The AI is stupid!

[EasyCo]

GOOD LORD! the AI is sttuuppiiddd! I am on Expert. I have 1500 men and Iyasu Tokugawa.Sooo, I won..ok. Now the Oda he has more men and better men like about 3,000 men to the next province.. he can beat me BUT noooo!!!.Now Oda is a Ronin!! Its me and the Ronin....Boring http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

EasyCo
Sorry about the laungage

[TelexStar]

thats one of things i don't like about this game is that whenall the clans have been killed off, they all turn to ronin. maybe that historically correct, i don't know.

[The Bear]

I think that in the expansion pack, they will fix this end game problem.

[Anssi Hakkinen]

There will be an option to achieve victory earlier than having conquered all the provinces. ("I would like to achieve victory now." "OK" http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif) In addition to that, there's a rumor (http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000206.html) (yes, a rumor) floating around about the rônin changing back into active clans. But only the first thing is certain.

[EasyCo]

Heres another one. The stacking mode. He had 1army Oda and 2army is heir,Toyotomi.Hes at the time province. He got killed, plus Oda Seige Castle....Another Stupid AI.

EasyCo

[Maltz]

I guess the problem is AI is not learning as we do.

When I first played I almost lost all evenly matched battles :P But I learned how to handle AI's tactics.

AI usually send in a small group and pull it back. About two or three times comes the big attack. As long as I tell me men to halt(chase them will get surrounded), and my flanks ready to "backstab" their grand assault), the AI is doomed http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

Human players are much better in timing -- attack the enemy from multiple direction at the same time. While AI cannot do this. They fall apart easily if I break their plan by one or two flanks. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif The troops being flanked usually run away soon, and my flanks can just keep flanking the next and next... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Maltz (edited 05-25-2001).]

[Steeleye]

yep, the AI hasn't got a very high IQ. Then again, sadly I haven't found a stategy game yet where the AI WASN'T rather cerebrally challenged - and I should think we'll have to wait a good few years yet until we do get one that learns as it goes.

Of course, Daimyo leading bridge charges or sitting picking daisies while their entire army runs past them screaming for mummy doesn't help matters....

Kyodaispan

[Maltz]

Although the AIs is not very smart, I think Shogun has done a pretty good job in boosting the challenge.

They are just too rich! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif

AI have fortress, ports, good farm upgrades, and border forts everywhere. I cannot understand why don't they spend more money on upgrading their troops - that will make our way much tougher.

Oh and AI seems don't make good use of good generals.

[celtiberoijontychi]

Quote:
"Then again, sadly I haven't found a stategy game yet where the AI WASN'T rather cerebrally challenged"
Ever played chess against a computer?

------------------
Long live Celtiberos
Glory and Honour to Clan Celtiberos

[High Voltage]

Also dumb how the AI will charge straight up a hill you're on, rather than going around to even ground and fighting.

[EasyCo]

Yes your right High!! It seems the Hojo is stupid...It seems the Imagawa and Oda it is better..Like split Army and the forest and stuff.Do you think that.

EasyCo

[Shuko]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by celtiberoijontychi:
[Ever played chess against a computer?


Have you tried Chess Master 6000 or 7000 ? If you set it up for a g/m style game and pick a personality eg. Alekhine or Tal it plays very hard. You will normally lose on time and positionally. Unless you are a really strong chess player you will lose. The AI is enough for about 95% of regular players and there are even stronger programs if you want to spend more money ( even g/m's use them for analysis).

[celtiberoijontychi]

that's what i mean. The chess AI can adopt a personality, can apply different strategies and tactics ...
It will recors your games and take notice of ur strenghts and weaknesses ...

Another good thing of chess is the ELO ranking system. If a very high ranked player loses against a very lower ranked one, he will loose lots of points. But if he wins, he will practically gain nothing. But he won't loos points by winning, as it actually happens in STW.

------------------
Long live Celtiberos
Glory and Honour to Clan Celtiberos

[High Voltage]

Originally posted by eltiberoijontychi:
Quote Another good thing of chess is the ELO ranking system. If a very high ranked player loses against a very lower ranked one, he will loose lots of points. But if he wins, he will practically gain nothing. But he won't loos points by winning, as it actually happens in STW.[/QUOTE]

Actually I find this system, along with most ladder systems, very innacurate to keep score. This kind of system doesn't know if the lower ranked player is very good or very bad, and rank is a bad representation. Same with the STW ranking system, I heard that if a high rank player plays a low rank player, he will lose points or not gain any. What if the low rank player just made a new name, or if he played LAN games until he was an expert then went online and wooped arse.

------------------
- A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.
- The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.

[Shuko]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by High Voltage:
'Actually I find this system, along with most ladder systems, very innacurate to keep score. This kind of system doesn't know if the lower ranked player is very good or very bad, and rank is a bad representation.'


You need to win to move up the 'ladder', then the "system" is fairly accurate and it knows you are becoming stronger. Obviously that is the most you can hope for. No system can pick good players from the lower ranks unless they keep winning and take their rightful place in the kingdom.

Almost any ranking system is better than none. The only really inaccurate thing I can see here is innacurate.

[This message has been edited by Shuko (edited 05-28-2001).]

[Kraellin]

i believe the reason why you may lose points to a lower 'honor' player even if you beat them is based on the assumption that there is no honor in beating a weak opponent. and this assumption doesnt allow for the fact that it might be the lower 'honor' player challenging the higher, in which case the higher 'honor' player is not bullying the lower at all and shld not lose points for winning.

K.

[High Voltage]

Kraellin:

exactly http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
- A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.
- The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.

The AI is extremely stupid!

In the strat map he is rather good but in battles hes crap!

He rushes and sends units without any coordination! When I go at his back and fire with CA he stays there looking at me! and when I fire at him he generall pulls back and then comes to attack me; but the he pulls back again and again!

Poor ai! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
Honour to Clan No Fear.

Visit my resource centre at: http://terazawa.totalwar.org

[Steeleye]

Celti, Shuko

Ok, fair enough, even basic chess games on the computer are generally very good - but by strategy games I meant things like Shogun and Civilisation. Chess is a game which has a very small number (relatively speaking) of things that you can do, and everything can be analysed to produce the best 'move' and series of moves relatively easily. Not so with a real time battle, or a complex strategy game, where the number of variables is much much bigger, making it a much larger task.

Saying that, get one of the guys who codes the chess programs onto Shogun, and I'm sure he could whip the AI diamyo into a bit better shape, at least. Of course, if you went down this line all the way, you'd end up with a near unbeatable computer general - an even greater task is to 'program' personalities and emotions (such as 'oh, i'm losing so i'll pile more units in' reaction - which can be put to good use against human players).

Span

[Shuko]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Steeleye:
[B]Celti, Shuko
Ok, fair enough, even basic chess games on the computer are generally very good - but by strategy games I meant things like Shogun and Civilisation.


To give you a better idea of the problems involved here is an example. In 'go' (Oriental board game with black & white stones) played on a 19x19 board after just four moves the number of permutations is 16 million, you can't comprehend how many there would be in a full game. They still have not got a decent AI program as there are too many things to think about and good players can always make unorthodox moves that gain a significant advantage.Yet these same moves would fail against a slightly stronger player in most cases because he would understand what you are getting up to.

In Shogun it would be great to have smarter AI(that doesn't cheat), don't think it would take that much to improve it several notches in battle mode.It may be possible to have a choice of passive through to aggressive style generals in the AI but you could not give them a really distinctive style like they do with grandmasters in strong chess programs. Nobunaga's Ambition 11 gave all the generals and soldiers (units under the leadership of that soldier) accurate personalities based upon historical data and what they did in battle. This would be a good feature for Shogun to have.

Finally, I think that a strong Shogun player would always beat the AI in an even battle situation unless the AI "learns" from each battle and eventually knows all the moves that the human player knows. Any improvements are going to increase our level of enjoyment.

------------------
"STRATAGEM" the expectation is that your opponent(s) may not have the skill to deal with the problem.

[Trousermonkey]

For a deeper discussion of game ai (and the differences between chess and go) check out Dave Fotland's post regarding State enumeration (Go vs. Chess complexity)
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&ic=1&th=b1cad7678164effc,3&seekm=D7E882.HLA%40cup.hp.com#p

This assumes you're familiar with some programming and with the game of go. Fortunately I am and I found this discussion facinating.

Granted STW is played on a map without discrete positions I wonder how the game ai measures up to something like this...

[Shuko]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Trousermonkey:
[B]For a deeper discussion of game ai (and the differences between chess and go) check out Dave Fotland's post regarding State enumeration (Go vs. Chess complexity)


Thanks for that site, although their comments are six years old they are still true. There is a wealthy Taiwanese guy who is a 6 dan amateur go player (very strong amateur)who for several years has offered 1 milliom dollars to anyone who can get a go computer program to defeat him. His money is still quite safe, I am a 3 dan amateur go player and can easily defeat the current go programs. My teacher is a professional 9 dan (one of the elite) go player,I wonder if they could ever get AI to defeat someone of his power. The strong 9 dans crush all the other pro players, it is almost like they are playing a different game within a game!

Does someone out there understand the level of Shogun programming difficulty ? For example, the 'Age of Empires' is similar to Shogun and also has some poor AI habits. Overall I think it performs better than Shogun when it fights, although the fights are not as complex. My programming knowledge is very limited.

[Kraellin]

age of empires (aoe) is similar to shogun? oh boy, now you've done it! about the only similarity to these two is that they are both played on the computer.

aoe doesnt even come close to the level of complexity and sophistication of stw. i played aoe when it first came out and trashed it after a week...i can only think that...maybe...they've improved it a touch since then and that's what yer referring to, but i wouldnt know, since i've developed this strange case of microsoftaphobia ever since.

K.

[Vanya]

"Stupid is as stupid does..."

[Shuko]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kraellin:
[B]age of empires (aoe) is similar to shogun? oh boy, now you've done it! about the only similarity to these two is that they are both played on the computer.

Have you played AOE 11 The Conquerors Expansion ? If you play the campaigns at the hard level you may have considerable trouble winning. The AI fights quite well, it is not easy to win.

Do you understand programming sufficiently to know the difference between the two games ? You really need to see a doctor eg, The Bear or Soly about that dreaded microsoftaphobia or you will go blind http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by Shuko (edited 05-31-2001).]

[Shuko]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vanya:
[B]"Stupid is as stupid does..


keep taking your medication.......... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/mad.gif
I am on 20 viagra a day now and am feeling so much better. Valium milkshakes never agreed with my alcohol intake http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif


[This message has been edited by Shuko (edited 05-31-2001).]

[evilc]

i have to say aoe is crap and aoe2 is maybe better, but have you ever heared of an epic battle in the middle ages fought between 40 men, cos that aoe, shogun does it ALL soooooooooomuch better, but i may be wrong...

[This message has been edited by evilc (edited 05-31-2001).]