Targeting efficiency

[PDF]

Originally posted by Maelstorm:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taqwus:
Heh. Yeah, I've done a fair bit of coding, and wandered into the machine-learning material a bit. Haven't done much AI-ish stuff since TA'ing a course for it (heh; the students got one eccentric final that semester, as my odd sense of humor affected much of it...).
Strong AI doesn't exist yet. What one can get now is some degree of function-fitting; but that presumes you know the structure of your inputs and outputs. The much-hyped neural network, for instance, needs to be given a set of inputs, and needs to be told what output to learn. Genetic programming methods need a vocabulary of operators, plus inputs to operate on them. Pick an input set that doesn't work, or don't include the flexibility necessary to fit your output, and it'll fail; have too much, and perhaps your search will trend towards getting stuck in meaningless local minima. It's not a coincidence that many games prefer to have fixed scenarios with pre-written scripts for AIs that also get vastly superior starting configurations... and most games have far fewer tactical choices than Dominions.

You are a fool. You have no idea about scripting.

---

Hey Grand Master Maelstrom, please enlighten us with your brightetest ideas about AI and scripting, rather !

[DominionsFan]

Originally posted by PDF:
Hey Grand Master Maelstrom

lol.

[Taqwus]

DominionsFan --

Heh. Well, I suppose that depends.

For instance, going back to the original thread target, it was possible to use weak cheap units as "chaff" to distract its missile firers. Not being a beta-tester, I don't know whether this has been improved. Mind you, the missile-firers may have a different interest than their general -- what if the "chaff" isn't the main threat in the battle, but it threatens the missile-firers themselves?

Magical targeting is trickier, for balance reasons. Consider the "save-or-die" spells, such as Disintegrate. Imagine Illwinter generated an excellent evaluation function -- or even let players script their own -- that compared enemy units based on proximity, whether or not they could fly given weather conditions, their hp, att, prot etc. Suppose it could identify, perfectly, the optimal threat. Would it be reasonable to allow these death spells to always target the nastiest threat in range, or would that lead to magic-dominated gunfights (mages on both sides slaying each other, then the surviving mages pick off supercombatants, then killing off the remaining commanders...) ?

There can be /too/ good targeting, I'd say; both from a balance perspective, and also from a "realism" perspective e.g. could a mage really, during a melee involving perhaps hundreds or more units, pick out the main threats so accurately? Outrageous cheese -- truly silly uses of chaff, say -- shouldn't be possible, but there aren't many units that can justify supreme targeting logic either. Say, flying units might have an edge on this since they could see more of the battle. If Illwinter wanted to implement "does the commander notice this" sort of logic, they could probably also factor in unit experience.

[Richard]

Originally posted by Maelstorm:
Reading Johan Osterman's reply.....I had a feeling that the Dominions 2. AI will suck balls once again.

On the old shrapnel's Dom 2. site there was a sentence that Doms 2. will have a very good AI.
On the new site this info cannot be found.

I think that Shrapnel realized that the AI will suck, so they removed that sentence, because lying is not wise for a publisher.

I tell you, that one of the most imprtant thing is the AI in a strategy game, if the game is not a MMORPG. You should think about this.

This is ridiculous. When we moved sites all of the product page write-ups were re-written by a new employee. It is entirely possible he missed the AI line. It has nothing to do with the quality of the AI in the game.

[HJ]

Originally posted by Wendigo:
[QB] This is strange, it sounds as if we were talking of different games. I have never seen the TW AI perform a flanking maneuver (although it indeed answers your own flanking atempts by rearanging its army formation). In my experience (in the highest lv in STW, and one of the higher if not the highest in MTW) the AI will just charge forward its melee units to engage the nearest enemy unit & fire with skirmish or hold orders with its missile units. That can hardly be considered 'combined arms attacks', when it basically ignores its own rock-scissor-paper rules in its offensive.

Frankly, it's anything but bright. If it tried to at least engage your cavalry with its spears, maneuver for a flank charge, try to gain the higher ground...but it doesn't do anything like this. Its only notable doings are the skirmish script for missile units and the army formations that at least keep some order before they break & the mounted troops rush forward leaving the infantry behind.

Well, it would seem as if we do talk about different games.

Some other poster expanded on this, but basically in my little knowledge of AI scripting I find it easier to write some glorified IF-THEN conditionals to account for:
a couple dozen units x 3 different facings x 3 or so different terrains x higher/lower ground x a handful of different formations in order to decide whether to charge, fall back or maneuver for a better postion. Maybe add a couple more conditionals for morale & experience.

In Dominions however said conditionals would have to acount for _many hundred units_ ^ modified by many hundred spells (note that multiple spells can affect the same unit, thus we have an exponitial increase in posibilities here)^ magic items x morale, experience, afflictions, HoF bonuses, dominion bonuses, starvation.... see the difference?

Even with TW being RT handling a few thousand triggers (or maybe only a few hundred, as units can be grouped into similar types that would act the same 90% of the time) should be doable for any modern computer.

The TW system is actually quite complex when you get to know it, especially the morale system. It superficially seems as if there are only a few variables, but this is not the case.

Just curious, is this a guess or a deduction you made from MP experience? And what game does it refers to? I ask so because this issue raised many complaints with STW, but I do not recall the same feeling from MTW, so I have to wonder if it was changed.

I don't play MP, so my judgements are based solely on SP (why else would we be talking about the AI)?

Thks for the sugestion, already got it. While I enjoyed both installments I guess I must differ regarding the challenge, for the reasons stated above.

Things have changed for the better quite a bit ever since MTW 1.0, and the AI is quite capable for an AI now. Doms AI never gave me the same run for the money, on the other hand, even when I was playing for the first time. So yes, I guess we differ on this, probably because of the different time spent on playing the games, and hence the ability to get a good idea on the AI in the first place.

[ October 16, 2003, 17:58: Message edited by: HJ ]

[Wendigo]

Originally posted by HJ:
Things have changed for the better quite a bit ever since MTW 1.0, and the AI is quite capable for an AI now.

I will have to check on whether my MTW copy is upgraded to this patch or not then, and give it a shot if not.

Maybe our particular points of view are coloured by me having spent far more time with STW, and you having spent far more time with MTW 1.0.

I cannot for example forget that in STW you could basically win without taking a province: The enemy Daymos (sp?) would charge at you singlehandely ahead of their army, resulting in their death, the routing of their army afterwards (that more often than not outnumebred yours 3to1), and the destruction of their factions because of lack of heirs...this seemed sooo moronic.