Good game, but....the AI is very bad.

[PDF]

Originally posted by proteus:
Thanks for your detailed reply Mr. Parker.
I think that you are right in many things, we should come up with detailed ideas. Propably the devs know about these AI probelms as well...
Castle & Troop building algorythm is what we propably need first of all.
My idea is, that the devs should code the AI to build LOT Less LI units, concentrate on summons and HI & HC.
Maybe this is a problem because of the few AI fortresses. No fortress -> no advanced units.
IMHO first of all the AI castle building should be fixed. Than it may build HI & HC over LI.
If not, than the devs should implent troop build algorythms.
I will post more ideas soon.

Yes, I proposed the same kind of mod some time ago, but in a more complicated manner (change cost.res of units to "help" AI to not buid crap). But a straight take-out-the-LI approach is certainly simpler. You will still have AI builds a lot of indy militias , but at least national troops should be better...

Gandalf,
Your defense of LI is good, but really LI is useless to AI, as it plays it as if it were HI ...
A human player can do *some* things with LI because he'll use it purposefully (patrol, front line fodder, mass enchantments, sneakiness...), that's not the case with the AI, so it should rather not build any !
(edit) : Why are you asking ppl to give "formulas" for AI ? Users complain about a feature they think "bad", they don't *have to* give a solution...
(Should be your techie-oriented thinking )

[ May 10, 2004, 08:45: Message edited by: PDF ]

[Gandalf Parker]

I dont think its the techie in me so much as its the diplomat in me. I could give specific examples if I knew what areas you felt you were expert at.

If someone reads you a paper that they think is good enough to get published but you dont think so, then there are alot of response you can give.

You can say it sucks, and walk off.

You can say it that in your opinion it needs something more, and walk off.

You can say it could use some improvement and at the same time give specifics.

You could give specifics and make some possible suggestions of wording changes.

Of course the easy thing is to say it sucks and walk off. If it doesnt change you can say "I told you" over and over and over. Choosing a different way of approaching it is probably as simple as how good a friend they are and whether or not you really want them to look at what you are saying. This is even more true if what you are pointing at are some lame jokes that the writer doesnt feel is a major point to the paper at all.

I do not consider myself a programmer. But I have worked with programmers and I know that you can often meet them half-way (usually called psuedo-code) then they will see the answer and convert it to real coding. It doesnt take a programmer to talk in language which trys to cover many possibilities using "if this" "if that" "but not this" although having been a parent can help

[PDF]

Gandalf,
I agree that complains are more productive if possible solutions are given...
But as long as the complaint itself is argumented ("it sucks" being *not* documented, "AI builds lot of crap LI" is better ) I find it mildly offensive to request people to find solutions ("Ah you think AI is crap ! So now tell me how can you do better yourself" ?)
The problem is not that players should fix the AI, and that's the "build AI" is feeble is no debate... Now it's to IW to state if they will either try to improve it, or else externalize the parameters to allow players to mod it (techiespeech back )

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by PDF:
Gandalf,
I agree that complains are more productive if possible solutions are given...
But as long as the complaint itself is argumented ("it sucks" being *not* documented, "AI builds lot of crap LI" is better ) I find it mildly offensive to request people to find solutions ("Ah you think AI is crap ! So now tell me how can you do better yourself" ?)
The problem is not that players should fix the AI, and that's the "build AI" is feeble is no debate... Now it's to IW to state if they will either try to improve it, or else externalize the parameters to allow players to mod it (techiespeech back )

PDF I didnt think it would be you that drove me outside of my diplomatic stance. Please dont take this personally, I figured it would be aimed at someone else. Read this quick because I will probably regret posting it as soon as I hit enter.

I havent told anyone to do anything. Ive been suggesting it whenever someone seems to be suggesting that a loud complaint will do the same job.

The devs HAVE answered in every *&^%$# thread on this subject. Do they have to answer EVERY post IN the thread for people to feel they are getting heard? READ THE THREADS and you should end up with the same impression I did.

Let me make some CHOICE pointers here....
Kristoffer in "SUGGESTION: AI troop building algorithm "
Hmm, it's a bit difficult to follow without graphical representation. I should test it when I get some spare time.

A nice answer, an answer of hope, given in the thread I keep trying to point to. The one that gives testable cases and possible solutions.

Later...
Kristoffer in "Good game, but....the AI is very bad"
Hopefully there will be improvements in the AI, but as before I can't give you any guarantees.

Im abit surprised he even stepped into that one considering the title itself says its going to go in the wrong direction. But he did answer and quite early in the thread.

Im sorry I was busy and didnt notice the thread in time to maybe keep it from going to....

Kristoffer later in "Good game, but....the AI is very bad"
Perhaps all the pointless complaining made us pissed.

There was some constructive AI discussions recently that made me interested, but I'm quickly loosing interest. Right now I'm more interested in doing something I am feeling positive about like improving Pangaean themes or finishing the Shepherds of Creation scenario, or for that matter work at school.

The reason I do not say that there will not be an AI improvement is because we also feel that the AI should be improved.

Now, let me ask. Is anyone still confused about the best choice of direction for those who REALLY WOULD LIKE to see the AI get some improvements? Is anyone still confused about the best choice of direction to go if you want to gaurantee that the devs move the AI DOWN on the wishlist? Now Im sure that we will hear some discussion on whether some people feel it SHOULD be that way or not but I cosnider that to be another dead end discussion. Im a solo player interested in a better AI and Ive made my choice.

[proteus]

Gandalf, I am 14 years old, I dont think that I could help in any coding/design tricks.

I always thought that this part is really up to the devs. We -the players- are posting our opinion about various subjects, maybe making suggestions.
I didnt knew about those old topics what we had, so maybe it was really pointless to make this post, since that old thread is from november, and the developers never cared about that thread at all, as I see. It was a huge thread with LOT of good ideas, I just saw it.

Gandalf even you posted a lot in that thread, I just saw it, so you must know, that lot of good ideas can be found there, and still, the 'fix the ai' thing was on the bottom on the 'to do' list, that is for sure.
Hopefully it isnt there still..

I am really trying to be constructive, but this AI coding thing is a bit too complicated to me I think, that is why I only mentioned the LI and castle building problems in that case.

P.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by proteus:
I always thought that this part is really up to the devs. We -the players- are posting our opinion about various subjects, maybe making suggestions.

Think whatever you want. It wont change the way things are. I think people should offer solutions instead of problems but thats a common saying in the workplace.

I didnt knew about those old topics what we had, so maybe it was really pointless to make this post, since that old thread is from november, and the developers never cared about that thread at all, as I see. It was a huge thread with LOT of good ideas, I just saw it.

Which thread is this that they "never cared about"? I thought they answered in most of the threads?

Gandalf even you posted a lot in that thread, I just saw it, so you must know, that lot of good ideas can be found there, and still, the 'fix the ai' thing was on the bottom on the 'to do' list, that is for sure.
Hopefully it isnt there still..

Of course it is. Well not the bottom but lower than many other things. Why wouldnt it be? No one has come up with anything to change that yet.

I am really trying to be constructive, but this AI coding thing is a bit too complicated to me I think, that is why I only mentioned the LI and castle building problems in that case.

Bull. You cant play a game of Dominions pretending to be the AI? Try playing with no LI at all? You can beat the AI so often that this is a problem but you cant play like a dumb AI to test a theory?

Do you have any idea what army the AI should have? How do they get that? Do they build all HI until they cant afford more and then build LI? Or should it be LI, LI, HI, Cavalry, repeat until broke. Now how well does that work if you arent playing Ulm? Does it work for Man? Pangaea? Ctis? Caelum? Atlantis?
Should they build only at home? In every province? How well does that work if you are on a map larger than the small maps? 100 provinces? 200? 300? 500?

[ May 10, 2004, 18:07: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[MStavros]

I have some ideas.

The AI shouldn't build LI at all. The AI cannot make good moves with the LI. It shouldn't build LC after turn 10. This should be a core rule for all nations.
I posted my idea about the AI castle building, in a previous thread.

As I said before, the castle building problem must be fixed first of all. Maybe with more forts the AI wont build as many LI units. If it will, than code it, to dont build LI at all, because LI controlled by the AI is everything just not a good army.

Well I started to make my mod, so we will see what will happen without LI.
One problem could be here, the provincial militias. Those are weak LI units, and I bet that the AI will build them.
Perhaps I will change all provinical militias as well. They will be strong HI units.

[Gandalf Parker]

Well with your mod you will be able to test that. There is a --superhost command which will let you loop the game on automatic. You can add --scoredump so that each turn will spit out the scoreboard. That way you can keep an eye on things and decide when to kill the loop to jump in and see how things are.

[MStavros]

Ah thanks Gandalf, good infos! It will be a few days until Im ready with the mod. If it will work, I will make it downloadable.

[NTJedi]

Actually the AI is okay considering the size of the gaming company. Developing an intelligent AI is probably one of the most challenging tasks gaming companies have. Most gaming companies develop a single artificial intelligence which follows a series of x,y,z steps. Once gamers identify the set pattern it's easy to conquer the computer opponents.

I believe the best choice would be to begin developing improved AI for Dominions_III since the biggest and best changes most likely cannot be done for Dominions_II.

BEST IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE IMPROVING THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE:

1) Randomly selected AI personalities at the start of each game. Thus only one or two personalities out of 10 would use the tactic of massing lots of low level units.

2) With the assistance of scripting gamers are able to create or improve existing AI personalities. This was done long ago with Warcraft_II and Age_of_Empires_II.... and even recently done with Neverwinter Nights. I see no reason why it could not be introduced for Dominions_III.

This would allow for a strong replay value for AI opponents.