What now????

[Jochen Schmidt]

Hi all,

after reading with surprise how many folks here, think in the same way like me, i haver say something to this discussion:

I never did an Ai coding - this must be very hard to do - yes - but, it can done!!

Well, my baseline is MoO2 - the diplomacy, the characters of the enemies/allies, the strategic AI - really well done!! O.k., now in SE4, there is much more implementet, things a always wanted to have - but, the essential thing, the AI is to weak, much to weak. Btw, i like to play against the computer, cause in a such long-time game like SE4, i don´t know how it should work to play by E-mail. It is even now excuse, to say: "If you don´t like the Ai, play against a human". Also doing my own AI could be a funny thing, but as i said, i don´t know how, and when i should do this - this is the job of the programmers.

Don´t get me wrong (again), i know, that the AI is never as good as a human, but if the Ai here would have only a little more "intelligence", the game would still be my favourite. THIS, i mean the tweaking of the AI, should be the first job to do at the moment. Give it the possibility to use all the compenents, wich are implented in the game, give it the right behavior in strategy... and, this game would rock!!!!

(One of the most famous things for me, was the decision of BTS, to code an (nearly perfect) AI for their Combat Mission game - this is the best AI i´ve ever seen - so, their success as an "independent label" was born by doing it so - not 3D-Graphics, not warsimulation - the AI is the secret of their success.)

I hope MM will work on this. I won´t - ´cause i´m "only" a customer with all good wishes for them and their/my game.

Greetings to all

Jochen

[Courageous]

What will often help an A.I. to defeat human
players (in just about any game) is giving
it the ability to process information in such
a way that gives it an advantage, but at the
same time that information processing would
be far too tedious for a human to engage in.
AI's in such situations excel.

This is one of the reasons Imperialism II was
such a bastard to beat. I'm in favor of
allowing a little "AI cheating," as long as
the cheating is mostly related to the AI
having information that a human player might
not have. There's good rationale for this:
human players have intuition and can make
good guesses. Computers can't.

Not yet, anyway.

C//

[Psitticine]

I think the AI's new intolerence for pushy human players (as mentioned in the Up To Date Beta thread) will help make the game more difficult. One of the problems now is that it is too easy for the human player to pick his (or her) battles. I'm rarely forced into a multi-front battle until the Mega Evil Empire setting kicks in. If the AI had more of a tendancy to start fights when they aren't convenient for the human players, it'd be a more difficult opponent.

[Kentavr]

An AI needn't cheat to win.

Humans are not perfect: An AI can be. This constant idea that AIs can't be smart is just... Well, junk.

Given enough data, an AI can soundly beat a human. Can you ever beat an AI at chess? C'mon.

the only difference here is that the AI doesn't quite know what everything does. It's not even programmed yet to make decisions based upon the universe, but just random chance! That's not AI, that's just... Random.

The computer plays a pretty straight game in tactical combat... If I don't have some sort of advantage in the combat, I'll lose. I'm fairly sure none of you are any better than that. You're going in with hog-wild ships and then saying the AI is dumb, when you obviously outclass it. Try going up against the AI ship that has missiles when you've just got guns. You'll get trounced if you don't have initiative. And I noticed the AI seems to run it's own ships better than a player's... What's with that? :P

But really, until the AI is making decisions based upon the planets within range, what they can do, and making raids rather than just shoving pieces around the board randomly, of course the AI will suck... Because it certainly is A, but it ain't I.

Humans play their games based upon sound rules. It wouldn't be that hard to write them into the game. ...Getting the to work, and have the data for the AI to be able to manage it, that's another thing entirely.

And PS: MOO2 sucked. Small universes, repetitive animations (What's the difference between the same animation twenty times over and a bitmap? The bitmaps is faster, cheaper, and easier to ignore), races that really didn't do anything 'different' than each other, at least when it came to declaring war.

C'mon, really, did you want SE4 next year, after a year of AI tweaking, or did you want it now, when you can play against each other, and learn to make mods? I've been waiting for SE4 all year... And I'm perfectly happy with it.

Crissa

------------------
Crissa Kentavr
Lost Girls

[Taqwus]

I've seen quite a few battles where, in tactical combat, I'll do FAR better than an AI with the same forces.

I once ran a test involving something like 2 heavy carriers and a few DNs for escort, attacking several identical DNs. Under my control, the carriers won hands down: complete obliteration of enemy force. With the AI controlling both sides, the defenders win hands-down, obliterating the carrier force with no losses. Conclusion: Micro-manage fighter combat. It has no understanding of holding back waves, or 'recycling' fired rocket-fighters to soak up PD so that unused RFs can fire unharmed, or using ships as decoys so big guns impact on ship shields, not fighter swarms.

In smaller galaxies before CSMs were boosted in speed, I routinely used an escort with one CSM I to destroy an escort with one CSM I by the obvious run-while-firing-out-yer-rear tactic.

I've used *1* DN, with no weapon of any range above 7, to defeat a fleet of *7* DNs and a CA, with range-16 seeker parasites and range-8 beams, partly because the AI doesn't understand when missiles are useless.

Also, it still doesn't take full advantage move-fire-move, which is a must when taking on a planet protected with 30 weapon platforms with range-8 beams and range-16 speed-5 missiles... something that can be done with zero risk w/ a speed-6 ship w/ range-7 beams, but only in tactical.

It's really not that good, tactically, as of the first patch...

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

[Courageous]

It's funny; you conclude that you should
micro manage fighters, where, in a game
against the A.I., I conclude that all games
should be strategic. Why would someone want
an ADDITIONAL advantage against the A.I.?

C//

[Seawolf]

Taqwus,

Since MM is working on the game I'll defend them.

Personally I think you are asking too much from the AI at this stage of the game. Also considering that this game runs on home PC rather than a Cray or Deep Blue a human player will allways have an advantage in tactical combat. How could a AI micromanage a large fleet of fighters like it seems you do? An AI improves as it plays others and learns from experience. This AI is under the constraints. MM wanted to get the game out and running, so while the Ai may not be much of a challenge for you try playing other human players. Have you uped the AI bonuses in the game you are playing? That does make a difference too.

Sorry this game doens't met your expectations as of yet but give it time.



------------------
Seawolf on the prowl