The AI ... some wishful thinking

[Revenant69]

This is just me thinking out loud about a topic of AI, or more precisely the PO (Programmed Opponent as someone put it).

To start off I'll ask this question:
Has anyone here played the game called "Galactic Civilisation" by StarDock?
If not then you definitely should, because it offers unparalleled challenges. I've played it long time ago, but I have only good memories about it. So, what can we say about the PO in Galactic Civ?

Before releasing the game, Stardock has held a betatest with lots of people participating. They carefully recorded the whole spectrum of different strategies that these betatesters exhibited, and ranked them from really shite ones to really good ones. Then, here comes the kicker, they programmed the PO according to the strategies that they got from this betatest, i.e. the PO on Easy would act as a dimwitted human, PO on Normal would act as an average human, ... and the PO on Very Hard would act as the top 5% of humans did in the beta test. Can you feel what this means?
It means that you end up playing not as much against the computer AI as against a human AI, albeit at a reduced level. Nonetheless, even this "little" implementation has turned Galactic Civ into the game that everyone said was better than the long anticipated MOO3 (Master of Orion 3). If you doubt my words go out and buy Galactic Civ to see what I mean.

What am I leading to? Well, why couldn't CA do the same for RTW/MTW/STW? Instead of giving the PO static bonuses on Hard and Very Hard difficulties (which I find unfair), they could've implemented the same thing as Stardock. On Easy, the PO would act dimwitted, on Normal it would act as an average human, on hard it would act as top 15% humans and on very hard as top 5% humans in the betatest.
CA care to comment on this?

Well, maybe CA will do it for the next Total War title. I hope.

Now let's talk about the AI. AI stands for Artificial Intelligence. I'm pretty sure most of you will agree that humanity has a long way to go to develop the true AI. So far, the opponent in computer games is just that - the programmed opponent, PO. One way to improve the PO is genetic algorithms. You are gonna ask, what is that? Well, I'm giving you an example:

Imagine that the PO's general attacks your army and you go to the battlefield screen. the PO's general mutates it's curent battle algorithm (say algorithm A) and makes some changes to its battle plan. It fights you with this new battle plan and...wins. The genetic algorithm says "Hey, you've won. Maybe your tactic wasn't bad after all. Remember this from now on as algorithm B" The next battle the same general uses the algorithm B as its base algorithm and mutates it, i.e. makes some changes and wins. etc. etc. etc.

What if the PO loses a battle, i.e. army gets detroyed? Well, obviously the algorithm wasn't good enough but it is no longer an issue as the general is dead, i.e. removed from the genetic algorithm pool. Can you see what I'm getting at?

This would mean that only the strongest algorithms would survive during the game, moreover they'd improve (and this can be manipulated by the probability of mutation of the given algorithm) thus improving the overall difficulty of the game. Also, the gamedeveloper could evolve these algorithms inhouse before releasing the game so that way the PO wouldn't have to evolve from scratch when the end consumer starts playing the game. Developers could also set different starting algorithms depending on difficulties, i.e for Easy the PO starts with 0-base algorithm, on Normal it already has somewhat evolved algorithms and on very hard PO has highly evolved algorithms.

Genetic algorithms would thus have another added benefit: the replayability of the game would increase insanely as each game the PO might evolve in a different direction. Well, this at least somewhat approximates what the true AI should be.

What is my point from all of this? Well, being a great TW fan I just want for this game series to become better. Ideally I'd want all of the current TW titles reprogrammed with a new PO, either based off of betatesting or based on genetic algorithms.

Maybe it's just my wishful thinking.......

[AquaLurker]

Wow interesting read. Lets hope that your suggestions would be implemented.

[Mooks]

CA needs to do something about the extremely dumb AI, the only real strategy the AI has is stretching his line so far he flanks you, but then again all it takes is calvary turn that around.

[Butcher]

Play HOI2 if you want to see how an a.i can get better through subsequent patches.

[Zild]

I know I'm often beating on about the fact that games should be released complete, not requiring patches (or, worse, paid expansions) to make them work properly, but I must admit I'd rather see CA release a supplement that improves upon the existing PO than adds more units that will themselves require further correction in the future. The thought of poor PO is really the only thing keeping me from buying RTW (well, that and the fact I've never heard a good comment regarding sieges), but as far as I'm concerned that's reason enough - who cares how aesthetically pleasing a game is, when you get bored of it after a few weeks of play?

The thought of using genetic algorithms in games opens up a whole host of possibilities in my mind! Communities could share their GA-based artificial opponents, allowing players to fight battles against opponents who have already learnt the hard way from myriad other players, or the strength of the opposition could grow as a game progresses - imagine how tactics might evolve (historically and in-game) after the first battles using a new unit type. And were you suggesting that specific generals within a single game could have their own state of learning, distinct from that of other generals, that grows as the general does and dies with them... That beats the current star rating system, if you ask me!

Of course, the problem with that is the technical aspects of the GA system. The artificial opponent will only be as good as the system that grows it, and that will only be as good as the people who program it!

As for Galactic Civilisations - I saw this in Game a few weeks back and it piqued my interest, though I set it aside as 'just another strategy game' (I have so many on the backlog that I'm not sure I'll ever complete them - I'm not even sure I'll ever 'complete' MTW!) But I may reconsider it at some point, from what you've said... Thanks!

[Revenant69]

...who cares how aesthetically pleasing a game is, when you get bored of it after a few weeks of play?

Yeah, I feel exactly the same way. Although the graphics element in a game is very important to me I can get mindlessly bored from a dumb AI. I haven't got bored of RTW yet cuz I just started playing it

The thought of using genetic algorithms in games opens up a whole host of possibilities in my mind! Communities could share their GA-based artificial opponents, allowing players to fight battles against opponents who have already learnt the hard way from myriad other players, or the strength of the opposition could grow as a game progresses - imagine how tactics might evolve (historically and in-game) after the first battles using a new unit type.

This is great. You've suggested something that I haven't thought about. Of course the community could share their GA-based opponents, i.e. share savegames, thus adding to the game tremendously. Great stuff.

And were you suggesting that specific generals within a single game could have their own state of learning, distinct from that of other generals, that grows as the general does and dies with them... That beats the current star rating system, if you ask me!

Yes, that is exactly what I was suggesting. In fact I'll elaborate more on that. Firstly, the PO would have two components - the strategic and tactical. Here is the interesting bit: the strategic part of GA-based PO would be inherent to each faction; in such a way, the strategic PO of say Egyptians might evolve differently than the strategic PO of Gaul because they faced different enemies and learned different things etc. !!!
Now, each faction's generals, or army leaders (maybe even captains) would have their own tactical PO !!! Thus, the tactical PO of say Julius Ceasar would conists of highly evolved algorithms when compared to the tactical PO of some Green Shmuck general. Yes, this would probably eliminate the need for the current star rating system.

Of course, the problem with that is the technical aspects of the GA system. The artificial opponent will only be as good as the system that grows it, and that will only be as good as the people who program it!

Absolutely true. Thus, this would be a critical step during game design. The developers would have to ensure that their algorithsm can indeed evolve, and that the stronger algorithms survive, etc.

As for Galactic Civilisations - I saw this in Game a few weeks back and it piqued my interest, though I set it aside as 'just another strategy game' (I have so many on the backlog that I'm not sure I'll ever complete them - I'm not even sure I'll ever 'complete' MTW!) But I may reconsider it at some point, from what you've said... Thanks!

Great stuff Definitely give that game a go when you get a chance.
Cheers.