request for new patch: an ai that can learn

wailoktam · #1 July 18th, 2007, 11:16 AM

I am sure a lot of you who develop the game and play the game must know what I am talking about. I think the game would become more interesting if the AI makes some choice based on a statistical model trained on played games. While doing everything based on a statistical model may seems too large a change for a patch, doing a bit of it by using machine learning technique should not be too difficult. For example, the decision the AI makes regarding scales can be changed to include some training elements. I think it should not be too difficult to implement. Ultimately, if the AI can be trained to build SC/thugs/counter-SC armies, that would be amazing.

Wahnsinniger · #2 July 18th, 2007, 11:50 AM

It Would be amazing.

Building a learning AI into a game as complex as Dominions would both give very rewarding results, and also would be painfully difficult to program. GOOD Artificial Intelligence is about the hardest thing to program in any game. One reason so many games now-a-days rely on Multiplayer modes is because developers like to cop-out and skimp on the AI. Stardock focused big time on AI in Galactic Civilizations 2 and actually succeeded, but they didn't include multiplayer as a result. (Not complaining though) Considering one of the strengths of Dominions is its vast content, the devs need to keep focusing their limited resources on that, and fixing bugs; not building an uber AI.

As for Satistical modeling, I thing you're kinda refering to a Neural-Net thing. Neural Nets are bad. Very Bad. Not worth the effort for game which sports a rich multiplayer community (of which I've yet to play a MP game, since they all seem to be "started" or "Full", Does anyone ever friggin start a new one?)

Sorry to say, but if you want Human-like opponents...play against humans. Not bashing your ideas though, Learning AI WOULD be great.

NTJedi · #3 July 18th, 2007, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Wahnsinniger said:
Stardock focused big time on AI in Galactic Civilizations 2 and actually succeeded, but they didn't include multiplayer as a result. (Not complaining though) Considering one of the strengths of Dominions is its vast content, the devs need to keep focusing their limited resources on that, and fixing bugs; not building an uber AI.

I never purchased Galactic Civilizations_2 because a multiplayer extension was never developed. I have heard Stardock is working on a fantasy TBS game which will be multiplayer. Their focus on building a strong AI could definitely make the game a long term keeper.

Quote:

Wahnsinniger said:
Not bashing your ideas though, Learning AI WOULD be great.

Sounds great however the learning AI project is too great to include within a patch as Wahnsinniger says. A scriptable AI would open more doors for improving the AI opponents and has worked great for many successful games such as AgeofEmpires_2 and Neverwinter Nights. Hopefully Dominions_4 will have a scriptable AI.
The other benefit for Illwinter with having a scriptable AI is that if someone complains about a computer opponent all Illwinter has to do is say, "Create and implement your own AI via the scripts option." As time passes gamers of the community will continue to develop stronger and stronger AI scripts.

MaxWilson · #4 July 18th, 2007, 12:37 PM

Statistical AI could be as simple as observing that "when I take both death-3 and misfortune-3 (as Bandar Log), my empire dies 30% faster. Bad combination, stay away."

I would much rather have an API of some kind for the AI (even documentation for the .trn and .2h files might do) so that people can write their own AIs. That way they can use nation-specific tactics, can learn if you want them to, can be passed on to other players, etc. Making Illwinter write another AI, given that we already have a pretty decent one, seems like a lot to ask.

Edit: oh, I forgot. It would be nice if you could designate human-controlled players with the same anti-handicaps as Difficult/Mighty/Impossible AIs, since AI players would "look" like humans from the host's perspective. It might also be fun for new players to receive a competitive advantage.

-Max

Wahnsinniger · #5 July 18th, 2007, 12:50 PM

The Scriptable AI is something I didn't even think about. That IS a good idea. Especially since the game isn't real-time, scriptable AI works great.

Quote:

MaxWilson said:
Statistical AI could be as simple as observing that "when I take both death-3 and misfortune-3 (as Bandar Log), my empire dies 30% faster. Bad combination, stay away."

So you mean, between games, the Game would try to figure out what works and what doesn't? Seems like it'd just be easier for the devs to hardcode in good combinations, and choose which combinations to avoid, Instead of spending a bunch of time writing Statistical stuff.

The other (more useful) learning AI would continually check throughout a game: "Hmmm, Nation X keeps dominating me with lots of blessed units. Switch production and research to a bunch of Battlefield Mages". But that requires alot of coding itself, and you either have to script in specifically what changes it would make and end up with a inflexible system, or write a Very flexible system which would be unreliable and difficult to code.

MaxWilson · #6 July 18th, 2007, 01:08 PM

The thing about the statistical stuff is that 1.) it can depend on the opponent, and 2.) it can extract knowledge that the developers don't have. To wit, in some playing circles with a very aggressive set of players, taking death-3 might be a no-brainer, whereas if most players are defensive and borders are static growth becomes more desirable. Moreover, if the opponent begins to adjust to your strategy a learning AI can re-adjust its style (between games) when it starts to become ineffective. The approach of hardcoding "good combinations" is how most AI seems to be done, and it works well until you figure out the weak points. Dom3 has a good, strong AI, until you figure out the things it can't handle (SCs). At that point you either exploit those things or stay away from them, but a human player would lose a game or two and then, if you kept on using SCs, shift its strategy to deal with them at the expense of a weaker anti-magic defense or something. (E.g. build more mages and fewer huge armies, construct some Rods of the Phoenix and sprinkle them around.) A learning AI would need to have the right tools in its learning toolbox--in its simplest form it has a number of hardwired strategies and selects among them based on what is working--but without the ability to learn from your opponent's behavior you *cannot* prevent your AI from getting exploited eventually. There's no guarantee that any given learning AI would be able to deal with any given player tactic, which is why it would be good to have an API, so you can add more tools to the learning toolbox when needed.

-Max

Gandalf Parker · #7 July 18th, 2007, 01:51 PM

That level of AI would have to be done by someone specializing in AI from the beginning, and adding the game after (like GalCiv). Or have an AI programmer working closely (which the Dom game doesnt support)

Personally Id rather see hooks for external AI bots such as VGA Planets supports. Like MUDs have. A full text interface would allow for anyone to program a bot-player to act as an AI. That would not only allow for fantastic AIs that can learn, but also for a huge variety. One person can concentrate on a researcher style. One can do a barbarian horde style player. One can do a stealth style. One could write the Ultimate Ermor Challenge bot and take continual suggestions on improving it.

Every developer has things they do well, and things they dont. Im not one to gripe on the things they cant do but I will suggest that they open the door to allow others to do it for them (graphics, sounds, mods, maps, AI, help manuals) instead of trying to hold the door closed.

As for Dom3, we are closer than you think. The text output is extensive. And editing of trn/2h files is in reach. Im just not sure if we want to proceed down that path without the help and blessing of the devs.

Loren · #8 July 18th, 2007, 03:18 PM

You don't realize how complex such an AI would be.

There is one thing that could be done for the AI, though--take it out of the game.

Instead, put the AI in a .dll. Publish the interface to the .dll. The name of the .dll would be an option when setting up a game. Allow the community to write AI's for it.

MaxWilson · #9 July 18th, 2007, 03:51 PM

Actually, I really like that .dll idea. The thing I like about interfacing through .2h and .trn files is that the infrastructure is already there, and you could write your AI in any language--but there are also concerns about possible hacks. A .dll could still implement the AI in another language by spawning an AI process and communicating with it through a pipe.

-Max

Gandalf Parker · #10 July 18th, 2007, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Loren said:
You don't realize how complex such an AI would be.

There is one thing that could be done for the AI, though--take it out of the game.

Instead, put the AI in a .dll. Publish the interface to the .dll. The name of the .dll would be an option when setting up a game. Allow the community to write AI's for it.

Kindof the same thing I said. External AIs. Except that mine would open it up to more people I think than a dll.

As long as it allows 3rd party AIs without compromising the security of the games internal files then Im all for it.