Tweet
Quite an excellent thread. I have a few (well maybe more than a few) thoughts.
1) As has been stated before, these Civ style games are many orders of magnitude more complex than chess. Any chess like approach to analysis is doomed to failure, even for a computer as powerful as Deep Blue. Consider:
Chess: 64 squares, 1 terrain type.
Civ etc.: Thousands of Squares, numerous terrain types.
Chess: I move, you move.
Civ: I move possibly 100 (or more) units, you move your numerous units.
Chess: I move and attack with 100% probability of success.
Civ: I sometimes have a fractional movement point, and all combat has some chance of failure. Therefore numerous sub-analysis paths must be calculated.
Chess: Same simple map every game, with only one opponent.
Civ: Possibly different maps every game, with several opponents.
And these are only the some of the problems with only one aspect of the game. (Movement and combat)
Now consider that as simple as chess is, it took a dedicated team of expert programmers years to train a supercomputer to reliably beat an expert chess player.
This is a problem that not only won't go away, but will get more difficult as player demands for more complexity outpace advances in computers and programming techniques.
The solution lies in thinking outside of the box. As stated above, the game complexity for the AI must be drastically reduced if it is going to be able to produce a quality opponent for a human. Fortunately, this doesn't have to be as painful as one might imagine. Consider exactly what is being simulated by these 'god' type games:
An immortal being manages an empire at all levels for all time. Not all that realistic, but loads of fun.
In reality, President Roosevelt probably had more power in his hands than any human being ever had in history previously. He had speed of light communication, and vast armies armed with the latest weapons. Yet he never had so much power as to be able to dictate even operational details to his commanders. He had to kowtow to MacArthur's strategic vision in the Pacific in order to safeguard his political grip on power. Now imagine the limitations forced upon ancient emporers with shaky internal power structures and speed of horse communications. Or even worse, Monarchs in the middle ages, with numerous scheming and often rebellious 'subordinates'. A vast majority of his time would be spent trying to hold on to his Kingdom, with very little left to improve the infrastructure of his people or for wars outside his borders.
Thus I suggest that a new model would seek to be more of a simulation and less of a 'god' level excersize. This would simplify the game by turning such things as tactical considerations over to a player's AI generals, while the player himself would be kept busy managing the internal and external political situation. With both the AI and the player at the mercy of the same AI generalship, a huge amount of player advantage would melt away, with no need to endlessly tinker with the AI tactics in order to keep them one level above embarrassing. I for one take very little pleasure in playing a bad wargame against a bad opponent, and would not miss Civ's tactical units on a strategic map style of combat.
With this major portion of the game now 'hidden' from player control, a much more realistic (and at least for me fun) game can be produced. Realistic movement and supply considerations can be economically introduced with no fear of human abuse. Simultaneous movement can become a reality (not a bad idea in a game where the minimum turn length is a year), and will reduce the enormous advantage given to the attacker when all of his units can expend a year's worth of combat power before the defender can react.
These reductions in the need for extensive AI programming will enable the design team to concentrate more on the building and management side of the game, which is easier to do, since it is basically the human vs. the management model, rather than the exceedingly complex human generalship vs. AI generalship. Limitations on the size and scope of the player's power are also a good idea. I would use political settings and speed of communication to judge just how large an empire could be and still remain whole over time. Thus an ancient empire with post roads and an efficient bureacracy could become quite large, but could break apart due to external or internal pressures (as stated above) much as Rome etc. did. To sum it up, I would like to do more on the management screen, and less micromanagement on the map.
Finally, it has been suggested that a record of the game be kept so that the AI can 'learn' from history and improve over time. This is a good idea, but not practical due to the immense complexity of the game as currently configured, and the very limited amount of processing power and memory currently available to the PC. Perhaps it would be wiser to contemplate a larger centralized database (with an appropriately larger computer) to continuously improve the AI. Players could sign up to upload their game data to the host, and in return (perhaps for a small fee) receive the latest version of the AI algorithm. This might well keep the game fresh, and in return would give the designers a reason to continue to support the game.
[This message has been edited by Sikander (edited July 01, 2000).]
1) As has been stated before, these Civ style games are many orders of magnitude more complex than chess. Any chess like approach to analysis is doomed to failure, even for a computer as powerful as Deep Blue. Consider:
Chess: 64 squares, 1 terrain type.
Civ etc.: Thousands of Squares, numerous terrain types.
Chess: I move, you move.
Civ: I move possibly 100 (or more) units, you move your numerous units.
Chess: I move and attack with 100% probability of success.
Civ: I sometimes have a fractional movement point, and all combat has some chance of failure. Therefore numerous sub-analysis paths must be calculated.
Chess: Same simple map every game, with only one opponent.
Civ: Possibly different maps every game, with several opponents.
And these are only the some of the problems with only one aspect of the game. (Movement and combat)
Now consider that as simple as chess is, it took a dedicated team of expert programmers years to train a supercomputer to reliably beat an expert chess player.
This is a problem that not only won't go away, but will get more difficult as player demands for more complexity outpace advances in computers and programming techniques.
The solution lies in thinking outside of the box. As stated above, the game complexity for the AI must be drastically reduced if it is going to be able to produce a quality opponent for a human. Fortunately, this doesn't have to be as painful as one might imagine. Consider exactly what is being simulated by these 'god' type games:
An immortal being manages an empire at all levels for all time. Not all that realistic, but loads of fun.
In reality, President Roosevelt probably had more power in his hands than any human being ever had in history previously. He had speed of light communication, and vast armies armed with the latest weapons. Yet he never had so much power as to be able to dictate even operational details to his commanders. He had to kowtow to MacArthur's strategic vision in the Pacific in order to safeguard his political grip on power. Now imagine the limitations forced upon ancient emporers with shaky internal power structures and speed of horse communications. Or even worse, Monarchs in the middle ages, with numerous scheming and often rebellious 'subordinates'. A vast majority of his time would be spent trying to hold on to his Kingdom, with very little left to improve the infrastructure of his people or for wars outside his borders.
Thus I suggest that a new model would seek to be more of a simulation and less of a 'god' level excersize. This would simplify the game by turning such things as tactical considerations over to a player's AI generals, while the player himself would be kept busy managing the internal and external political situation. With both the AI and the player at the mercy of the same AI generalship, a huge amount of player advantage would melt away, with no need to endlessly tinker with the AI tactics in order to keep them one level above embarrassing. I for one take very little pleasure in playing a bad wargame against a bad opponent, and would not miss Civ's tactical units on a strategic map style of combat.
With this major portion of the game now 'hidden' from player control, a much more realistic (and at least for me fun) game can be produced. Realistic movement and supply considerations can be economically introduced with no fear of human abuse. Simultaneous movement can become a reality (not a bad idea in a game where the minimum turn length is a year), and will reduce the enormous advantage given to the attacker when all of his units can expend a year's worth of combat power before the defender can react.
These reductions in the need for extensive AI programming will enable the design team to concentrate more on the building and management side of the game, which is easier to do, since it is basically the human vs. the management model, rather than the exceedingly complex human generalship vs. AI generalship. Limitations on the size and scope of the player's power are also a good idea. I would use political settings and speed of communication to judge just how large an empire could be and still remain whole over time. Thus an ancient empire with post roads and an efficient bureacracy could become quite large, but could break apart due to external or internal pressures (as stated above) much as Rome etc. did. To sum it up, I would like to do more on the management screen, and less micromanagement on the map.
Finally, it has been suggested that a record of the game be kept so that the AI can 'learn' from history and improve over time. This is a good idea, but not practical due to the immense complexity of the game as currently configured, and the very limited amount of processing power and memory currently available to the PC. Perhaps it would be wiser to contemplate a larger centralized database (with an appropriately larger computer) to continuously improve the AI. Players could sign up to upload their game data to the host, and in return (perhaps for a small fee) receive the latest version of the AI algorithm. This might well keep the game fresh, and in return would give the designers a reason to continue to support the game.
[This message has been edited by Sikander (edited July 01, 2000).]
) do just that.
Comment