AI (ver1.0): Hosted by mindlace

[Bingmann]

I agree on the dll vs scripting issue, mainly on the grounds of accessibility by non-programmers. Only programmers with all the development tools are going to be able to modify dlls. However, someone with the capability to change dlls would be able to do just as much with a dll as everyone would be able to do with scripts - reuse, sharing, etc.

I would much prefer scripts to a dll, but I would include the dll suggestion as a minimal effort - it really shouldn't matter to the game developers if the AI is either compiled directly into the program or is in a dll.

[Rong]

mindlace,

Just a quick note. I put a note in the opening post of the radical thread to ask everyone to continue the OSxAI discussion in here.

[yin26]

-=*BUMP*=-

------------------
CIV3 DEVELOPMENT LIST COORDINATOR

**(un)Officially Making Lists for Firaxis Since SMAC Enhancement 3!**

[Seeker]

Finally an official list. My suggestion (for me better AI is even ahead of big maps and many players) is to look at SSG's scripted AI they used in Warlords2 Deluxe, Warlords 2, and Carriers at War. Basically there seemed to be hundreds of "what would a human do in situation x?" events, and in those events the AI would select from a list of weighted strategies, usually picking conventional moves. However, specific AI players used specicic strategies, real strategies not just building certain units like "ratsbane" who will "make war on the cheap".

[Darkstar]

I understand that many of the best CivIII players and customizers won't be Coders with access to the Software Development Toys that many of us have. That is why I think someone would write an engine to parse script IF they go via DLL/exposed API. But I do think that we should be able to specify WHICH AI engines/Scripts are used (1 Hitler, 1 Napolean, X Idiot1, X Idiot2, X Idiot3) and even to say use ANY AI found in Opponent Directory. Yeah. Keeping track of how well they did as well would be a nice feature.

But no matter, I want to be able to customize the AI to not send Spys against Nation with Hunter Seeker Wonder (example from SMAC).

Being able to write and code my own assistants is less important to me than improving my computer controlled playmates or find modified AI components that I can plug into my game.

-Darkstar
(Knight Errant Of Spam)

[Rong]

It seems strange to me people are argueing over trivial things (no need to mention which ) while ignoring the most important improvement Civ3 needs: AI. Let me just throw some more ideas around.

I've been thinking about a "Client/Server" model of game play. Namely, the whole game runs on a Server, with its own AI, open source or not, and everyone just connects to it to play. If it's a solo game, you run the server on your localhost, and connect to it as a single, local Client. If it's a multiplayer game, the host starts the server, and everyone, including the host, connects to the server to play. Your local civ3 process becomes nothing more than a graphical client. All the actions are resolved on the server.

What does this have anything to do with AI? Well, if they open up the network protocol, then we can write autonomous clients that connect to the server and play just like a human. You know where this came from if you've ever heard of "client side Quake bots".

Benefits:

* Unlike OSxAI where you are limited by how Firaxis decides to do, here the option is in your hands. You can use your favorite language (Java, C++, Assembly), run it on your favorite OS (Linux, Mac, Be), play with different algorithms (NN, GA), save your AI data however you want (flat file, relational database, OODB), as long as your client speaks the Civ3 protocol.

* A well written, well tuned, perhaps even self-learning client can provide unlimited challenge, whether you play solo or multiplayer.

* For Firaxis, good seperation between client and server code helps maintain modularity.

Issues:

* The guy who wrote the first client should win the Turing Award. In another word, for a game of such complexity, a fully autonomous, smart client may be too hard to write. But who knows? Maybe some one out there is clever enough to pull it off. After that, it'd be a lot easier to follow the example and make minor changes.

So what do you think?

------------------
The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them.
- Mark Twain

[evil conquerer]

That's a great idea Rong, but does it mean that you would have to write your own network routines to program an AI? This is beyond the capacity of the average programmer. I, for one, haven't the slightest idea how to do networks, and I consider myself an intermediate-to-advanced programmer. In addition, many people who don't have a clue of how to program in C or a "real" language (no offense to you BASIC folks out there ) would find it fairly easy to learn a simple scripting language to program the AI. It can even be as easy as BASIC, or even easier, while still having advanced functionality for the advanced user.

[Rong]

Well, if the Quake crowd can do it, why can't we?

[Mark_Everson]

Rong:

I think your client model is a very good one. Only one person, or group, would have to do the hard parts of the client once, as I understand such things. Then, if they were willing to make it open source, or provide an associated interface (or scripting language for those who don't want to go to the code level) you'd be in business. If you're lucky Firaxis will do it, if not, someone will soon enough. Good Luck with it!

------------------
Mark Everson
Project lead for The Clash of Civilizations
(That means I do the things nobody else wants to do )
This Radically different civ game needs your suggestions and/or criticism of our design.
Check our our Forum right here at Apolyton...

[Druid2]

*L* they better save Client/Server for the Civ3 Expansion pack .. available 2002 for $49.95. It's a serious change in development effort.. different skills.. than developing a single-machine single-exe program.

I'm interested in whatever AI improvement methodology can be developed... But I have to admit I'm skeptical. I guess I'll have to hear it from Firaxis that they 're going to do something .. other than just "we'll make it better next time."

[Blade Runner]

Rong,

I whole-heartly support your idea. I think this kind of program structure easier to implement, than a traditional (one exe) with multiplayer possibility.

Blade Runner

[JaC]

Not sure if this is the right thread for this but here goes anyway :-)

Trading / giving advances to allies.

Isn't it crazy how you can give your allies computers when they haven't even discovered electricity yet?

The AI should only allow you to trade / give advances which the receiving player could have discovered at that time on his own.

You should also have more choice as to what advances you can give your allies / friends / enemies(?).

Instead of them saying we want A or B where you wanted to give them C you should have the choice of what advances they are eligible to receive ( see above) and out of your benevolence give them one of your choice.

Incidently do any other Civ players reularly give their enemies advances just to spice up the game a bit? Maybe its just my weird sense of fun......

:-)

[don Don]

No expert here, but I think Ralph and others are too pessimistic. Chess is so different from a military strategy game. You aren't limited to moving one piece per turn, the capabilities of units overlap extensively, the terrain isn't homogeneous.

Many have pointed out that extremely simple changes such as massing invasion forces instead of small groups of invading units would make a huge difference.

------------------
*a friendly note from your favorite heretic

[mindlace]

Druid2: I assume that Civ3, like SMAC, will be a ground-up effort: it's my understanding that BR/SM couldn't take any code with them when they left MicroProse (at least that's SOP with most SW firms.)


JaC: I believe your comments would be best directed to the DIPLOMACY thread.



will firaxis listen?
Regarding the question of whether firaxis will implement a client/server model, open source AI, etc:


I believe that Firaxis/BR (though isn't it Sid's turn to be the designer?) will take our suggestions seriously. I think (hope) we can expect some feedback from them after the first rev. hits BR's desk.


I will make sure that the AI list, at least, requests that <em>BR lets us know whether we're completely out to lunch or not.</em>



But the bottom line is this is what <em>we</em> want to see. JT is the only one who said 'no open' and that was a qualified no. I think it's safe to say that there's a consensus that there needs to be <em>some</em> degree of AI customization, and the more the better.



~mindlace

[Ecce Homo]

I don't know whether this idea fits here... Anyway:

Not all human/AI players would be civ leaders. Some could be religious leaders or corporate heads.

The Religion-civs would start "missioning" inside civs, collecting tithes and building temples/churches. The leaders would allow them because they would keep people happy, reduce crime and make propaganda against enemies.

The Corporate-civs would use trade units and industries to earn money.

These would hopefully remove micromanagement, and also bring diplomacy to a new dimension.