New Developer Blog: AI and Battles

[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.

[SpencerH]

I can see where it might be less useful in MP. Surely, it would be easy enough to code it as a selectable (or not) option.

[AussieGiant]

I'm not sure if I am even on the same planet as Puzz, Bob and Spencer, but....

IMO, the only difference that should be between SP and MP, is the use of AI or a human to control the opposition.

The mathematics of the game should be the same.

In the end you should have a series of statistics for all the units. Plus upgrades.

Then a series of modifiers for all the "variables".

ie Terrain, General's skill, high ground, cover, concealment, range, etc etc.

Then the mathematics should be calculated and a result given.

Using a 1-100 percentile range where the maximum is 2 or 99, you should still be able to have a 1% chance of critical failure or success...just to leave some uncertainty in :)

Fresh, Veteran, Gothic knights, charging downhill, in the middle of the day, on flat ground, against Green Peasants should result total in slaughter. But there is still a 1% chance that a few peasants could survive and after the initial charge there would still be a 1% chance of a successful hit by a peasant on a Gothic Knight.

For me war is uncertain...many Generals over the centuries have written that time and time again. In some instances these small chances can change the course of a battle or an entire conflict.

Therefore there should be some uncertainty.

If being a world class general was simply memorising unit stats and the variables that affect those statistics then we would all be experts if we could remember them or reference them fast enough.

When the odds are no where near 99% probable...and in reality they never are, especially if the opposition is even vaguely proficient....it should be possible, and especially so if the opposition has used the variables to the best of their ability, to have "unexpected results".

The trick of course is to get these "variables" balanced and accurate.

As an example, that is why table top military games, using a 100% range of probability can be very accurate simulations of WWII conflict. This can be applied to the Medieval period also.

I'm oversimplifying this but I thought it might be needed

[Martok]

IMO, the only difference between SP and MP is the use of AI or a human to control the opposition.

The mathematics of the game should be the same.

Good points, AG. I confess I don't fully get why the numbers matter so much more in multiplayer than singleplayer. I'm not disagreeing with Puzz & Co., mind you; I'm just curious as to what the difference is (since the numbers would still be the same regardless if your opponent is human or AI).

I do think the numbers should still be reasonably predictable (ala Shogun & MTW), but I've never quite understood why it's more important in online play.

[Polemists]

Well if there must be speculation can we at least keep the math aspect out of it, for those of us who don't enjoy math

[x-dANGEr]

Well you're spot on right on that one Puzz3D.

I do think the numbers should still be reasonably predictable (ala Shogun & MTW), but I've never quite understood why it's more important in online play.

Basically, in SP, if your Gothic Knights unit gets killed by a peasant, you wouldn't care too much.. This is SP after all, and you can get hundreds instead of it. Though, imagine that happening in MP.. It would be an event that may as well lose you the battle.

Another such event occured with me in the last week.. I was in a 3 on 3 with my Sith clan mates. My Gothic Cavalry (RTW) were riding to flank the enemy's infantry battleline. At the contact of the charge on the flank of the already pinned, scared and horrified Urbans caused my cav to die instantly and raise the morale of the Urbans to Stedily..

Another example I guess is on the many times my numerous charges in the enemy's pinned infantry line won't break them, and when the enemy gets one charge on mine, my infantry routs.. (Knowing that the 2 infantry units forming the lines are identical)

[Nobunaga]

why didn't they post the new blog yet?

[cutepuppy]

Fresh, Veteran, Gothic knights, charging downhill, in the middle of the day, on flat ground, ...

[R'as al Ghul]

Sigh!
In my days we had to charge uphill to the battle....both ways.

[Barbarossa82]

I don't think the player's tactics should be the only "imponderable" that can affect the outcome of a battle, although they should be the main influence. Luck has always been a part of the reality of war, as have small events that have large knock-on effects. With precisely equal forces, the side that uses the best tactics should win 85%+ of encounters, but not 100%. A certain random element is needed to represent individuals, units, generals etc simply having "a bad day". That shouldn't be a a powerful enough influence on gameplay to make the pursuit of tactics unworthwhile, but it should have some influence nonetheless.

[x-dANGEr]

If that is the deal Barba, there is a chance your clan, and your 4 on 4 team will lose the final of one of the most famous team tourneys around in the community to a 15% percent of "luck". Does that feel right?

Of course, luck is around in RTW, which is really annoying..

[Puzz3D]

Fresh, Veteran, Gothic knights, charging downhill, in the middle of the day, on flat ground, against Green Peasants should result total in slaughter. But there is still a 1% chance that a few peasants could survive and after the initial charge there would still be a 1% chance of a successful hit by a peasant on a Gothic Knight.

For me war is uncertain...many Generals over the centuries have written that time and time again. In some instances these small chances can change the course of a battle or an entire conflict.

Therefore there should be some uncertainty.

There is uncertainty in the STW/MTW engine, but Gothinc Knights are 32x better than peasants in MTW. Adjusting for the size difference, that still leaves the knight 12.8x better than the peasant. In STW, the best cavalry unit was only 5x better than the worst sword unit, and the best sword unit was 5x better than the worst spear unit. In a properly balanced game, a weak unit is more likely to damage a strong unit, and therefore the uncertainty in the battle's outcome is maintained longer because it's harder to gain a decisive advantage.

Other players have noted the mushrooming of apparently small effects in the combat model of RTW/BI, and that's showing up as big wins in unit matchups of equally balanced units. I postulate that this doesn't help weaker units in strong vs weak matchups because the stronger unit has a better chance of getting these small advanatages. This idea seems to be reinforced by the call by some players for a random factor to be introduced which allows the weaker unit to sometimes win. I think that CA, who claim to be the world leaders in this area, should reduce the level of chaos in the combat model and then balance the game to achieve a designed level of uncertainty in the battles. I doubt that they will do this because their emphasis is apparently on graphical effects such as watching the finishing moves and fire projectiles.

[Barbarossa82]

If that is the deal Barba, there is a chance your clan, and your 4 on 4 team will lose the final of one of the most famous team tourneys around in the community to a 15% percent of "luck". Does that feel right?

Of course, luck is around in RTW, which is really annoying..

Well I was really talking about singleplayer. With multiplayer I agree you would want an even smaller luck element but I would want it to still be there. After all, why play a game that has the "skin" of a wargame if you want it to operate like chess under the bonnet, with no unpredictable elements? Doesn't it make more sense to have a gameplay mechanic that reflects the inherent unpredictability of the game's subject matter? I do agree the luck element is far too prominent in RTW though, being another major factor along with combat speed that reduces the effect of intelligent tactics.

[AussieGiant]

"Originally Posted by AussieGiant
Fresh, Veteran, Gothic knights, charging downhill, in the middle of the day, on flat ground, ..."

ahhh...good spot there cutepuppy

You get my drift though?

[AussieGiant]

There is uncertainty in the STW/MTW engine, but Gothinc Knights are 32x better than peasants in MTW. Adjusting for the size difference, that still leaves the knight 12.8x better than the peasant. In STW, the best cavalry unit was only 5x better than the worst sword unit, and the best sword unit was 5x better than the worst spear unit. In a properly balanced game, a weak unit is more likely to damage a strong unit, and therefore the uncertainty in the battle's outcome is maintained longer because it's harder to gain a decisive advantage.

Other players have noted the mushrooming of apparently small effects in the combat model of RTW/BI, and that's showing up as big wins in unit matchups of equally balanced units. I postulate that this doesn't help weaker units in strong vs weak matchups because the stronger unit has a better chance of getting these small advanatages. This idea seems to be reinforced by the call by some players for a random factor to be introduced which allows the weaker unit to sometimes win. I think that CA, who claim to be the world leaders in this area, should reduce the level of chaos in the combat model and then balance the game to achieve a designed level of uncertainty in the battles. I doubt that they will do this because their emphasis is apparently on graphical effects such as watching the finishing moves and fire projectiles.

I agree with you Puzz, especially in your second paragraph.

A question about the first...

You compared Gothic knights and peasants (MTW) to Best Cav unit and worst sword unit (STW). That's not apples vs apples, that's apples versus grapes.

What is the Gothic Knights vs worst sword (MTW) unit and best cav vs worst sword unit (STW) comparisons like?