Define AI

[Azi Tohak]

I know that many of us have our complaints about AI for RTW. However, I never really thought about what exactly AI is.

I am doing research right now on how to get a computer to tell me how far apart different items are on a circle, and then score those items placement versus a master. And it is @#*$@#( hard! I can’t program computers to save my life so I have to find what others have done, and I stumbled across the most interesting thread on what AI actually is. One of the people brought up the super chess playing computers, and how he thought they were AI (heck, so did I!). But another person told him that no, they were not ‘true’ AI capable of developing new thought processes, but they are merely huge, complex search programs. I thought that was interesting. It made me think about the total war games.

I played STW to death (my computer could not handle MTW until this new one). And while the computer was never really horrible (no ramming generals onto my spears, unsupported….), it also never really surprised me (that I can remember). I know it was not as easy as RTW, but I put that down to fewer units meaning less thought having to be done to figure out what to do with A as opposed to B, C and D. Now I wonder if maybe the computer was just better at searching, less programming having to go in.

Now for RTW…maybe the searching procedures were just neglected in favor of making it pretty. But that does make sense. I know how hard it is for me to get a computer to search for a bunch of pixels, I can’t imagine how bad it would be to program a foe on a 3-D battlefield with terrain, different unit types (a huge number really!).

That made me wonder, are there any games with RTWs tactical complexity (I think the strategic ineptness is inexcusable, I don’t see how the strategy could be harder than tactical!) but still have a solid search/AI or whatever you want to call it? I know everyone says MTW has a better AI, but I have not yet been impressed. It is not a moron, but it is not ‘good’ yet. Anything else out there?

Azi

[Productivity]

Not strategy, but I was surprised nonetheless.

I recently decided to buy Unreal Tournament 2004, and am playing through the single player game. Anyway, it's a capture the flag game and it is five a side, I have assigned one bot to offence, one to support (which seems to act like a midfielder) and two to defence. I myself roam.

So I grab the flag and it auto calls that I have the flag and where I am, and am running out of the enemies base with four behind me (and just about dead myself), when from around a corner my offence bot turns up and starts opening up with a chaingun. I though thanks, but put it down to pure chance. An AI offering realistic support. Never.

Anyway, after a valiant attempt to buy me time, he falls, and I'm again being chased by the opposition, this time at the bridge in the middle the support (midfield) bot does the same thing. At this point I'm thinking, well maybe this AI does work.

After playing for a bit longer, I've come to the conclusion that the AI does work. It does things that are smart. It attacks from multiple directions at once. If you call for support it will support you within it's sphere. The first defender is different to the second defender is different to the third efender etc.

Surprising and very nice to see. Also it seems Epic Games are the benchmark for supporting games, releasing mini-expansions for free to the community.

[Red Harvest]

I wouldn't worry too much about theorists that get caught up in the pedantic discussion of AI saying that chess computers are not "true AI." Give a chess computer a position it has never seen before and it will "score" it, make predictions of most likely moves, score the resulting positions, and select the move it has selected as best. It is good enough for games, and good enough to become World Champion. There are not many humans that even a good 20 year old chess computer can't beat. Yes, it fails to learn...although it is possible as the user to update the opening book to avoid the position in the future--or to call for a different move. The move choice can also be slightly randomized (this is done with the "opening books" already.)

Frankly, if any vid game could ever do half as good as my 20 year old Par Excellence chess computer (officially tournament rated as "expert" when it was sold) then I would be quite satisfied with that game's AI.

The real problem with today's games is in writing an AI (or rule set, whatever) that recognizes basic patterns, and responds appropriately--and sometimes with some random branching...that last little subtletly is often missed, but is the key to limiting human ability to ruthlessly exploit 100% repeatability of errors. RTW's AI responds 100% inappropriately in far too many situations compared to MTW. Quieteus likes to claim that MTW and RTW's AI are the same. I can point to things that show they are certainly not identical although they share characteristics. However, Quietus misses the forest for the trees, even if he turned out to be correct. His thesis only shoots a giant hole in his defense of RTW. RTW's battle dynamics and combat calcs, projectiles, and unit balance differ tremendously, so using the same AI would be the equivalent of fighting WWII with WWI tactics...or WWI with American Civil War tactics.

[Papewaio]

AI = artificial intelligence.

Games are more a series of look up tables. So it is like a menu of options.

If AI was high cusine, game bots would be McDonalds.

[Fragony]

AI = artificial intelligence.

Games are more a series of look up tables. So it is like a menu of options.

If AI was high cusine, game bots would be McDonalds.

UT AI is pretty complex, they actually work as a team. That can't be easy to program.

[doc_bean]

AI is artificial intelligence, this doesn't just mean it isn't intelligence because it doesn't come from a human being, intelligence is abstract. It means that it tries the best it can to be just like the real thing.

Unfortunately, we don't even know what the real thing is. So it's hard to imitate.

From what i understand (admitted, not very much) most modern games use a rule-base AI, essentially a series of if-then rules that can't change.

Now it is possible to go beyond this point, adaptable AI is possible in theory, but I think it is still too complex to use in games (processor demands).

Now about UT, I never played it, do the bots really work together ? Getting them to attack from different positions doesn't seem to hard (just assign a penalty if they get to close to eachother).

From my limited knowledge of 'intelligent' search algorithmes, it really does take an expert to use them correctly.

[Papewaio]

UT AI is pretty complex, they actually work as a team. That can't be easy to program.

Its still just a look up table not real intelligence by any means.

= Main Order Program Menu=
Take order,
smile at customer,
enter order,
smile at customer,
pick up order,
smile at customer,
give order,
smile at customer.

- Take Order Sub Menu -
What would you like today?
.
.
.
Supersize that?

- Make Burger Sub Menu-
.
.
.
Put Burger on Bun,
Smile at minimum wages,
Put Pickles on Bun, /* Note if no pickles on bun it is no longer a main meal and becomes a confectionary item */
Smile at minimum wages,
Squirt on Cream [Check CreamVar is Mayo > CreamOfSomeYoungGuy],
Smile at minimum wages,
.
.
.

====

Same for the UT bots they are given a destination and target type range. They don't learn, they use SQL like tables. So at best they should be called primitive AI where AI is artifical instinct.

[The Mad Scandinavian]

It would be really cool to see a programers viewpoint on this. Nothing too complicated but just the theories behind what they do to make the AI work. If that's not possible to explain simply then I'll shut up.

[Nelson]

Chess enjoys a very real advantage for AI developers as opposed to games like Total War. That is not to say that AI for chess is simple. It surely is not. But chess is far more discreet with regard to potential moves on each turn. Every game starts exactly the same way. The OB for each side is identical. Each piece can only get to a few spaces on each turn if it can move at all. Chess AI can therefor be expected to weigh anticipated counter moves.

In Rome, each battle is different. The units can be radically varied. All units can move at a walk OR a run IF they move at all. Units can change formation. Some can shoot or melee. There is terrain to consider. Knights don’t get tired in chess like they do in Medieval. Rome AI must determine what to do with an army consisting of from 1 to 20 units of who knows what continuously in real time even as circumstances change with regard to morale, fatigue and terrain. Introduce tired knights, frightened pawns and undulating chessboards with forests and rivers and then we can compare the two games more evenhandedly regarding AI.

[Mikeus Caesar]

Well, when you think about it, present day game AI isn't really Intelligence. It's just a bunch of programs and code that has bee designed to mimic intelligence. Just look at the creature from the game Black and White for example. It appears to be like AI, but if it was AI, it would learn. It would learn how to do thing for itself, rather than having you teach it, or should i say, program it, not to do or to do things by petting it or hitting it. It has limits, and true AI wouldn't have limits. The limits for it's expansion and learning would be, quite frankly, limitless. True AI would learn from it's experiences without human help. And, going into the realms of Sci-fi, in the future, true AI will be self aware.

Define AI

Anything that isn't from RTW....

[Productivity]

What I think would help the Rome AI (at least defensively) is if it just picked a tactic, and stuck to it. I am playing as Spain now, and the Scipii reguarly siege Carthago. Now every time I sally out, they withdraw to a point away from the walls, and form up into formation. But on the way there, they may try to re organise 3-4 times, often just as I am about to hit them.

If the AI could come up with a decent defensive formation, and then hold it, it would do far better, rather than me hitting it as it is re-arranging. Maybe give units a factor which determines how "key" they are in any formation, so cavalry would have a low value for this and be able to mvoe around at will, skirmishers would have a somewhat higher, but still low value, and key heavy infantry would have a very high value.