inferior troops. It is *because* the AI is poor that it can't win city battles (defending or attacking). You have the cause and the symptoms switched around here.

That shows that the strategic AI is not up to scratch and doesn't know how to look after its economy.

I tell all new players that they must conquor their economies first, their enemies second.

The AI needs to do the same by good build choices and correct troop choices to match.

No, you are misinterpreting the meaning. If you read the post in context, I think it's clear that he is just responding to someone else's comment that it's impossible to make a challenging computer opponent.

What he's saying essentially is "we could easily give you a challenging computer opponent (say, by by giving outrageous stats to AI units), but it wouldn't be much fun to play. So we are working on the AI to give you a sophisticated opponent that is BOTH challenging and fun to play. Just don't expect miracles."

It would not be the AI that wins if the stats were reworked to make it very challenging. That is just loading the probabilities.

I have to agree with Puzz3D-sama... the game has too many variables for the AI to get a handle on and hence make good decisions. Shogun had fog, rain, snow... and it was always dicey when playing against monks in the fog... you never quite knew where they were going to appear. The AI could handle itself fairly well. I don't think the other AI's have kept pace with the graphics. So eye candy has outstipped intelligence by quite a bit... we have traded candy floss for challenge.

====

BTW I have never played MP. And when it comes to getting a decent AI, I would choose the experienced SP player over the experienced MP player... but if it was my decision I would get both in the deal and have the MP player playtest the AI.

[screwtype]

I have to agree with Puzz3D-sama... the game has too many variables for the AI to get a handle on and hence make good decisions. Shogun had fog, rain, snow... and it was always dicey when playing against monks in the fog... you never quite knew where they were going to appear. The AI could handle itself fairly well. I don't think the other AI's have kept pace with the graphics. So eye candy has outstipped intelligence by quite a bit... we have traded candy floss for challenge.

Undoubtedly true. However, I am optimistic that having spent four years developing the basic engine for RTW, CA are now in a position to spend more time tweaking the AI up to an acceptable level.

As I said before I'm not expecting miracles, I'd be happy to have a battle AI that was as smart or hopefully a bit smarter than what we got in STW. The strategic AI also obviously needs a lot of work, because the new more detailed 3D map gives the AI a lot more choices.

But heck, surely it couldn't be *that* hard to develop a decent strategic AI. I reckon I could design a pretty decent one myself if someone paid me an acceptable wage and gave me twelve months to finish it.

[Papewaio]

Past behaviour is such a good indicator of future behaviour that it is the preferred method of job interviews...

So what colour candy floss do you want?

[Azi Tohak]

It’s very easy to make the computer beat a human 100% of the time in a game of this complexity. It would not be very sophisticated but it would be a walkover.

Making a game think like a human is currently impossible given the constraints of the household PC and the development time we have. If you all had clusters of uber-PCs and we had another 6 years to develop this game you would be impressed with our work.

-wikiman[/I]

The original thread is here.

HA! HA HA HA HA HA! How exactly is this heap of parts going to come up with something I can't? I know that Mr. Computer can assign more commands per second than me (for example, all RTS's have that problem on expert difficulties), but no computer can come up with a double envelopment, bait and retreat, long out-flank like a good human can. This game is more complicated than a simple search program like a chess computer.

Azi

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Azi Tohak rules all

[BDC]

The obvious answer would be to have either a multiplayer map so you play humans or revert to a more simple map ala MTW, which the AI coped fine with.

[Butcher]

The obvious answer would be to have either a multiplayer map so you play humans or revert to a more simple map ala MTW, which the AI coped fine with.

No, the obvious answer is to get the people who did HOI2 and GalCiv2 A.I in to do it.

[Spino]

No, the obvious answer is to get the people who did HOI2 and GalCiv2 A.I in to do it.

Amen!

[Odin]

No, the obvious answer is to get the people who did HOI2 and GalCiv2 A.I in to do it.

The people that did the AI for HOI2 was paradox if I recall correctly. Ahhhhh HOI2 seems to have been received real well by most accounts that I have seen, but prior to that Paradox record on the AI is less then stellar.

I dont want them anywhere near this AI personally, it would be a bargain bin purchase for me if that happened. If CA is to take anything from the Paradox game model, lets hope they take the paradox approach to the modding community.