CA's Wikiman on the AI

Just came across this post on the com by CA's current defacto spokesman for M2, Wikiman, on the subject of the AI. Here's what he had to say:

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.

I have spoken at length with the programmers as I know AI is a hot topic. Battle AI and campaign AI are both getting a lot of work. I know the vast majority of you out there will be impressed. Some of those old battlefield tricks you used to pull will no longer work. Remember we have hired one of you in order to make sure we know all of these tricks.

The campaign map is [a] much more complicated beast and has gotten a lot of treatment, with much more to come. The fruits of this I have yet to see but it should be pretty tidy.

Gotta run,

-wikiman

The original thread is here.

I, for one, am very pleased with this announcement. It's not as if the AI is terrible (as some people seem to espouse), but if we could see it purged of it's moments of stupidity, I'd be very happy.

A more tactically adept AI will be very welcome, in general. I look forward to it with enthusiasm. Hopefully, it'll also get a campaign makeover so there are no more battles of your 300 troops vs. comp's 4 stacks of 200, either simultaneously or consecutively.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I have serious doubts on this statement, but the rest sounds good. Happy they atleast mension AI (unlike during RTW development IIRC).

Quote:

---

Remember we have hired one of you in order to make sure we know all of these tricks.

---

hm who did they hire ? someone from the community ? I hope it's someone with good MP experience then.

I think they hired a regular poster from the .com board, whose contributions they presumably found impressive. Can't remember his nic though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adherbal

I have serious doubts on this statement, but the rest sounds good. Happy they atleast mension AI (unlike during RTW development IIRC).

---

I think the statement to which you refer makes better sense in the context of the thread in which it appears.

a sign that they are working hard.

I am very pleased with this announcement, it also shows they do care about what the community is saying to them.

I do believe what he meant by it would be easy to make the AI steamroller the human player would be to provide them rediculously unfair advantages that would smash you regardless of what you did, this however they obviously won't do, just they could. Like he said getting an AI to react like a human is nigh on impossible and they are going to do their best to get as close as is possible.

Quote:

---

Remember we have hired one of you in order to make sure we know all of these tricks.

---

Let's hope they hired the right one then. I doubt they have

........Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

Let's hope they hired the right one then. I doubt they have

........Orda

---

such scepticism ^^

Nice to hear, sounds promising. Hopefully a large percentage of the work hours going into MTW2 will be centered around AI as they already have much of the graphics engine and various other stuff ready from RTW. Interesting that they hired a guy from the community ~:)

"Put a thief to catch a thief." ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

Let's hope they hired the right one then. I doubt they have

---

Yeah, would have been encouraging if they'd hired, say, Puzz.

I suppose some sleuth could figure out something about the direction of M2 by finding out who they hired and then reading a whole bunch of his posts. I'm not sure I can be bothered going to the trouble myself...

The guy they hired is called Palamedes (sp?). Apparently he's a TW veteran who's been playing since Shogun and know thegames pretty much inside out. Plus he's a regular with the multiplayer community too.

That's definitely good news. It's nice just to hear someone from CA say "I know AI is a hot topic." I hope they release an alpha or beta demo before they've made up their minds, so that the community can pitch in and help catch things the one player-tester they hired may have missed, or not even thought of. One can always wish.

"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." - Wickman


He must be talking about putting cheats into the game for the AI. It sounds like they aren't even trying to make an AI that can handle the sophistication of the game's features. This is consistent with the AI that you see in RTW/BI. The AI can't handle the possibilites on the strategic map, and it's not handling the possibilites in the tactical battles either. The sophistication of the game has outstripped the AI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

"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." - Wickman


He must be talking about putting cheats into the game for the AI. It sounds like they aren't even trying to make an AI that can handle the sophistication of the game's features. This is consistent with the AI that you see in RTW/BI. The AI can't handle the possibilites on the strategic map, and it's not handling the possibilites in the tactical battles either. The sophistication of the game has outstripped the AI.

---

The AI can already hold it's own on the strat and battle maps, when it is not hindered by a lack of funds, inferior troops and/or huge cities taking up most of the battle map. It certainly does'nt need any cheats, just a level playing field is all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

He must be talking about putting cheats into the game for the AI. It sounds like they aren't even trying to make an AI that can handle the sophistication of the game's features. This is consistent with the AI that you see in RTW/BI. The AI can't handle the possibilites on the strategic map, and it's not handling the possibilites in the tactical battles either. The sophistication of the game has outstripped the AI.

---

Man, you spoiled my impression of this news. Anathema on you! :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

He must be talking about putting cheats into the game for the AI. It sounds like they aren't even trying to make an AI that can handle the sophistication of the game's features. This is consistent with the AI that you see in RTW/BI. The AI can't handle the possibilites on the strategic map, and it's not handling the possibilites in the tactical battles either. The sophistication of the game has outstripped the AI.

---

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IceTorque

The AI can already hold it's own on the strat and battle maps, when it is not hindered by a lack of funds, inferior troops and/or huge cities taking up most of the battle map. It certainly does'nt need any cheats, just a level playing field is all.

---

So in other words, the AI can win just fine on only an open playing field, yes? :inquisitive: 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

"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." - Wickman


He must be talking about putting cheats into the game for the AI. It sounds like they aren't even trying to make an AI that can handle the sophistication of the game's features. This is consistent with the AI that you see in RTW/BI. The AI can't handle the possibilites on the strategic map, and it's not handling the possibilites in the tactical battles either. The sophistication of the game has outstripped the AI.

---

Sorry Puzz, but you are letting your downer on RTWs AI blinker yourself here.

Screwtype has pretty much explained what is actually meant.

Personally, out of all the MTW2 info that has come out, this is the best news. Its an issue within the community and CA is doing something about it.

I'll go along with Mount Suribachi - of all the 'official' announcements made so far, the extra effort being put into AI is the most welcome. Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but announcements like these will always cheer me up.

Mmmmm... pudding...

If CA merely addresses the well known glaring aspects of the AI, I will be happy. Take a look at what some of our modders accomplish, the programmers should be able to do so much more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

So in other words, the AI can win just fine on only an open playing field, yes? :inquisitive: 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.

---

To me the term 'level playing field' does not mean "open playing field". Perhaps the term 'a fair fight' is more clear. If the problem was with the AI and not what is imo minor flaws in game design and maybe the game code. Then why are many of these flaws so easily minimized or eliminated by simple tweaks to the games txt files ?

I think the "don't expect miracles" part is the most important thing for players to remember. No PC on the market today is capable of handling the programing that would be required for a TW version of "Big Blue". I think this AI will be improved but once we learn how the AI "thinks" we will *learn* how to defeat it again. The AI, on the other hand, has very little, if any, ability to learn from observing our game play.

That is our advantage over the machine, we can learn and adapt it cannot. One day the computers may be able to think and learn, its just not today.

Cheers. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brighdaasa

such scepticism ^^

---

I apologise if my post was taken as scepticism, it was not intended as such.
A name of Palamedes has been mentioned and this person is supposedly a veteran dating back to Shogun. Now I am fully aware that people can change their names, use different names for MP and forum posting etc but I fail to see why CA need to shroud this in mystery. Far better IMO would be to announce player participation after selecting people knowledgeable in both SP and MP.
Incidentally, I have never heard of Palamedes and from a MP point of view I can think of many players who exposed these 'little tricks'

........Orda

http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotal...art=41&stop=58

I think its safe to say that he's the real deal. Read the entire thread if you have to. Cheers.

Sound promising.

I challenge the idea that great MP players are somehow the ultimate tactical gurus of the game. I doubt if MP experience is worth all that much regarding an improved AI. In MP a player doesn’t see the AI tactics. Playing another human with delicately balanced forces on a flat green map is not going to enlighten anyone about the AI at all. Experienced campaign players know the AI weaknesses best and thus know what needs fixing. The AI must be able to play appropriately depending on variables such as outnumbering the player or being outnumbered.

Palamedes says he mostly has played SP. That's a good thing. We must remember that the goals in SP and MP are different, as are the conditions of engagement. Few SP battles are evenly matched like MP fights are. In MP, a win is a win. There are no Phyrric victories. My Roman army was recently bled white taking a city in Spain from the Carthaginians only to promptly lose it to the Iberians. What would have been an unrelated win and loss in MP was a busted campaign in SP where 600 men and a decent general were thrown away. In this case the AI was good enough to foil my plans considering the scope of the campaign. The AI needs improving, no doubt about it. But MP only players can not speak to the strategic considerations that the AI must exhibit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi

Sorry Puzz, but you are letting your downer on RTWs AI blinker yourself here.

Screwtype has pretty much explained what is actually meant.

---

I read the whole thread. Wickman doesn't give any specifics. It's a feelgood PR post designed to reassure potential buyers and counteract the impression left by RTW. CA is always improving the AI according to them. If that's so, why is the battle AI inferior in several specific ways to STW's AI? If Wickman spent lots of time talking to the programmers about AI, then where are the specifics that he surely learned about?


IceTorque,

There is no way the RTW battle AI can beat me at even odds on a level playing field. The AI in MTW2 is going to require bonuses to offer a strong challenge. It's the way all games currently do it. That isn't even open to question. They have to do it that way.

I use a different approach when I play SP because I think the combat bonuses mess up the AI, for instance, by making it more likely that archers will charge into melee combat. I play at normal difficulty and just don't play my best so as to give the AI a better chance. I actually find the RTW v1.5 SP campaign to be relaxing to play.

Even without specifics, this is some of the most encouraging news I've heard. The main thing I want to know is just that they care about the AI as much as we do and that they're doing their best to make it better. It doesn't make for the flashiest news, unfortunately, and has been almost ignored in the previews/interviews/etc. Here where there's nothing more important, it's at least nice to have it addressed.

Thank you, Wikiman, and do what you can to give us a true challenge.

Ajax

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.

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

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.

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dead Moroz

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

So in other words, the AI can win just fine on only an open playing field, yes? :inquisitive: 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by screwtype

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by screwtype

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

Azi Tohak rules all

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

No, the obvious answer is to get the people who did HOI2 and GalCiv2 A.I in to do it.:idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butcher

No, the obvious answer is to get the people who did HOI2 and GalCiv2 A.I in to do it.:idea2:

---

Amen!

~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butcher

No, the obvious answer is to get the people who did HOI2 and GalCiv2 A.I in to do it.:idea2:

---

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.