Why are AI generals so stupid?

[Gregoshi]

The problem is that game designers/publishers are generic liars on this subject.

The problem is that intelligence and thought processes are difficult concepts to define let alone attempt to translate into programming. Calling game designers "liars" is rather harsh. If you contest their use of the term "artificial intelligence", what would you propose they call it?

[Sp4]

Thought I'd clarify here =p I don't mean the entire AI army... a lot of the stuff they do "makes sense". I am talking about the general unit in particular, which they seem to treat as a glorified unit of light cavalary.

[econ21]

TW has long had a problem with suicidal generals. It was one of the, relatively few, problems with the original STW AI. If you were unlucky, you could end up fighting an entirely ronin Japan, the factions proper sacrificed their generals so frequently. However, I confess I did not notice the problem with STW2. It seems to use the general unit, as in ETW and NTW, for behind the lines support rather than as a combat unit.

If the AI general is just exposing himself to your fire, you could always refrain from shooting at him. (A British artillery captain at Waterloo observed Napoleon parading in front of his troops across the ridge and asked Wellington if he could take a shot at the enemy general; Wellington was aghast and refused permission[1]). It's more of an issue if - as in the original STW - the general charges into your lines.


[1]By contrast, in the ancient period, trying to take out the enemy general and decapitate their army was a common battle tactic.

[feelotraveller]

The problem is that intelligence and thought processes are difficult concepts to define let alone attempt to translate into programming. Calling game designers "liars" is rather harsh. If you contest their use of the term "artificial intelligence", what would you propose they call it?

Yes intelligence is hard to define - self awareness, creativity, learning... there are many possible characterisations I agree. It is harsh to call them liars but accurate. Take an example from S2TW - if I was playing my 4 year old nephew, it might take him a while, but on the 10th siege (or maybe more) he would resist lining his archers up to face my general and ignoring the main body of my army. (Lucky I don't play him at platform games, he would whip my b***.) The 'computer program' (my suggestion because that is what it is) will never learn this and, outside of reprogramming intervention, will fall for the same mistake endlessly. An artificial intelligence worth its name would function 'as if' it was human. It would 'learn' = reprogram itself. Sadly the game designers know this and wish to perpetuate the myth that you are somehow playing something intelligent rather than an inflexible coding.

The sad thing is that eventually we all start to think that the computer program is really an artificial intelligence because it is repeated endlessly. Yes it is a complex and remarkable piece of code but in the end it is no different from any unthinking mechanical contraption. Would you want to call a mouse trap intelligent?

[easytarget]

Feelotraveller,

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you do realize you're not exactly making an earth shattering revelation here right? You act incensed as if you were somehow duped into buying a game with big bold letters on the box falsely proclaiming the game inside has human like AI.

The next thing you'll reveal in full outrage will no doubt be the epiphany that most games feature character and plot development so infantile in comparison to other more developed mediums like literature or cinema that we should all gather round and have ourselves an ole style game bonfire and torch the lot.

But before we consider anything so drastic, here are some possible alternatives to belaboring your point in this thread any further:

1. check the box in S2 that says drop in (next thing you know a human like me will do just that, and drop in to replace the AI)
2. play chess, the "AI" will be more than happy to curb stomp you till the cows come home
3. or maybe just stick to MP style games in general, thereby avoiding the dumb AI altogether

[Gregoshi]

Just a reminder, let's keep the discussion to the issue, not each other.

To add a couple of more TW items to easytarget's list:

1. Don't exploit known AI issues.
2. Attack! Attack! Attack! Perhaps it is a false impression on my part, but most accounts of dumb AI actions or general battle descriptions seem to be with the player sitting in a nice comfy and defensible position and letting the AI take the initiative. Then the player just takes advantage of any poor execution on the part of the AI. Take the initiative yourself and give yourself more of a challenge. Let the AI react to you or see how well you can react to changing situation rather than just standing in a perfect defensive position. Put yourself in a position to potentially make a boneheaded move. Get out of your comfort zone.

As for the AI learning, I agree with Nelson's point that history is filled with incompetent commanders, so the AI need not be brilliant in most cases. Add to that that dead commanders can't learn (unlike your 4 year old nephew), assuming the AI would be simulating each individual commander rather than a vitual player such a we are in the game (controlling all battles).

[Sp4]

Ah... use the AI's 'stupidity' as part of the immersion.. I hadn't looked at it that way... Thus far I was all about MUSTWIN!!11 =p Probably my own mistake o\

[feelotraveller]

Ah, Easytarget and Gregoshi you miss my point. If I tweak the difficulty levels S2TW can give me more than a run for my money. I am not unhappy with the game. (In terms of challenge it beats my nephew hands down.) I generally do avoid exploits, etc.

It's just not an AI I am playing. It wouldn't be if I was playing chess or any computer game that I know of.

The definition of AI is to be human like (or to pass as human -be indistinguishable from one- in certain circumstances) with regards to intelligence. One way we could understand this is if 'drop in' were turned on and I couldn't tell whether I was playing a human or not. (In which case it would not matter, challenge wise at least, whether it was turned on or not.)

[Sp4]

No, it is not an AI, because I imagine, that even if it is possible to make an AI (which would then become capable of doing pretty much anything), you needed very strong machines (far beyond any normal person's budget I assume) to 'make it work'.

Video games simulate an AI, which works pretty nicely up to the point where you know all the of its tricks.

Is it even possible to beat a computer at chess? I mean they simulate any way a chess game can go from the current set of pieces, so they always make the best possible move. The only limit is their own speed I guess and that is increassing by the day.