New Developer Blog: AI and Battles

[SpencerH]

That "imponderable" as you put it should NOT be applied by the AI. Like Puzz3D stated such is chaos. It results in an 'implied' unpredictability, the game then becomes **random**; and as a result quite un-chesslike.

Not fun! Much like battles exist now in RTW.

The "imponderable" should be inputted by the Player through his actions or inactions. The AI should be effected by the "imponderable"(s) of terrain, weather, etc.

Rather than Chess, "clustering of random numbers" would produce a Dice game, as would the inclusion of even "occaisional" *inputted* imponderables into the battle calculations.

Imponderables s/b circumspect and (weather partially withstanding) the result of decisions of action or inaction. Such is war.

The fact of the matter is that in MTW, Peasants could repulse Heavy Cav, given the correct circumstances or "imponderables", such as weather, terrain, morale, fatigue, armour, bonuses, numbers, etc.

Certainly, 1st level (non-peasant) spear unit could do it given the right mix of imponderables.

This is what was so great about MTW, even more so than STW. Tactical **application** was the true key to victory (if you played the game honestly). The problem (which resulted in that which is RTW) is that so few players mastered MTW's tactical possibilities, and even fewer played the game honestly----giving the AI every advantage reasonable.

Reality isn't random, victory in battle (be it real world or STW/MTW) isn't random. RTW is certainly random---though, perhaps, not deliberately so.

The one thing about Puzz' testing is that I do not believe that it accounts for the "imponderables" as well as is necessary for the conclusions to be considered absolute. That is just my very humble opinion.

I recall many such posts in the early days of MTW. In the beginning (same with STW (and I might have been one of them), LOTS of people didn't immediately comprehend the full effect of the battle "imponderables". Most were used to a straight rock/paper/scissor model.

Terrain, weather, facing, etc are not 'imponderables', they are known. Imponderables are things that cannot be predicted. As an example for TW, one could imagine a unit who's morale is much higher than anticipated because the officer or NCO's 'rise to the occasion'. Alternatively, one could imagine a unit whose training or weapons are above average because of the activities of a local officer or lord.

History is filled with the results of 'imponderables' in battles at the large and small scale and I can say from personal experience that 'imponderables' do influence the outcome of engagements (ie one can look back and say that if that unforeseen event hadnt occurred then the outcome or sequence of events would've changed).

As I made clear before (I think) I agree that most (almost all) unit v unit battles should be predictable within a normal distribution based on all the tactical factors present in TW, I just think there should be the possibility of an occasional surprise.

The odd corollary to this is that I find CIV4 combat results to be too unpredictable (which is especially annoying since one knows the exact combat odds and there are no tactical factors).

[econ21]

The odd corollary to this is that I find CIV4 combat results to be too unpredictable.

Off-topic - I agree, there's many a time when I've lost a precious veteran Civ 4 unit against the odds. I'm not sure of the maths, but I think it may be because there is not much averaging going on - in TW, you have scores of men hacking away for a fair time and so if they have a 3% kill chance or whatever, these random outcomes are being averaged over quite a large number of repetitions. With civ, it's more one-on-one and while there are combat rounds, there's presumably some kind of momentum effect whereby one bad roll disadvantages you in later rolls.

On the other hand, I think Civ4 combat "works", particularly in getting a decent trade off between quality and quantity. I have happy memories of trying to fight Russian tanks without having discovered oil. I felt like the Wehrmacht encountering the KV-1 for the first time.

[Bob the Insane]

I remember once many moons ago playing Warhammer 40K with my Imperial Guard company (I really did have around 200 of the little guys all painted up) and we were fighting my friend's Bad Moon Orks...

This was first edition rules and he had made an Ork Walker which resembled a giant pair of mechanical legs with platform on top for a sqaud of orks...

Well he charged it up the centre of the battlefield and I had everyone shooting at it...

Well you have never seen some many 1s and 2s rolled in your life, everyone missed, every single guardsman missed the giant mechanic thing...

And the Heavy Lasers and Missile launcher every squad had should have reduced it to a smoking ruin!!

How is that for an impondererable... If it had happened in Dawn of War I would have been tempted to launch the PC out the window for "cheating"!

[Myrddraal]

That's because unfortunately Dawn of War isn't really a 'wargame'. It's just cool to see the guys move.

TW is a wargame. I like the random factors of the game, they provide the challenge. Imagine a chess computer game, once you've mastered the difficulty level, the game becomes extremely repetitive and boring as you beat the ai the same way again and again. Now imagine that once in a while a pawn doesn't get taken buy destroys your bishop; you now have to adapt to the situation, adjust your tactics and overcome the problem. Fun!

[Polemists]

True but let's talk about limits. It is unrealistic to think that they are going to put e nough code in a game that is going to change every single time you encounter it. Coders who make games do not seem at that stage yet regardless.

What you can hope for is a certain set of variables that will at least offer some variety. I look forward to the AI, I think new units provide new tactics, and the world seems more immersive then RTW. Then again I would advise you all to wait until the demo. You've got two weeks come monday, depending who you believe maybe more.


Regardless this is all speculation. You are judging a entire game on ONE play testers, ONE battle, with a few paragraphs of info. I'm sure once everyone plays it and test it they'll all be going crazy. Point remains though buying is a choice, it is a way to support or not to support your game. Those who enjoy the combat will buy, those who don't won't. Modders are welcome to try and change what they wish. I'm just saying don't judge a entire AI system on one post(blog) without testing it.

[Bob the Insane]

That's because unfortunately Dawn of War isn't really a 'wargame'. It's just cool to see the guys move.

TW is a wargame. I like the random factors of the game, they provide the challenge. Imagine a chess computer game, once you've mastered the difficulty level, the game becomes extremely repetitive and boring as you beat the ai the same way again and again. Now imagine that once in a while a pawn doesn't get taken buy destroys your bishop; you now have to adapt to the situation, adjust your tactics and overcome the problem. Fun!

Sorry, but I totally agree with you and that was the point I was trying to make, TW is a wargame like WH40K (but not the RTS DoW) and as such sometime your unit of gothic solders will all roll a 1 and miss and sometime sthe peasants will all roll a 6 and do okay...

Mind you peasant stats are so rediculous that I do not wonder if most of the time they really not have a something like 1% chance of making a kill...

I mean I tried this the other day; one unit of Cataphracts verses a full stack of peasants, no upgrades (huge units). Yes the Cataphracts won easily causing ome rediculous amount of casulaties 2000+ before the peasant army's morale completely collapsed. But the Cataphracts did take some casulaties so even with a attack of one for the peasants and a defense of 23 for the Cataphracts there was some some chance of the peasant's attacks succeeding in there...

Maybe it is a bonus of using huge units, the statistical oddities even out for huge units producing more predictable gameplay?

[SpencerH]

Sorry, but I totally agree with you and that was the point I was trying to make, TW is a wargame like WH40K (but not the RTS DoW) and as such sometime your unit of gothic solders will all roll a 1 and miss and sometime sthe peasants will all roll a 6 and do okay...

That was the problem with playing wargames with 1 six sided die. The smallest chance for an event to occur was 1/6 which is too high for what should be rarely occuring events.

We dont have that problem with PC games though. It would be easy to code for a morale or weapons upgrade (or something else) that is calculated during the battle setup with a probability of occurance of 1/1000 and that remains active during that battle.

[Myrddraal]

Regardless this is all speculation. You are judging a entire game on ONE play testers, ONE battle, with a few paragraphs of info.

But what else will we do to kill the time?

Seriously, everything in these forums and online cannot give a full picture of what the game's going to be like, but that's not going to stop us speculating.

[Puzz3D]

TW is a wargame. I like the random factors of the game, they provide the challenge. Imagine a chess computer game, once you've mastered the difficulty level, the game becomes extremely repetitive and boring as you beat the ai the same way again and again. Now imagine that once in a while a pawn doesn't get taken buy destroys your bishop; you now have to adapt to the situation, adjust your tactics and overcome the problem. Fun!

This demonstrates the conflict of interest between SP and MP. In MP, there is no AI which makes predicatable moves therefore you don't need 'imponderables' to make battles interesting. What you need is reasonably predictable results so that good moves aren't thrown back in your face as mistakes.

[Bob the Insane]

This demonstrates the conflict of interest between SP and MP. In MP, there is no AI which makes predicatable moves therefore you don't need 'imponderables' to make battles interesting. What you need is reasonably predictable results so that good moves aren't thrown back in your face as mistakes.

But surely the chance of something going awry is equal for both sides in the MP game?

Though I do see your point, no one wants to be accused of winning by luck...

But going back to my WH40K example, on the table top wargame, luck sometimes happens. This does not seem to have dulled the popularity of that franchise...

[Puzz3D]

But surely the chance of something going awry is equal for both sides in the MP game?

If it's a rare random event, it's not going to be evenly distributed.