The AI ... some wishful thinking

[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.

[DensterNY]

These are certainly good ideas that we would hope one day could be implemented to have an opponent that was thinking and learning and evolving. (Hehe, Terminator - anyone?) Not to be a nitpicker but such a potential enemy would probably be smarter than many of the real generals that existed in the time portrayed in TW's games.

The one thing about it is trying to program something of this complexity and magnitude in trying to control and react to countless variables in combat. Its not like programming a computer to play chess whereas there are set rules and patterns of movement - in TW's battles, as in war, anything goes.

However, computerized chess succeeds because you can create a gigantic, growing database of patterns so I suppose in some ways we'd have to try and mimic this.

[Ciaran]

Much as I agree with you, I don´t see it happen.

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.

That´s the breaking point. To assure that, it would require massive, time-intensive testing which is simply too expensive to conduct.

[Zild]

The one thing about it is trying to program something of this complexity and magnitude in trying to control and react to countless variables in combat. Its not like programming a computer to play chess whereas there are set rules and patterns of movement - in TW's battles, as in war, anything goes.

However, computerized chess succeeds because you can create a gigantic, growing database of patterns so I suppose in some ways we'd have to try and mimic this.

Actually, I was thinking about this earlier, and I have to disagree - I think the limitless possibilities in a TW battle make Genetic Algorithms more suited to it than a game with a much smaller number of possibilities, such as chess. In fact, I'd think that chess is actually too small for GA to work effectively. Also, whilst abstracting elements of TW would be required to allow GA to be used, I think that chess is too abstract to really benefit from it.

Ciaran, I agree with you it's not likely to happen. Any form of PO requires a vast amount of effort, and it is clear that CA have not been willing to invest that in RTW (for entirely understandable business reasons, I'd say). But there must come a point where the use of GA becomes more efficient than more traditional techniques. Given the potential complexity that the battles in TW games allow, I'd say this would be an ideal place to start using them. I can certainly envisage them being used in the future.

[hellenes]

I have a question for the Original Poster and everyone:
What is easier to programm a Multiplayer Campaign or an EQUALLY challenging Programmed Oponnent?

Hellenes