Org Mobile Site
Thread: AI marketability
This forum has recently seen a few excellent discussions on the AI in TW games. I've read these with great interest as for me -and it seems most people here- a major improvement of AI is more important then anyting else. Personally, I would be willing to go back to Shogun's graphics if that would get me even just modest improvements in tactical and strategic AI... not to mention diplomacy - on a side note, there are no excuses for RTW's horrible diplomacy system, please CA go and license some CIV IV code and be done with it (not meaning to rant, just some particular frustration as this is really not something that involves pushing the bounderies of today's technological possibilities, as may be the case for the tactical AI. It could easily have been done so much better).
However, according to what seems to be general consensus on the forum, cute graphics are just too important from a marketing point of view, unlike the AI, and therefore AI development will continue ranking second.
I fail to agree here, and the proposition I would like to make is this: why not drop the graphics and adopt superior AI as the game's main selling point? It is a strategy game, after all. I am not saying graphics should be ignored, just that priorities should be re-arranged ánd that this will not need to lead to a marketing fiasco.
I know a thing or two about marketing in the gaming industry and I am baffled by Sega's apparent fixation with graphics as the one and only selling point. If this were true, why would other platforms even exist next to the PC?
Although there may be different types of gamers (let's just say, those that want AI first and those that want graphics first), it is not a matter of who you will sell to. Us AI-gamers will buy the game anyway (even with current poor AI its really the only thing out there), the graphic-junkies will also buy it in any case because it'll look nice and shiny in a preview or demo anyway, also if the graphics budget is scaled down a bit.
The difference is that under the current state of affairs, the AI gamer ends up disappointed. Why not make it the graphics-junkie who's disappointed? I find it hard to believe that this will have a negative overall effect on sales (any lost sales on that end would be compensated by extra sales on by real strategic gamers).
I understand where it comes from, with the marketing people currently in charge coming from Sega and all..... still, this is a different market, and it might be worthwhile to re-evaluate priorities... what might it mean to have a strategy game acclaimed for new ground-breaking AI, instead of just another set of fancy pictures that'll be outdated in 6 months anyway?
Just something I would consider if I were on the team.
However, according to what seems to be general consensus on the forum, cute graphics are just too important from a marketing point of view, unlike the AI, and therefore AI development will continue ranking second.
I fail to agree here, and the proposition I would like to make is this: why not drop the graphics and adopt superior AI as the game's main selling point? It is a strategy game, after all. I am not saying graphics should be ignored, just that priorities should be re-arranged ánd that this will not need to lead to a marketing fiasco.
I know a thing or two about marketing in the gaming industry and I am baffled by Sega's apparent fixation with graphics as the one and only selling point. If this were true, why would other platforms even exist next to the PC?
Although there may be different types of gamers (let's just say, those that want AI first and those that want graphics first), it is not a matter of who you will sell to. Us AI-gamers will buy the game anyway (even with current poor AI its really the only thing out there), the graphic-junkies will also buy it in any case because it'll look nice and shiny in a preview or demo anyway, also if the graphics budget is scaled down a bit.
The difference is that under the current state of affairs, the AI gamer ends up disappointed. Why not make it the graphics-junkie who's disappointed? I find it hard to believe that this will have a negative overall effect on sales (any lost sales on that end would be compensated by extra sales on by real strategic gamers).
I understand where it comes from, with the marketing people currently in charge coming from Sega and all..... still, this is a different market, and it might be worthwhile to re-evaluate priorities... what might it mean to have a strategy game acclaimed for new ground-breaking AI, instead of just another set of fancy pictures that'll be outdated in 6 months anyway?
Just something I would consider if I were on the team.
Originally Posted by parcelt:
not to mention diplomacy - on a side note, there are no excuses for RTW's horrible diplomacy system, please CA go and license some CIV IV code and be done with it (not meaning to rant, just some particular frustration as this is really not something that involves pushing the bounderies of today's technological possibilities, as may be the case for the tactical AI. It could easily have been done so much better).
not to mention diplomacy - on a side note, there are no excuses for RTW's horrible diplomacy system, please CA go and license some CIV IV code and be done with it (not meaning to rant, just some particular frustration as this is really not something that involves pushing the bounderies of today's technological possibilities, as may be the case for the tactical AI. It could easily have been done so much better).
Civ IV? hell, the diplomatic engine in Alpha Centauri is 10 times better than RTWs, and that game is 8 years old!
As for graphics over AI, its just part of an overall trend at CA to be less hardcore and more mainstream. Whether this decision has been taken by CA or their publishers (Activision or SEGA) we will probly never know.
Dear parcelt ,I think you said what many TW fans think.If they asks me ,I will say they use the same RTW Graphic (With only a few improvments) ,Because it is nice enough and myself still can't enjoy the game with full performance because of hardware issues
.While AI needs many improvements ,Both in Battles and especially in Campaign map.I'm sure you've experienced this ,I offered to a rival faction which was nearly destroyed and had only one settlement and my powerful army was ready to ruin it to "become protectorate" ,But it refused even when I offered them one provence and 100000 Dinarii
,Seems the AI cannot find the true way.
However ,I don't think they payattention to it.My experience showed that they will do what have decided.I wouldn't risk this time ,And If the AI be the same ,I will not pay money for it.
Regard
-Kambiz
.While AI needs many improvements ,Both in Battles and especially in Campaign map.I'm sure you've experienced this ,I offered to a rival faction which was nearly destroyed and had only one settlement and my powerful army was ready to ruin it to "become protectorate" ,But it refused even when I offered them one provence and 100000 Dinarii ,Seems the AI cannot find the true way.However ,I don't think they payattention to it.My experience showed that they will do what have decided.I wouldn't risk this time ,And If the AI be the same ,I will not pay money for it.
Regard
-Kambiz
Actually, I'm convinced that CA did not intentionally degrade the AI. I'm also convinced that during the development of Rome, more time was invested into AI than during that of MTW and also that the AI of Rome is actually more complex than that of MTW. What makes Rome's AI perform so bad is the increased number of variables that play a role. Units can behave in more different ways and have more special features. The AI cannot cope with all the options it has.
Just look at the strategic map. In MTW the AI would shove armies aimlessly around, but it didn't matter much because of the province system. In RTW the same behavior leads to the failure to cluster larger armies and subsequent piecemeal destruction of the AI forces by the player.
It is not so much a changed marketing strategy that leads to bad AI but the complexity of the game puts heavier burdens on it. So CA doesn't fail to improve the AI because they don't deem it important but because they can't. At least not without investments they consider not worthwhile.
Just look at the strategic map. In MTW the AI would shove armies aimlessly around, but it didn't matter much because of the province system. In RTW the same behavior leads to the failure to cluster larger armies and subsequent piecemeal destruction of the AI forces by the player.
It is not so much a changed marketing strategy that leads to bad AI but the complexity of the game puts heavier burdens on it. So CA doesn't fail to improve the AI because they don't deem it important but because they can't. At least not without investments they consider not worthwhile.
Originally Posted by parcelt:
I know a thing or two about marketing in the gaming industry and I am baffled by Sega's apparent fixation with graphics as the one and only selling point. If this were true, why would other platforms even exist next to the PC?
1. Console gamers and PC gamers are a different breedI know a thing or two about marketing in the gaming industry and I am baffled by Sega's apparent fixation with graphics as the one and only selling point. If this were true, why would other platforms even exist next to the PC?
Console gamers complain about how much a PS3 is going to cost, a machine that will last them about six years. PC gamers will spend twice as much money on a PC (if they're keeping it cheap even) and will upgrade about two or three times during this same period of time.
2. Graphics get you attention
It gets you in magazines, it gets you on gamespot, it gets you on tv. Free publicity !
3. Graphics might not sell, but bad graphics can hurt sales
People want to see their >1k rig preform at its maximum capacity, they expect good graphics. A lot will except decent graphics, but then the gameplay has to vastly superior to anything else out there, even then a lot of people simply won't buy it because it looks dated.
4. AI seems important, but most people won't notice
Valve is keeping statistics about episode one. There are people who haven't finished the game. It's about 4 hours long. Some people who bought CivIV probably haven't finished a single game yet. You can get more than 4 hours out of RTW before the crappy AI starts bugging you. A lot of people actually don't spend as much time playing the games they buy as you might think. Games have gotten shorter and shorter over the years, yet there's hardly anyone complaining, why ? Because a lot (most ?) people will only play a game for a couple of hours.
doc_bean ,Your talks is true ,But they are too generally.Your talk about Graphic is true but It's not cover all players.In fact for RTS (Real Time Strategy)gamer things are a few diffrent ,And TW series are RTS.Myself still playing "Axis &Allies" ,"Panzer General 2" and "Close Combat series" which are older than 2000.I'm not alone ,Many players Still playing "Close Combat 5"(Released 2000).It shows we as RTS gamers learnt Do not (Only) payattention to Graphic ,But we should consider the gameplay and AI quality too.
About games like "Civ IV" which you said few people have finished it ,Imo it is because of the "Game Play" Not The Graphic.
Regard
-Kambiz
About games like "Civ IV" which you said few people have finished it ,Imo it is because of the "Game Play" Not The Graphic.
Regard
-Kambiz
Originally Posted by Kambyses:
doc_bean ,Your talks is true ,But they are too generally.Your talk about Graphic is true but It's not cover all players.In fact for RTS (Real Time Strategy)gamer things are a few diffrent ,And TW series are RTS.Myself still playing "Axis &Allies" ,"Panzer General 2" and "Close Combat series" which are older than 2000.I'm not alone ,Many players Still playing "Close Combat 5"(Released 2000).It shows we as RTS gamers learnt Do not (Only) payattention to Graphic ,But we should consider the gameplay and AI quality too.
doc_bean ,Your talks is true ,But they are too generally.Your talk about Graphic is true but It's not cover all players.In fact for RTS (Real Time Strategy)gamer things are a few diffrent ,And TW series are RTS.Myself still playing "Axis &Allies" ,"Panzer General 2" and "Close Combat series" which are older than 2000.I'm not alone ,Many players Still playing "Close Combat 5"(Released 2000).It shows we as RTS gamers learnt Do not (Only) payattention to Graphic ,But we should consider the gameplay and AI quality too.
Yes, even Starcraft still is played a lot these days. People will play old games even if they look outdated, they won't buy new games that look like those old games. Of course my statements are generalizations, but then, they're making games for masses, so that's the way they're probably thinking.
Originally Posted by :
About games like "Civ IV" which you said few people have finished it ,Imo it is because of the "Game Play" Not The Graphic.
Hey, I liked CivIV About games like "Civ IV" which you said few people have finished it ,Imo it is because of the "Game Play" Not The Graphic.
CivIV actually looks pretty good for its genre, what I was trying to say is that most people don't play games for that long, about 10hours would probably be a good estimate for how long the average person plays a single game. It might even be less. Research is needed
I agree the AI is paramount. Recently a RPG game came out and there approached seemed to be to use the AI as a selling point over graphical improvements. It seems to me that graphics quaility can be matched or bettered easier than AI. If a TW copy-cat game came out with better AI, it could put a serious dent into CA. As a final note about graphics, the way I play battles, I'm fully zooned out anyway, so graphics improvements aren't that impressive to me. If I zoomed in to enjoy the beautiful intricate graphics, my left flank would crumble and my army would rout.
Game with better AIs are already on the market.
Take Command 2nd Manassas has a great tactical AI, and Birth of America and Conquest of the Agean have better strategic AIs. Of course these are from Indy wargame developers who don't have to pander to the lowest common denominator of the marketplace.
We have already seen a migration of player and modders to TC2M, and expect to see even more with the release of the strategic layer and multiplayer. The developers have been smart enough to allow the game to be very moddable and focused on making a great AI, the community cranks out unit sprites, scenarios, graphics mods and OOBs as required.
Cheers,
Take Command 2nd Manassas has a great tactical AI, and Birth of America and Conquest of the Agean have better strategic AIs. Of course these are from Indy wargame developers who don't have to pander to the lowest common denominator of the marketplace.
We have already seen a migration of player and modders to TC2M, and expect to see even more with the release of the strategic layer and multiplayer. The developers have been smart enough to allow the game to be very moddable and focused on making a great AI, the community cranks out unit sprites, scenarios, graphics mods and OOBs as required.
Cheers,
And how was it rated? I know an German magazine rated it 67% only, but that might not reflect international sentiment.
Hardcore strategy games tend to get low review scores from gaming mags - they don't have the time or the inclination to spend hours reading the manual, playing the tutorials, getting to know the game mechanics etc etc
But that doesn't mean there isn't a market for them. EU2 and its derivatives consistantly scored 60-70% in gaming mags over here, yet its sold well across Europe. Reading reviews of the game its patently obvious the reviewers took one look at the game, thought "this is too hard", never bothered playing it, and then spend most of their one page review waffling about anything other the game, before ending with "if you like hardcore strategy games with lots of numbers you'll probably like this".
But that doesn't mean there isn't a market for them. EU2 and its derivatives consistantly scored 60-70% in gaming mags over here, yet its sold well across Europe. Reading reviews of the game its patently obvious the reviewers took one look at the game, thought "this is too hard", never bothered playing it, and then spend most of their one page review waffling about anything other the game, before ending with "if you like hardcore strategy games with lots of numbers you'll probably like this".
People who research a game and look for discussions of AI before buying:
Very few.
People who buy based on fanboy reviews written by a guy with limited exposure to a game that is advertised on his site:
Some, who now consider themselves informed.
People who buy based on top ten lists, best-selling lists, and advertising:
Quite a few, who at least have the morale bonus of being formed in deep ranks.
People who decide while standing in a Wal-Mart aisle, scratching their ass, and looking at the Pretty Boxes:
Most of them.
AI makes games fun to play. It makes them stay on your hard-drive a long time. It puts your job in jeapordy, because you OneMoreTurned all night. It doesn't, I'm sad to say, sell games.
(Just my two cents. No refunds.)
Very few.
People who buy based on fanboy reviews written by a guy with limited exposure to a game that is advertised on his site:
Some, who now consider themselves informed.
People who buy based on top ten lists, best-selling lists, and advertising:
Quite a few, who at least have the morale bonus of being formed in deep ranks.
People who decide while standing in a Wal-Mart aisle, scratching their ass, and looking at the Pretty Boxes:
Most of them.
AI makes games fun to play. It makes them stay on your hard-drive a long time. It puts your job in jeapordy, because you OneMoreTurned all night. It doesn't, I'm sad to say, sell games.
(Just my two cents. No refunds.)
The reviews are mixed, and its easy to guess which reviewers were grognards and which weren't
The fanboy reviewers point to the lack of 3D sprites first and mark it down. The grognards look at gameplay and attention to deatil and mark it up.
When the 3D sprite issue is brought up in the forums it is met with the overwhelming desire to trade better gameplay for the visual aspect which is already pretty good considering there are resolution selections and unit specific graphics (flags and uniform variety mix increases) that can chosen to push the game RAM up quite a bit for bells and whistles. I personally bought 2GB to have some of those bells and whistles. I think the 2D sprites do a hell of a job considering I think the game is much more immersive than TW. It's all about the movement rates and AI choices where the realism pulls you in. The filed of play is also much larger, and realistic, and road movement matters. Lots of little things all add up to a better gaming experience for me.
I don't get that with other games.
I must say that when STW first came out it was a great mix of strategic and tactical play that was quite enjoyable. I hope they can regain what's been lost. However, at the moment other games are doing better in each section individually. When they bring the pieces togethor they will have a winner, and trust me they are working hard on that.
Cheers,
The fanboy reviewers point to the lack of 3D sprites first and mark it down. The grognards look at gameplay and attention to deatil and mark it up.
When the 3D sprite issue is brought up in the forums it is met with the overwhelming desire to trade better gameplay for the visual aspect which is already pretty good considering there are resolution selections and unit specific graphics (flags and uniform variety mix increases) that can chosen to push the game RAM up quite a bit for bells and whistles. I personally bought 2GB to have some of those bells and whistles. I think the 2D sprites do a hell of a job considering I think the game is much more immersive than TW. It's all about the movement rates and AI choices where the realism pulls you in. The filed of play is also much larger, and realistic, and road movement matters. Lots of little things all add up to a better gaming experience for me.
I don't get that with other games.
I must say that when STW first came out it was a great mix of strategic and tactical play that was quite enjoyable. I hope they can regain what's been lost. However, at the moment other games are doing better in each section individually. When they bring the pieces togethor they will have a winner, and trust me they are working hard on that.
Cheers,
Originally Posted by :
I know a thing or two about marketing in the gaming industry and I am baffled by Sega's apparent fixation with graphics as the one and only selling point. If this were true, why would other platforms even exist next to the PC?
Though I'm sure you think you know a thing or two, EA/Activision, and in this case, SEGA, have paid professionals who I would trust as a company a deal more in the area of marketing.I know a thing or two about marketing in the gaming industry and I am baffled by Sega's apparent fixation with graphics as the one and only selling point. If this were true, why would other platforms even exist next to the PC?
The real question is, why does everything have to be marketable?
Main point of these threads is that they at least alert CA to what their fanbase is really concerned about, namely AI. (and infantry running speeds)
Originally Posted by sunsmountain:
Main point of these threads is that they at least alert CA to what their fanbase is really concerned about, namely AI. (and infantry running speeds)
The Org does not even represent 1% of the people who bought RTW, we're not that important to them Main point of these threads is that they at least alert CA to what their fanbase is really concerned about, namely AI. (and infantry running speeds)
Originally Posted by doc_bean:
The Org does not even represent 1% of the people who bought RTW, we're not that important to them
What a despairing - and quite frankly wrong - statement. Of course the long-term and expert players are important. The Org does not even represent 1% of the people who bought RTW, we're not that important to them
Before anyone jumps on me for not talking about M2TW, I must point out that I'm not part of the team working on that title. My involvement has been limited to one job in one very specific section of the game and I'm not in a position to comment in an informed way.
Captain Fishpants, thanks again for joining in our discussions.
Of course we (I pretend I speak for every .Orger here) know that CA considers long-term and expert players important. Proof for this is CA hirering a long-term/expert player to help in the development or fine-tuning of M2TW and you and other CA employees visiting us here at the .Org.
However, doc-bean has a point that marketingwise we the so called hardcore gamers are unimportant. We are small in numbers, compared to the mass of gamers that buy the game, so we only represent a small portion of the turnover and profit. And profit is still the reason why CA makes computer games.
Of course we (I pretend I speak for every .Orger here) know that CA considers long-term and expert players important. Proof for this is CA hirering a long-term/expert player to help in the development or fine-tuning of M2TW and you and other CA employees visiting us here at the .Org.
However, doc-bean has a point that marketingwise we the so called hardcore gamers are unimportant. We are small in numbers, compared to the mass of gamers that buy the game, so we only represent a small portion of the turnover and profit. And profit is still the reason why CA makes computer games.
Would be nice if somebody who was working on MTW2 popped on over here once or twice.
Originally Posted by Peasant Phill:
Captain Fishpants, thanks again for joining in our discussions.
Of course we (I pretend I speak for every .Orger here) know that CA considers long-term and expert players important. Proof for this is CA hirering a long-term/expert player to help in the development or fine-tuning of M2TW and you and other CA employees visiting us here at the .Org.
However, doc-bean has a point that marketingwise we the so called hardcore gamers are unimportant. We are small in numbers, compared to the mass of gamers that buy the game, so we only represent a small portion of the turnover and profit. And profit is still the reason why CA makes computer games.
I think CA developers are strategy game enthusiast like ourselves and make games that they themselves like to play. My hats are off for CA in coming up with a genre that combines the eye catching graphics with depth of real liife battle conditions. Need i mention their huge past success in keeping to this? And what they have done with RTW is revolutionary raising the bar of this form of strategy games out there from 2d to 3d, hence requiring highly sophisticated AI. It's only a matter of time after so many testing, trials and errors, with constructive criticisms and feed back from fans like us before they fine tune the AI that will give us some serious challenge, depending on the difficulty level of course. Regardless, for now, they have come a long way from STW and have me sold in anticipation for MTW2, while still playing RTW--thanks to their openness for allowing mods. I hate to say this but, you grossly underestimate the masses by saying that they are more interested in eye candies. I was an uneducated mass oblivious to tactics, the reason for flanking and so on till I came across STW. Their games although historically not 100% accurate has made many like me dig into history books.Captain Fishpants, thanks again for joining in our discussions.
Of course we (I pretend I speak for every .Orger here) know that CA considers long-term and expert players important. Proof for this is CA hirering a long-term/expert player to help in the development or fine-tuning of M2TW and you and other CA employees visiting us here at the .Org.
However, doc-bean has a point that marketingwise we the so called hardcore gamers are unimportant. We are small in numbers, compared to the mass of gamers that buy the game, so we only represent a small portion of the turnover and profit. And profit is still the reason why CA makes computer games.
Originally Posted by BeeSting:
Regardless, for now, they have come a long way from STW and have me sold in anticipation for MTW2, while still playing RTW--thanks to their openness for allowing mods.
They have lost the handle on MP which is markedly inferior to STW MP. BTW, suicide generals were fixed in MTW/VI, but they are back in RTW/BI. Also, the RTW/BI battle engine is missing important features that were in the MTW/VI battle engine.Regardless, for now, they have come a long way from STW and have me sold in anticipation for MTW2, while still playing RTW--thanks to their openness for allowing mods.
I wonder how much money I'm going to have to spend on total war games before the suicide generals are fixed? So far, I've spent $40 + $25 = $65 usd, and two years have gone by without it being fixed. I also don't get any use out of the MP part of RTW/BI because of the direction they have taken MP, and it doesn't look like this will change with M2TW.
There seems to be a bit of a misconception amongst many forumites (and I do mean all the forums, not just the org) that graphics and AI are mutually exclusive. Simple fact of the matter is that we have graphics programmers and artists to concentrate on graphics and AI programmers to do the AI.
IMHO, the simple reason that people believe all the marketing attention has been focused on "eye-candy" is that currently it's the only thing that we can actually prove that they're improved. We've actually stated a number of improvements in graphics, animation, gameplay and AI both in interview and on the forums. Screenshots can highlight the graphical improvements, movies show off our new animations but there is no way for us to show improved gameplay and AI until the game is released and players can actually see it for themselves.
IMHO, the simple reason that people believe all the marketing attention has been focused on "eye-candy" is that currently it's the only thing that we can actually prove that they're improved. We've actually stated a number of improvements in graphics, animation, gameplay and AI both in interview and on the forums. Screenshots can highlight the graphical improvements, movies show off our new animations but there is no way for us to show improved gameplay and AI until the game is released and players can actually see it for themselves.
Yes, you can, battle reports! There are plenty of fans who have played miniature games and who read battle reports. There are plenty who have Osprey books with their excellent blocks and arrows diagrams. People love them!
Plus it will give you good insight at what parts of the AI need improvement as you probably need to write about AI movement that is too embarrassing to write about.
Plus it will give you good insight at what parts of the AI need improvement as you probably need to write about AI movement that is too embarrassing to write about.
Originally Posted by :
I also don't get any use out of the MP part of RTW/BI because of the direction they have taken MP, and it doesn't look like this will change with M2TW.
The Lordz are having quite alot of fun testing NTW2 online. I was quite hesitant after all the GS problems, but it seems to work fairly well. All the OOS we got were caused by ourselves and there was relatively little lag and a single complete halt of the game. Of course you still need to ignore the public chat with people talking about doing things to another persons' mom.I also don't get any use out of the MP part of RTW/BI because of the direction they have taken MP, and it doesn't look like this will change with M2TW.
Perhaps I can share something, Duke John. It's 2 posts by JeromeGrasdyke, one if not the Lead Programmer of the team that created Rome:TW. I'm guessing he's very busy right now, so after hearing nothing for 1 month, and given the added importance of this thread because of not 1, but 2 CA members entering the discussion, I've decided to take the liberty of sharing his insightful comments. Here they are:
My original post to Jerome and hatcat (another programmer)
(hatcat didn't bother 
)
My original post to Jerome and hatcat (another programmer)
Originally Posted by :
Originally Posted by sunsmountain
Dear gentlemen,
I know how busy you are, yet as a fan this question kept haunting me since release:
AI
Now in previews & diaries CA spoke of different levels of AI, and how they obeyed Sun Tzu's Art of War. I guess my main question is that I would like an insight into the battlefield AI.
In this topic
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=52341
i'm having a pretty comprehensive discussion with Puzz3D about the current AI, but both of us don't really know the finer details of what we're discussing, making it difficult to formulate the problem.
Barring Imperial Glory and other copy-cats luring, I would love any possible sharing on this issue.
Sincerely,
sunsmountain
In reply, by Jerome Originally Posted by sunsmountain
Dear gentlemen,
I know how busy you are, yet as a fan this question kept haunting me since release:
AI
Now in previews & diaries CA spoke of different levels of AI, and how they obeyed Sun Tzu's Art of War. I guess my main question is that I would like an insight into the battlefield AI.
In this topic
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=52341
i'm having a pretty comprehensive discussion with Puzz3D about the current AI, but both of us don't really know the finer details of what we're discussing, making it difficult to formulate the problem.
Barring Imperial Glory and other copy-cats luring, I would love any possible sharing on this issue.
Sincerely,
sunsmountain
(hatcat didn't bother )Originally Posted by :
Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke, 17 August 2005
I've had a look at the thread ;) There's a lot of guessing and double-guessing going on there, and i'm not going to go into specifics on how the details of the Rome AI work. For one thing, it would take way too long! It's not a trivial amount of code by any means.
But in general, you are correct and the methods used in Rome were very similar to what was in Medieval, with some adaptions for the new game features. It was largely rewritten along the way for various reasons to do with the new system. The campaign AI was entirely new code, however.
Take it easy,
Jerome
And in reply to:Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke, 17 August 2005
I've had a look at the thread ;) There's a lot of guessing and double-guessing going on there, and i'm not going to go into specifics on how the details of the Rome AI work. For one thing, it would take way too long! It's not a trivial amount of code by any means.
But in general, you are correct and the methods used in Rome were very similar to what was in Medieval, with some adaptions for the new game features. It was largely rewritten along the way for various reasons to do with the new system. The campaign AI was entirely new code, however.
Take it easy,
Jerome
Originally Posted by :
Originally Posted by sunsmountain
Cheers Jerome, but let me get this straight: AI is programmed "along the way"? Would it not deserve a month in its own right (doing nothing else - testing and testing until those spears/cav/swords/flanking works? Or does SEGA/Activision not allow this?
As for the complexity, it's certainly not trivial code i know, and without the full picture i probably cannot help you, but what i meant was: What is holding you back in creating the most powerful, incredible AI? (if, as a player, you dare set the difficulty to Very Hard)
Relaxed regards,
suns
The reply that is essentially a FAQ in its own right Originally Posted by sunsmountain
Cheers Jerome, but let me get this straight: AI is programmed "along the way"? Would it not deserve a month in its own right (doing nothing else - testing and testing until those spears/cav/swords/flanking works? Or does SEGA/Activision not allow this?
As for the complexity, it's certainly not trivial code i know, and without the full picture i probably cannot help you, but what i meant was: What is holding you back in creating the most powerful, incredible AI? (if, as a player, you dare set the difficulty to Very Hard)
Relaxed regards,
suns
Originally Posted by :
Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke, 01 September 2005
Hehe, "along the way" was just a turn of phrase. In fact both the battle AI and the campaign AI had dedicated programmers assigned to them for over a year, who were assisted at times by other members of the team.
Essentially, the AI is an approximation of how the AI designer plays the game, refined in stages as he finds strategies which work or not. Some things cannot be implemented on a computer - for example, you say you just "see" that one given situation is better than another one. In order to write the corresponding code for the AI you have to know exactly why, and then you have to express it consistently and accurately in terms of numbers. That by itself makes it hard enough.
But then also consider that the game evolves underneath it as the AI systems are developed. Say the designers add a new feature to the game - then the AI programmer has to go back over his old code, which may involve a lot of linked strategies about how say Agents are used in combination with armies, and weed out what does not work anymore, and redevelop strategies for the cases which lead to exploitable gaps in the AI playstyle.
That unfortunately means that you can only write really good AI towards the end of the game's development, when the designers are making only minor changes and you've had the chance to actually play the game solo for at least a month or so... but by then you're inevitably under time pressure because the release dates are looming.
So in an ideal world, the game design would be completely finished and tested before the process of writing AI starts... unfortunately a real-world development studio does not work like that, there's lots of creative people always coming up with really cool ideas that just have to go in before the Alpha deadline ;) And maybe that's a good thing, because often the stuff that is added at the end is important balance and polish which makes the game much better.
We're always looking for ways to improve this process, and for BI and future projects from the Rome codebase the AI can be substantially improved, since in sequels you have that more-or-less fixed gameplay dynamic already. Hopefully that answers your question...
Originally Posted by JeromeGrasdyke, 01 September 2005
Hehe, "along the way" was just a turn of phrase. In fact both the battle AI and the campaign AI had dedicated programmers assigned to them for over a year, who were assisted at times by other members of the team.
Essentially, the AI is an approximation of how the AI designer plays the game, refined in stages as he finds strategies which work or not. Some things cannot be implemented on a computer - for example, you say you just "see" that one given situation is better than another one. In order to write the corresponding code for the AI you have to know exactly why, and then you have to express it consistently and accurately in terms of numbers. That by itself makes it hard enough.
But then also consider that the game evolves underneath it as the AI systems are developed. Say the designers add a new feature to the game - then the AI programmer has to go back over his old code, which may involve a lot of linked strategies about how say Agents are used in combination with armies, and weed out what does not work anymore, and redevelop strategies for the cases which lead to exploitable gaps in the AI playstyle.
That unfortunately means that you can only write really good AI towards the end of the game's development, when the designers are making only minor changes and you've had the chance to actually play the game solo for at least a month or so... but by then you're inevitably under time pressure because the release dates are looming.
So in an ideal world, the game design would be completely finished and tested before the process of writing AI starts... unfortunately a real-world development studio does not work like that, there's lots of creative people always coming up with really cool ideas that just have to go in before the Alpha deadline ;) And maybe that's a good thing, because often the stuff that is added at the end is important balance and polish which makes the game much better.
We're always looking for ways to improve this process, and for BI and future projects from the Rome codebase the AI can be substantially improved, since in sequels you have that more-or-less fixed gameplay dynamic already. Hopefully that answers your question...
Originally Posted by Duke John:
Yes, you can, battle reports! There are plenty of fans who have played miniature games and who read battle reports. There are plenty who have Osprey books with their excellent blocks and arrows diagrams. People love them!
Well Wikiman did write a battle report on the .com not to long ago about a mp battle they had which was fun to read indeed.Yes, you can, battle reports! There are plenty of fans who have played miniature games and who read battle reports. There are plenty who have Osprey books with their excellent blocks and arrows diagrams. People love them!
However not many people seemed to have noticed it
Also I guess this is a battle report in the works
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotal...cID=2602.topic
Edit:
Found the battle report
Originally Posted by :
Well Will, myself and the AI were defending a three ring settlement. The enemy was Kev playing two machines and Kim.
We lurched out of the East gate and cleaned up Scotland with a combined cavalry rush I then pulled mine back as a hole was busted in the western side. Will routed the whole Scottish army then flanked the southern army trying to make a run for the door. Not sure what happened to him after that as I was too busy! I plugged a hole in the western wall with one hard unit which I had pumped up to full experience, defence and weapons. This plugged the small hole they had made while my cavalry ran from the other side of the map. THis one little unit held their entire army back as they couldn't budge it. It was wedged in tight.
Meanwhile more and more holes were opening up all over the place. Will and I started making a coordinated withdraw to the second ring. Leaving some troops to die horribly for the good of the rest. I got virtually all of my archers back to the middle ring along with about 50 cavalry. Will, passing through the centre of town got massacred as he walked into a dead end as the defensive AI was passing along a road blocking his path with a mass of troops. His enemy caught up to him and cut him down from behind. Caught between friendly units and the enemy.
The western enemy army now started assembling for a heavy push top take the middle ring. The western army was virtually untouched and the only foot troops I had were archers and a unit of swordsmen. They started weakening all of the walls along the middle ring, hoping to rush me from all sides. The vastly outnumbered me. I made the executive decision to leave the AI to defend the middle ring (hehe), retreating to the inner ring as it had fewer access points. I pulled back my archers and cavalry and held tight.
The middle rings walls fell and Kim’s units poured in. You can guess the rest. :( I was munched.
-wikiman
Well Will, myself and the AI were defending a three ring settlement. The enemy was Kev playing two machines and Kim.
We lurched out of the East gate and cleaned up Scotland with a combined cavalry rush I then pulled mine back as a hole was busted in the western side. Will routed the whole Scottish army then flanked the southern army trying to make a run for the door. Not sure what happened to him after that as I was too busy! I plugged a hole in the western wall with one hard unit which I had pumped up to full experience, defence and weapons. This plugged the small hole they had made while my cavalry ran from the other side of the map. THis one little unit held their entire army back as they couldn't budge it. It was wedged in tight.
Meanwhile more and more holes were opening up all over the place. Will and I started making a coordinated withdraw to the second ring. Leaving some troops to die horribly for the good of the rest. I got virtually all of my archers back to the middle ring along with about 50 cavalry. Will, passing through the centre of town got massacred as he walked into a dead end as the defensive AI was passing along a road blocking his path with a mass of troops. His enemy caught up to him and cut him down from behind. Caught between friendly units and the enemy.
The western enemy army now started assembling for a heavy push top take the middle ring. The western army was virtually untouched and the only foot troops I had were archers and a unit of swordsmen. They started weakening all of the walls along the middle ring, hoping to rush me from all sides. The vastly outnumbered me. I made the executive decision to leave the AI to defend the middle ring (hehe), retreating to the inner ring as it had fewer access points. I pulled back my archers and cavalry and held tight.
The middle rings walls fell and Kim’s units poured in. You can guess the rest. :( I was munched.
-wikiman
Thanks to Pras for joining in. You may be right in that it all comes down to a misconception, I hope it is but I am not entirely sure. It may be helpful to share the line of reasoning that led me personally to conclude that AI development is not the nr. 1 priority (although I do not think its mutually exclusive with graphics). I think most of this applies to a lot of the gamers on this forum, although I can obviously not speak for anyone else:
1. The failings of RTW (just to keep things in perspective, let me state that overall I feel RTW is a great game, before I focus on the negatives here).
- the things that went wrong in previous TW games (and were sometimes even fixed), yet went wrong again in RTW. Suicide generals, anyone?
- the things that really ought to be done right in any game coming out today that takes itself seriously, yet went wrong in RTW. Diplomacy is a pretty obvious example.
- how some very common compliants seem to be ignored, at least in the sense that they are not adressed in patches/expansions. Infantry running speeds and kill rates have been discussed over and over on the forums. I am no programmer but is it really that difficult to solve this by e.g. an Arcade mode option, a separate speed option, make it (more easily) moddable, etc?
All of the above gives a somewhat 'sloppy' impression. Now, I have a very high regard of CA and their staff, they have proven over again since Shogun that they know how to make a good strategy game. So then, why are these unnecessary mistakes / omissions here?
--> To me, images come to mind of a lone overworked AI programmer somwhere deep down in CA's basement, lacking resources (because those were allocated to e.g. graphics?) and time (because why spend a lot of time on AI development if the graphics are already done and we can sell the game with that?). The poor guy does what he can, but he can only do so much and is forced to make though choices, knowingly leaving things out he knows should be in, or leaving things in he knows could be done much, much better. It's tearing at him possibly more than it will later frustrate us gamers, but alas, this is how things are....
Am I exagerating? Perhaps, but then you tell me why the above (and there are other examples) unnecessary issues exist.
2. All the demos, teasers, interviews, and other types of previews for both RTW and its expansions and MTW2, have an overwhelming focus on graphics/new 'spectacular' units/etc. True, these may be the things better suited for display in a preview, but to a lot of people the lack of attention to AI and similar issues (these could be discussed much more extensively in interviews/FAQs) is worrying. I refer also to another, excellent, thread on this forum, the title is obvious.
1 and 2 above combined are what makes me wonder, and worry, about how seriously AI development is really being taken. By 'seriously' I am not referring to programmers' view on these things or their capabilities (I am confident there), but rather to the amount of resources in terms of $$ and time being dedicated to AI development. Especially the comment regarding how AI programming is something taking place during the final phases of the game's production (this was new to me) is worrying in this respect.
Just my 2 cents. Thanks CA for being on the forum. And to that guy in the basement: keep it up, we're all counting on you!
1. The failings of RTW (just to keep things in perspective, let me state that overall I feel RTW is a great game, before I focus on the negatives here).
- the things that went wrong in previous TW games (and were sometimes even fixed), yet went wrong again in RTW. Suicide generals, anyone?
- the things that really ought to be done right in any game coming out today that takes itself seriously, yet went wrong in RTW. Diplomacy is a pretty obvious example.
- how some very common compliants seem to be ignored, at least in the sense that they are not adressed in patches/expansions. Infantry running speeds and kill rates have been discussed over and over on the forums. I am no programmer but is it really that difficult to solve this by e.g. an Arcade mode option, a separate speed option, make it (more easily) moddable, etc?
All of the above gives a somewhat 'sloppy' impression. Now, I have a very high regard of CA and their staff, they have proven over again since Shogun that they know how to make a good strategy game. So then, why are these unnecessary mistakes / omissions here?
--> To me, images come to mind of a lone overworked AI programmer somwhere deep down in CA's basement, lacking resources (because those were allocated to e.g. graphics?) and time (because why spend a lot of time on AI development if the graphics are already done and we can sell the game with that?). The poor guy does what he can, but he can only do so much and is forced to make though choices, knowingly leaving things out he knows should be in, or leaving things in he knows could be done much, much better. It's tearing at him possibly more than it will later frustrate us gamers, but alas, this is how things are....
Am I exagerating? Perhaps, but then you tell me why the above (and there are other examples) unnecessary issues exist.
2. All the demos, teasers, interviews, and other types of previews for both RTW and its expansions and MTW2, have an overwhelming focus on graphics/new 'spectacular' units/etc. True, these may be the things better suited for display in a preview, but to a lot of people the lack of attention to AI and similar issues (these could be discussed much more extensively in interviews/FAQs) is worrying. I refer also to another, excellent, thread on this forum, the title is obvious.
1 and 2 above combined are what makes me wonder, and worry, about how seriously AI development is really being taken. By 'seriously' I am not referring to programmers' view on these things or their capabilities (I am confident there), but rather to the amount of resources in terms of $$ and time being dedicated to AI development. Especially the comment regarding how AI programming is something taking place during the final phases of the game's production (this was new to me) is worrying in this respect.
Just my 2 cents. Thanks CA for being on the forum. And to that guy in the basement: keep it up, we're all counting on you!
Originally Posted by Dunhill:
Game with better AIs are already on the market.
Take Command 2nd Manassas has a great tactical AI, and Birth of America and Conquest of the Agean have better strategic AIs. Of course these are from Indy wargame developers who don't have to pander to the lowest common denominator of the marketplace.
But as you note, each of these games only has half the AI requirements of the TW series, which has to have both a strategic and a tactical AI. As for Manassas tactical AI, you don't have multiple maps and terrain to deal with, and I suspect there are just a few unit type, infantry, cavalry, artillery. And BoA doesn't have near as many factions to play (each with their own unique map positions) as the TW series. Nor is there the economic/technlogical development of the TW series in these games.Game with better AIs are already on the market.
Take Command 2nd Manassas has a great tactical AI, and Birth of America and Conquest of the Agean have better strategic AIs. Of course these are from Indy wargame developers who don't have to pander to the lowest common denominator of the marketplace.
You're really not comparing the same things here. Each of these games is much simpler than the TW series. Your comparison is simplistic and flawed.
True, but the Take Command AI does need to take into account lines of communication, true line of sight, chain of command, use of roads and all of that on a very large map. It seems to me that developing an AI for R:TW was too much for CA to chew.
Originally Posted by :
Am I exagerating? Perhaps, but then you tell me why the above (and there are other examples) unnecessary issues exist.
Now i know Jerome is not part of this discussion, but did you read the comments above he made in private messages? Shall i quote for you? Here it is:Am I exagerating? Perhaps, but then you tell me why the above (and there are other examples) unnecessary issues exist.
Originally Posted by :
That unfortunately means that you can only write really good AI towards the end of the game's development, when the designers are making only minor changes and you've had the chance to actually play the game solo for at least a month or so... but by then you're inevitably under time pressure because the release dates are looming.
And to be fair, it's quite hard to write an exception to unit AI level code, specifically for generals, when such units do not carry their own tag. They don't carry their own tag because the game wasn't designed that way, and you can't go back and just add a tag.That unfortunately means that you can only write really good AI towards the end of the game's development, when the designers are making only minor changes and you've had the chance to actually play the game solo for at least a month or so... but by then you're inevitably under time pressure because the release dates are looming.
And to be fair again, the diplomacy AI in RomeTW is not THAT bad, at least most things work, even protectorates. Sure the AI will agree or disagree to the best & the worst offers, but that only needs tweaking. Exactly the same as with battlemap AI.
As for infantry running speeds and kill speeds, cheer up! Those things CAN be modded, it's just not that easy (and i'm still searching for a non-invasive mod for those, too).
Originally Posted by :
Now i know Jerome is not part of this discussion, but did you read the comments above he made in private messages? Shall i quote for you? Here it is:
Quote:
That unfortunately means that you can only write really good AI towards the end of the game's development, when the designers are making only minor changes and you've had the chance to actually play the game solo for at least a month or so... but by then you're inevitably under time pressure because the release dates are looming.
Now i know Jerome is not part of this discussion, but did you read the comments above he made in private messages? Shall i quote for you? Here it is:
Quote:
That unfortunately means that you can only write really good AI towards the end of the game's development, when the designers are making only minor changes and you've had the chance to actually play the game solo for at least a month or so... but by then you're inevitably under time pressure because the release dates are looming.
Sunsmountain, not sure what your beef is, but your tone is rather unpleasant. Unnecessarily so, I would say, as we only seem to agree. I did read Jerome's comments and one of the points I was trying to make is that unduly time pressure in the last phase of production may be (in part) cause of some of those issues I described. And would not adding more resources to AI development alleviate that pressure somewhat?
Originally Posted by :
And to be fair, it's quite hard to write an exception to unit AI level code, specifically for generals, when such units do not carry their own tag. They don't carry their own tag because the game wasn't designed that way, and you can't go back and just add a tag.
And how 'bout designing the game that way? As was possible for RTW after the suicide general-issue was identified in STW and MTW, and (at least partly) fixed in VI?And to be fair, it's quite hard to write an exception to unit AI level code, specifically for generals, when such units do not carry their own tag. They don't carry their own tag because the game wasn't designed that way, and you can't go back and just add a tag.
Originally Posted by :
And to be fair again, the diplomacy AI in RomeTW is not THAT bad, at least most things work, even protectorates. Sure the AI will agree or disagree to the best & the worst offers, but that only needs tweaking. Exactly the same as with battlemap AI.
Now I have to ask.... is CA paying you to make these kind of statements?? I am only kidding, but honestly, you can't really believe this yourself. After two handfuls of patches and a zillion mods out there, these issues have still not been 'tweaked' to full satisfaction. It can't be done as it concerns inherent flaws in the game's design (above you noted yourself how rigid this can make things). I will not even touch upon diplomacy.And to be fair again, the diplomacy AI in RomeTW is not THAT bad, at least most things work, even protectorates. Sure the AI will agree or disagree to the best & the worst offers, but that only needs tweaking. Exactly the same as with battlemap AI.
Originally Posted by :
As for infantry running speeds and kill speeds, cheer up! Those things CAN be modded, it's just not that easy (and i'm still searching for a non-invasive mod for those, too).
Well, did YOU read what I wrote? I said I'd like an Arcade type of option to deal with this, or a more easy way to modd. That it can be modded by investing great amounts of time and effort is not the answer.As for infantry running speeds and kill speeds, cheer up! Those things CAN be modded, it's just not that easy (and i'm still searching for a non-invasive mod for those, too).
Just seems to me you're very eager to defend even RTW's obvious weakspots. Why not highlight them so they can be analyzed and improved?
Did you read this part:
Originally Posted by :
(just to keep things in perspective, let me state that overall I feel RTW is a great game, before I focus on the negatives here).
I'm as big a fan of the TW series as the next guy. Just hoping the next one will be even better!!(just to keep things in perspective, let me state that overall I feel RTW is a great game, before I focus on the negatives here).
I've been following these AI threads with some interest. I would probably follow them with more interest if they didn't automatically turn into complaint threads. Anyway, interesting stuff combined with some ridiculous statements such as "AI is easy", etc.
Programming AI is not easy. Nothing about it is easy. I can't think of one single game that I would consider to have outstanding AI. The path-finding difference between the RTW strategy map and the old Risk-style maps is huge. The difference with Civ-type games is also huge. I assume, in a completely uninformed way, that the Civ games use a shortest-distance-between-two-points method combined with a check of nearby squares for movement point bonuses/penalties. RTW appears (again uninformed) to use the same basic principal with the added headache of impassable terrain, ford points at rivers, etc. I would imagine that right now there is a guy at CA cussing at his keyboard, throwing things at his monitor, trying to work out just how to get the strategy map path-finding just right. I would also imagine that if you walked in and said "Hey bud, it's easy. Just do it like gamexyz.", that you would not walk out alive. It's one thing to criticize, which is natural and legitimate. It's another thing to assume that it's easy.
Sitting back, coming up with a logical solution to artificial decision making is easy. Actually implementing that solution, taking into account all the variables and factors (some of which have nothing to do with the logic of the solution, such as cpu usage, available animations, budget, schedule) is pretty damned hard.
Since this is in a MTW2 forum, I should say that I am optimistic that the strategy map AI will be much improved in that game, and for me it is a welcome improvement over the old Risk-style maps. The changes to the battles are not so welcome, but, as that has been well-complained about, I don't see the need to add mine here.
As far as the bashing goes. That, I think, is the result of having been spoiled. So RTW didn't have the magic you've come to expect from a TW game. So what? Get over it. It was still quite fun to play (for me anyway). I've got an old hard-drive that I bootstrap into all my computers that has my "magic" games on it. The ones I keep coming back to long after I should have let them go. Right there next to Quake and Alpha Centauri and NWN sits Medieval Total War. I'd say I've got my money's worth from CA. I don't expect every game in the series to make it to that hard-drive, but maybe that's just me.
Man, that was pretty long and rambly and preachy for a noob post, wasn't it? Sorry 'bout that.
Programming AI is not easy. Nothing about it is easy. I can't think of one single game that I would consider to have outstanding AI. The path-finding difference between the RTW strategy map and the old Risk-style maps is huge. The difference with Civ-type games is also huge. I assume, in a completely uninformed way, that the Civ games use a shortest-distance-between-two-points method combined with a check of nearby squares for movement point bonuses/penalties. RTW appears (again uninformed) to use the same basic principal with the added headache of impassable terrain, ford points at rivers, etc. I would imagine that right now there is a guy at CA cussing at his keyboard, throwing things at his monitor, trying to work out just how to get the strategy map path-finding just right. I would also imagine that if you walked in and said "Hey bud, it's easy. Just do it like gamexyz.", that you would not walk out alive. It's one thing to criticize, which is natural and legitimate. It's another thing to assume that it's easy.
Sitting back, coming up with a logical solution to artificial decision making is easy. Actually implementing that solution, taking into account all the variables and factors (some of which have nothing to do with the logic of the solution, such as cpu usage, available animations, budget, schedule) is pretty damned hard.
Since this is in a MTW2 forum, I should say that I am optimistic that the strategy map AI will be much improved in that game, and for me it is a welcome improvement over the old Risk-style maps. The changes to the battles are not so welcome, but, as that has been well-complained about, I don't see the need to add mine here.
As far as the bashing goes. That, I think, is the result of having been spoiled. So RTW didn't have the magic you've come to expect from a TW game. So what? Get over it. It was still quite fun to play (for me anyway). I've got an old hard-drive that I bootstrap into all my computers that has my "magic" games on it. The ones I keep coming back to long after I should have let them go. Right there next to Quake and Alpha Centauri and NWN sits Medieval Total War. I'd say I've got my money's worth from CA. I don't expect every game in the series to make it to that hard-drive, but maybe that's just me.
Man, that was pretty long and rambly and preachy for a noob post, wasn't it? Sorry 'bout that.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO