Strategic vs. Tactical AI

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by proteus:
Important note. Mr. Parker was right, this is a very complicated game, so we cannot compare it to anything else.

It would be easier to write a good AI for chess than to write one for this game. (and how long have AI experts been trying to do that?) All we can hope for are some improvements. I dont think we can get a good player. In fact sensible moves would make it easier to beat.

The base comparison is an AI which is completely random. People want to improve that by giving it sensible moves. But sensible moves can be guessed by a human player which might make the AI less frustrating but not harder to beat.

Still, the majoirty of the troops/spells are sorta useless/weak, so the AI should be scripted to use the more important spells/troops ONLY.
I guess that would be easier to code as well.

What are you playing? Ulm? Do you win alot with it? Do you lose alot playing races like Caelum, or Jotun? Or Pangaea? I think you might find you are ignoring those "weak" troops/spells when playing those.

If that were true that the majority of troops/spells were weak then the AI would be easy to program. Just limit it to the "good" choices. Please, come up with your list of good spells and units. I think we would find that it would be a list good for only 1 or 2 nations, and too easily beat if even those nations stuck to it.

[ May 11, 2004, 13:26: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]