Tweet
My modified thoughts on AI and games
Hiya folks. I had some thoughts on the weekend about AI's and games and thought I'd share them to see how you guys feel about it.
Basically, I came to the conclusion that the AI in CTP2 is not really that bad. I mean, it does what it was programmed/designed to do. It does use all of its options that it has available strategically. Actually, after thinking about the CTP2 AI I'd hate to be playing it as my first ever TBS 4X game. I've been playing games since 1980, predominately high-end strategic, TBS empire-builders, war games and even RPG's. Now all of these games require at the least an adequate AI to make the game playable. How is an AI adequate? I think we can break that down into these areas: a) an AI needs to be able to think high-end strategy (the future/overall picture), nationalised strategy (attack/defense fronts/national modifiers), and localised strategy (city/unit level). This looks easy to do on paper, and because humans minds are attuned to thinking on all three levels at the same time, but what of a PC? Each single and individual command is another line of code. To set values is a line. To compare is a line. How many lines would be needed? Also, you must remember that each line of code takes CPU clock cycles. Sure, a clock cycle is measured in milliseconds/picoseconds, but we're talking about thousands of clock cycles to process here. For an AI to make an informed decision it needs to have up-to-date info which means processing as much current data as possible (and even past data as the case requires) BEFORE it'll even start to think about what it'll do next. The gaming world is demanding faster and better AI in games. Well, using all the above logic (who's going to dare say I'm wrong there
) contradicts this. To make a better AI we need to process more CPU clock-cycles. But processors are getting better and faster. This is where my thoughts led me to a debate question:
After many years of playing games which utilise an AI, does a gamers strategic thinking increase faster than the progression of processors and consequently AI adequateness?
My answer is YES. Quite simply, by looking over the last 5 years of strategy games, I've never really had a problem in defeating an AI. Sure, I may get beaten for a few games, then start winning and end up winning every game on the top level.
My conclusion is that I'd hate to be playing CTP2 as my first ever TBS 4X game, as I believe the AI would in fact be pretty hard. Which is why we occaisionally see posts from CTP2'ers who are being beaten by the AI on the less-than very hard levels.
------------------
Rommell to a sub-commander outside Tobruk: "Those Australians are in there somewhere. But where? Let's advance and wait till they shoot, then shoot back."
Basically, I came to the conclusion that the AI in CTP2 is not really that bad. I mean, it does what it was programmed/designed to do. It does use all of its options that it has available strategically. Actually, after thinking about the CTP2 AI I'd hate to be playing it as my first ever TBS 4X game. I've been playing games since 1980, predominately high-end strategic, TBS empire-builders, war games and even RPG's. Now all of these games require at the least an adequate AI to make the game playable. How is an AI adequate? I think we can break that down into these areas: a) an AI needs to be able to think high-end strategy (the future/overall picture), nationalised strategy (attack/defense fronts/national modifiers), and localised strategy (city/unit level). This looks easy to do on paper, and because humans minds are attuned to thinking on all three levels at the same time, but what of a PC? Each single and individual command is another line of code. To set values is a line. To compare is a line. How many lines would be needed? Also, you must remember that each line of code takes CPU clock cycles. Sure, a clock cycle is measured in milliseconds/picoseconds, but we're talking about thousands of clock cycles to process here. For an AI to make an informed decision it needs to have up-to-date info which means processing as much current data as possible (and even past data as the case requires) BEFORE it'll even start to think about what it'll do next. The gaming world is demanding faster and better AI in games. Well, using all the above logic (who's going to dare say I'm wrong there
) contradicts this. To make a better AI we need to process more CPU clock-cycles. But processors are getting better and faster. This is where my thoughts led me to a debate question:After many years of playing games which utilise an AI, does a gamers strategic thinking increase faster than the progression of processors and consequently AI adequateness?
My answer is YES. Quite simply, by looking over the last 5 years of strategy games, I've never really had a problem in defeating an AI. Sure, I may get beaten for a few games, then start winning and end up winning every game on the top level.
My conclusion is that I'd hate to be playing CTP2 as my first ever TBS 4X game, as I believe the AI would in fact be pretty hard. Which is why we occaisionally see posts from CTP2'ers who are being beaten by the AI on the less-than very hard levels.
------------------
Rommell to a sub-commander outside Tobruk: "Those Australians are in there somewhere. But where? Let's advance and wait till they shoot, then shoot back."
Comment