GalCiv II: Computer AI debugging

"Craig Swanson" <cswan70@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1Z6dncRATaZm20jenZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>
> "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote in message
> news:yZudnZa7eZRE8UneRVn-og@comcast.com...


<snip>

>> Anyway, here's the URL to the AI debugging session entitled
>> "Human/Drengin wars". I through in flavor text as well to make it more
>> interesting to read.
>>
>> http://www.galciv2.com/Journals.aspx?AID=98513
>>
>>
>
> Very interesting. I am glad to see that the computer AI is being taken
> seriously. For a few years, I was in the camp of thinking that
> multiplayer was the cure for bad computer AI.
>
> But now that I'm busier with life(TM) I prefer to play my strategy games
> against the computer only. I just don't have time to spend a day looking
> for someone else to play. So a smart and challenging computer player is
> very important.
>

I still like and play multiplayer games. But I feel like there are plenty
of games now that cater to multiplayer.

To use an analogy, I'm glad there are MMORPGs like World of Warcraft. I love
that game. But I also am thankful that there are good single player RPGs
like Knights of the Old Republic.

Similarly, as much as I love to play Warcraft 3 on-line or even Age of
Empires 3 online (let alone Total Annihilation or waiting for Supreme
Commander), some strategy games I just want to sit down and play and enjoy
at my own leisure the detailed world that my strategy game is in and have
competent computer players.

That's one reason I was glad Civ 4 had good AI. They did a great job on
multiplayer but I want to play it single player and I want more strategy
games, particularly turn-based, to work on having a good single player
experience. But I digress.

Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com

> -Craig
>

"Craig Swanson" <cswan70@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1Z6dncRATaZm20jenZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>
> "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote in message
> news:yZudnZa7eZRE8UneRVn-og@comcast.com...


<snip>

>> Anyway, here's the URL to the AI debugging session entitled
>> "Human/Drengin wars". I through in flavor text as well to make it more
>> interesting to read.
>>
>> http://www.galciv2.com/Journals.aspx?AID=98513
>>
>>
>
> Very interesting. I am glad to see that the computer AI is being taken
> seriously. For a few years, I was in the camp of thinking that
> multiplayer was the cure for bad computer AI.
>
> But now that I'm busier with life(TM) I prefer to play my strategy games
> against the computer only. I just don't have time to spend a day looking
> for someone else to play. So a smart and challenging computer player is
> very important.
>

I still like and play multiplayer games. But I feel like there are plenty
of games now that cater to multiplayer.

To use an analogy, I'm glad there are MMORPGs like World of Warcraft. I love
that game. But I also am thankful that there are good single player RPGs
like Knights of the Old Republic.

Similarly, as much as I love to play Warcraft 3 on-line or even Age of
Empires 3 online (let alone Total Annihilation or waiting for Supreme
Commander), some strategy games I just want to sit down and play and enjoy
at my own leisure the detailed world that my strategy game is in and have
competent computer players.

That's one reason I was glad Civ 4 had good AI. They did a great job on
multiplayer but I want to play it single player and I want more strategy
games, particularly turn-based, to work on having a good single player
experience. But I digress.

Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com

> -Craig
>

"Craig Swanson" <cswan70@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1Z6dncRATaZm20jenZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>
> "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote in message
> news:yZudnZa7eZRE8UneRVn-og@comcast.com...


<snip>

>> Anyway, here's the URL to the AI debugging session entitled
>> "Human/Drengin wars". I through in flavor text as well to make it more
>> interesting to read.
>>
>> http://www.galciv2.com/Journals.aspx?AID=98513
>>
>>
>
> Very interesting. I am glad to see that the computer AI is being taken
> seriously. For a few years, I was in the camp of thinking that
> multiplayer was the cure for bad computer AI.
>
> But now that I'm busier with life(TM) I prefer to play my strategy games
> against the computer only. I just don't have time to spend a day looking
> for someone else to play. So a smart and challenging computer player is
> very important.
>

I still like and play multiplayer games. But I feel like there are plenty
of games now that cater to multiplayer.

To use an analogy, I'm glad there are MMORPGs like World of Warcraft. I love
that game. But I also am thankful that there are good single player RPGs
like Knights of the Old Republic.

Similarly, as much as I love to play Warcraft 3 on-line or even Age of
Empires 3 online (let alone Total Annihilation or waiting for Supreme
Commander), some strategy games I just want to sit down and play and enjoy
at my own leisure the detailed world that my strategy game is in and have
competent computer players.

That's one reason I was glad Civ 4 had good AI. They did a great job on
multiplayer but I want to play it single player and I want more strategy
games, particularly turn-based, to work on having a good single player
experience. But I digress.

Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com

> -Craig
>

"alexti" <QQalextiQQ@videotron.few.useless.chars.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9754838F720sfjshTTalextiFJFsdsi@24.70.95.2 11...
> "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote in
> news:yZudnZa7eZRE8UneRVn-og@comcast.com:
>
>>
>> A lot of this came down to being restricted to CPU light algorithms.
>> GalCiv I was a sprite-based game -- no hardware acceleration. So the
>> graphics were CPU bound. Even though the AI is, and continues to be,
>> multithreaded, there are still very real limits on how much time can be
>> spent generating multi-turn strategies. GalCiv II, however, is
>> 3D-accelerated which has freed up the CPU a great deal. This has
>> allowed for greatly expanded algorithms during military endeavors
>> without raising the hardware requirements (in fact, on the typical PC,
>> GalCiv II will run better than GalCiv I did ironically despite immense
>> graphics improvements and 3D engine).
>>
>> A lot -- A LOT -- of work has been going into the AI of Galactic
>> Civilizations II in order to not just make it "challenging" but to make
>> it play intelligently. There were significant chunks of the GalCiv I
>> AI that were scripted. That is, the AI is programmed to do certain
>> things due to play-testing over and over. This time around, we're
>> trying our best to make the AI build strategies based on analysis and
>> not rely on scripts.
> Nice update! I'm looking toward the game even more.
>
> I assume that AI of each race can run independently so it should be
> relatively easy to offload these calculations on other computers. Is there
> a chance of this happening? - That would take care of lack of CPU power
> nicely... In this case difficulty could be called "Intelligent, and yes,
> you can use computing grid"

Well in theory it could be done since it's threaded. I don't have a
dual-core machine but it woudl in theory run even better on one. But in
terms of offloading to other PCs, I don't think you wuold gain much. The
optimizations we've done have already gotten it to the point where there's
not much time between turns (typically less than a second on a typical map).

Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com

>
> Alex.

"alexti" <QQalextiQQ@videotron.few.useless.chars.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9754838F720sfjshTTalextiFJFsdsi@24.70.95.2 11...
> "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote in
> news:yZudnZa7eZRE8UneRVn-og@comcast.com:
>
>>
>> A lot of this came down to being restricted to CPU light algorithms.
>> GalCiv I was a sprite-based game -- no hardware acceleration. So the
>> graphics were CPU bound. Even though the AI is, and continues to be,
>> multithreaded, there are still very real limits on how much time can be
>> spent generating multi-turn strategies. GalCiv II, however, is
>> 3D-accelerated which has freed up the CPU a great deal. This has
>> allowed for greatly expanded algorithms during military endeavors
>> without raising the hardware requirements (in fact, on the typical PC,
>> GalCiv II will run better than GalCiv I did ironically despite immense
>> graphics improvements and 3D engine).
>>
>> A lot -- A LOT -- of work has been going into the AI of Galactic
>> Civilizations II in order to not just make it "challenging" but to make
>> it play intelligently. There were significant chunks of the GalCiv I
>> AI that were scripted. That is, the AI is programmed to do certain
>> things due to play-testing over and over. This time around, we're
>> trying our best to make the AI build strategies based on analysis and
>> not rely on scripts.
> Nice update! I'm looking toward the game even more.
>
> I assume that AI of each race can run independently so it should be
> relatively easy to offload these calculations on other computers. Is there
> a chance of this happening? - That would take care of lack of CPU power
> nicely... In this case difficulty could be called "Intelligent, and yes,
> you can use computing grid"

Well in theory it could be done since it's threaded. I don't have a
dual-core machine but it woudl in theory run even better on one. But in
terms of offloading to other PCs, I don't think you wuold gain much. The
optimizations we've done have already gotten it to the point where there's
not much time between turns (typically less than a second on a typical map).

Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com

>
> Alex.

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Brad Wardell <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote:
> Back a couple of years ago there was a great deal of discussion on Usenet
> with regards to the GalCiv I AI. Most people thought it was pretty good but
> others felt the military tactics were bad.

"Bad" is a bit stronger than I'd put it. It was still better than the
vast majority of strategy games out there, but the vast majority of
strategy games has seriously brain dead AI. I'm glad GalCiv1 at least
made a serious attempt at decent AI, and it was all the more fun
because of it. I'm still playing it.

> That while the AI provided a
> challenge, it mostly was able to do so because it was more effective at
> managing its economy/industry than the typical human and thus could
> essentially "win" through brute force.

It's not even that it's more effective at running its economy, but
that it gets a big economic bonus. Given time, I will catch up
economically even without wars. Mostly because of the wonders and
trade goods ofcourse, because the AI rarely manages to grab more
than one or two of those.

> In general, my view was that the AI worked pretty well but militarily was
> disappointed. The main issue was its lack of coordination in projecting
> military power into a given quadrant. The result was hat looked like the
> age-old "Death train" (That's where units uselessly throw themselves at a
> wall dying with no purpose). There simply wasn't enough analysis on putting
> units together and using them effectivley.

This is a problem with absolutely every complex strategy game out there.
Their attacks lack focus, which means that in the best cases, they're
decent at defense, but little else. The only exception I can think of
is PG3SE; there, the AI sometimes seems to be mounting a decent counter
offensive, although I think it's usually either prepared by the human
creating the scenario, or the result of some clever scripting.

I think an important part of fixing this is to:
A) make the AI realise that Death Knights without transports aren't
going to win the war, and
B) transports without support from superior firepower are going to
lose the war.

For good combined arms, you need:
1) Some tough ships of the line, and enough of them to fight off the
enemy,
2) Transports to take planets, and
3) Fast raiders who use their speed to jump from behind the protection
of the big ships and wreak some havoc.

The AI should be trying to group his ships in groups with each of these
types present in sufficient numbers (although type 3 isn't really
vital). They don't have to travel to the front in these groups, but
once they get to the enemy planets, something of the appropriate type
has to be nearby, or he's just wasting time.

Also, the AI should realise that his speed 3 Death Knights aren't
going to catch a speed 9 Starfighter, and that adding more Death
Knights isn't going to increase the speed. In my current game, a
handful of Starfighters managed to tie up a gigantic fleet of Arcean
Death Knights while I still had to build my Dreadnoughts with which
I wanted to conquer all of his planets. I think I had a single
Battleship. He caught me with my pants down, and wasted his time
and his fleet on chasing down Starfighters he could never hope to
catch.

> A lot -- A LOT -- of work has been going into the AI of Galactic
> Civilizations II in order to not just make it "challenging" but to make it
> play intelligently. There were significant chunks of the GalCiv I AI that
> were scripted. That is, the AI is programmed to do certain things due to
> play-testing over and over. This time around, we're trying our best to make
> the AI build strategies based on analysis and not rely on scripts.

This is really good news. Can't wait to see it. That should help fix
some of the problems I mentioned above.

> The improvements in the AI have led to a lot of changes, probably the
> biggest one being the elimination of the infamous "The AI knows where the
> good planets are" issue that GalCiv from the OS/2 days on up to the 2003
> release of GalCiv. GalCiv II's AI has to build scouts and look for good
> planets just like everyone else.

That would be really great. But is the AI smart enough to do that? I
was one of the people who criticised your claim that the game had a
"level palying field", when in fact the AI didn't need scouts at all,
but at the same time, I do understand that smart scouting isn't easy.
And what is the AI going to do when I find a Starfighter early and
start killing off his scouts?

Although I'd love a truly level playing field, an able opponent is
still more important.

> The idea being that when the game's
> released, the difficulty levels will determine how smartly the AI plays
> rather than age old "Here's some money (or less of)" way that strategy games
> have used as a crutch.

Another decision I love. I mean, crutches are better than limping along,
but, to stretch this metaphor a bit further, I would love to see an AI
that can actually stand on its own legs. I've never seen anything like
that.

And again, don't be afraid to make use of the things the AI is good at:
working the numbers, fast processing speed, etc. Make it mean and
nasty and rip my guts out at the toughest levels. It's gonna need it.


mcv.
--
"Serenity is a very personal work with political resonance and a
heartfelt message about the human condition and stuff blowing up.
'Cause let's face it, nobody cares about that 'human condition'
stuff... in fact if you notice it, try to keep it to yourself."
-- Joss Whedon on his new film

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Brad Wardell <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote:
> Back a couple of years ago there was a great deal of discussion on Usenet
> with regards to the GalCiv I AI. Most people thought it was pretty good but
> others felt the military tactics were bad.

"Bad" is a bit stronger than I'd put it. It was still better than the
vast majority of strategy games out there, but the vast majority of
strategy games has seriously brain dead AI. I'm glad GalCiv1 at least
made a serious attempt at decent AI, and it was all the more fun
because of it. I'm still playing it.

> That while the AI provided a
> challenge, it mostly was able to do so because it was more effective at
> managing its economy/industry than the typical human and thus could
> essentially "win" through brute force.

It's not even that it's more effective at running its economy, but
that it gets a big economic bonus. Given time, I will catch up
economically even without wars. Mostly because of the wonders and
trade goods ofcourse, because the AI rarely manages to grab more
than one or two of those.

> In general, my view was that the AI worked pretty well but militarily was
> disappointed. The main issue was its lack of coordination in projecting
> military power into a given quadrant. The result was hat looked like the
> age-old "Death train" (That's where units uselessly throw themselves at a
> wall dying with no purpose). There simply wasn't enough analysis on putting
> units together and using them effectivley.

This is a problem with absolutely every complex strategy game out there.
Their attacks lack focus, which means that in the best cases, they're
decent at defense, but little else. The only exception I can think of
is PG3SE; there, the AI sometimes seems to be mounting a decent counter
offensive, although I think it's usually either prepared by the human
creating the scenario, or the result of some clever scripting.

I think an important part of fixing this is to:
A) make the AI realise that Death Knights without transports aren't
going to win the war, and
B) transports without support from superior firepower are going to
lose the war.

For good combined arms, you need:
1) Some tough ships of the line, and enough of them to fight off the
enemy,
2) Transports to take planets, and
3) Fast raiders who use their speed to jump from behind the protection
of the big ships and wreak some havoc.

The AI should be trying to group his ships in groups with each of these
types present in sufficient numbers (although type 3 isn't really
vital). They don't have to travel to the front in these groups, but
once they get to the enemy planets, something of the appropriate type
has to be nearby, or he's just wasting time.

Also, the AI should realise that his speed 3 Death Knights aren't
going to catch a speed 9 Starfighter, and that adding more Death
Knights isn't going to increase the speed. In my current game, a
handful of Starfighters managed to tie up a gigantic fleet of Arcean
Death Knights while I still had to build my Dreadnoughts with which
I wanted to conquer all of his planets. I think I had a single
Battleship. He caught me with my pants down, and wasted his time
and his fleet on chasing down Starfighters he could never hope to
catch.

> A lot -- A LOT -- of work has been going into the AI of Galactic
> Civilizations II in order to not just make it "challenging" but to make it
> play intelligently. There were significant chunks of the GalCiv I AI that
> were scripted. That is, the AI is programmed to do certain things due to
> play-testing over and over. This time around, we're trying our best to make
> the AI build strategies based on analysis and not rely on scripts.

This is really good news. Can't wait to see it. That should help fix
some of the problems I mentioned above.

> The improvements in the AI have led to a lot of changes, probably the
> biggest one being the elimination of the infamous "The AI knows where the
> good planets are" issue that GalCiv from the OS/2 days on up to the 2003
> release of GalCiv. GalCiv II's AI has to build scouts and look for good
> planets just like everyone else.

That would be really great. But is the AI smart enough to do that? I
was one of the people who criticised your claim that the game had a
"level palying field", when in fact the AI didn't need scouts at all,
but at the same time, I do understand that smart scouting isn't easy.
And what is the AI going to do when I find a Starfighter early and
start killing off his scouts?

Although I'd love a truly level playing field, an able opponent is
still more important.

> The idea being that when the game's
> released, the difficulty levels will determine how smartly the AI plays
> rather than age old "Here's some money (or less of)" way that strategy games
> have used as a crutch.

Another decision I love. I mean, crutches are better than limping along,
but, to stretch this metaphor a bit further, I would love to see an AI
that can actually stand on its own legs. I've never seen anything like
that.

And again, don't be afraid to make use of the things the AI is good at:
working the numbers, fast processing speed, etc. Make it mean and
nasty and rip my guts out at the toughest levels. It's gonna need it.


mcv.
--
"Serenity is a very personal work with political resonance and a
heartfelt message about the human condition and stuff blowing up.
'Cause let's face it, nobody cares about that 'human condition'
stuff... in fact if you notice it, try to keep it to yourself."
-- Joss Whedon on his new film

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Brad Wardell <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote:
> Back a couple of years ago there was a great deal of discussion on Usenet
> with regards to the GalCiv I AI. Most people thought it was pretty good but
> others felt the military tactics were bad.

"Bad" is a bit stronger than I'd put it. It was still better than the
vast majority of strategy games out there, but the vast majority of
strategy games has seriously brain dead AI. I'm glad GalCiv1 at least
made a serious attempt at decent AI, and it was all the more fun
because of it. I'm still playing it.

> That while the AI provided a
> challenge, it mostly was able to do so because it was more effective at
> managing its economy/industry than the typical human and thus could
> essentially "win" through brute force.

It's not even that it's more effective at running its economy, but
that it gets a big economic bonus. Given time, I will catch up
economically even without wars. Mostly because of the wonders and
trade goods ofcourse, because the AI rarely manages to grab more
than one or two of those.

> In general, my view was that the AI worked pretty well but militarily was
> disappointed. The main issue was its lack of coordination in projecting
> military power into a given quadrant. The result was hat looked like the
> age-old "Death train" (That's where units uselessly throw themselves at a
> wall dying with no purpose). There simply wasn't enough analysis on putting
> units together and using them effectivley.

This is a problem with absolutely every complex strategy game out there.
Their attacks lack focus, which means that in the best cases, they're
decent at defense, but little else. The only exception I can think of
is PG3SE; there, the AI sometimes seems to be mounting a decent counter
offensive, although I think it's usually either prepared by the human
creating the scenario, or the result of some clever scripting.

I think an important part of fixing this is to:
A) make the AI realise that Death Knights without transports aren't
going to win the war, and
B) transports without support from superior firepower are going to
lose the war.

For good combined arms, you need:
1) Some tough ships of the line, and enough of them to fight off the
enemy,
2) Transports to take planets, and
3) Fast raiders who use their speed to jump from behind the protection
of the big ships and wreak some havoc.

The AI should be trying to group his ships in groups with each of these
types present in sufficient numbers (although type 3 isn't really
vital). They don't have to travel to the front in these groups, but
once they get to the enemy planets, something of the appropriate type
has to be nearby, or he's just wasting time.

Also, the AI should realise that his speed 3 Death Knights aren't
going to catch a speed 9 Starfighter, and that adding more Death
Knights isn't going to increase the speed. In my current game, a
handful of Starfighters managed to tie up a gigantic fleet of Arcean
Death Knights while I still had to build my Dreadnoughts with which
I wanted to conquer all of his planets. I think I had a single
Battleship. He caught me with my pants down, and wasted his time
and his fleet on chasing down Starfighters he could never hope to
catch.

> A lot -- A LOT -- of work has been going into the AI of Galactic
> Civilizations II in order to not just make it "challenging" but to make it
> play intelligently. There were significant chunks of the GalCiv I AI that
> were scripted. That is, the AI is programmed to do certain things due to
> play-testing over and over. This time around, we're trying our best to make
> the AI build strategies based on analysis and not rely on scripts.

This is really good news. Can't wait to see it. That should help fix
some of the problems I mentioned above.

> The improvements in the AI have led to a lot of changes, probably the
> biggest one being the elimination of the infamous "The AI knows where the
> good planets are" issue that GalCiv from the OS/2 days on up to the 2003
> release of GalCiv. GalCiv II's AI has to build scouts and look for good
> planets just like everyone else.

That would be really great. But is the AI smart enough to do that? I
was one of the people who criticised your claim that the game had a
"level palying field", when in fact the AI didn't need scouts at all,
but at the same time, I do understand that smart scouting isn't easy.
And what is the AI going to do when I find a Starfighter early and
start killing off his scouts?

Although I'd love a truly level playing field, an able opponent is
still more important.

> The idea being that when the game's
> released, the difficulty levels will determine how smartly the AI plays
> rather than age old "Here's some money (or less of)" way that strategy games
> have used as a crutch.

Another decision I love. I mean, crutches are better than limping along,
but, to stretch this metaphor a bit further, I would love to see an AI
that can actually stand on its own legs. I've never seen anything like
that.

And again, don't be afraid to make use of the things the AI is good at:
working the numbers, fast processing speed, etc. Make it mean and
nasty and rip my guts out at the toughest levels. It's gonna need it.


mcv.
--
"Serenity is a very personal work with political resonance and a
heartfelt message about the human condition and stuff blowing up.
'Cause let's face it, nobody cares about that 'human condition'
stuff... in fact if you notice it, try to keep it to yourself."
-- Joss Whedon on his new film

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Brad Wardell <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote:
>
> Anyway, here's the URL to the AI debugging session entitled "Human/Drengin
> wars". I through in flavor text as well to make it more interesting to
> read.
>
> http://www.galciv2.com/Journals.aspx?AID=98513

I hadn't read it yet when I made my previous comments, so here are some
more:

First you have trouble with the AI building too many Constructors early,
later you mention them reaching Transports too late. One easy fix (the
way a modder would do it), is too make Constructors availlable later,
and Transports availlable earlier. To be honest, exploiting those
mysterious Galactic Resources sounds a bit more high tech than getting
people from A to B anyway.

I really like the fact that the AI does counter design. A game with
ship design wouldn't be complete without it. A have a few questions,
though: is every ship a counter design, or does it also make alround
ships? Perhaps it depends on how much trouble its having with its
enemy's specialised ships? And can it make one design to counter two
different enemy designs?

Also, how predictable is it in its counter design? A big risk in
counter design in multiplayer games (Stars! is my main example), is
that you may not know exactly how many ships of a certain design the
enemy has built. If it responds to quickly to a new design, I may be
able to trick it into building a lot of ships on a type to counter a
design I only built two of, while I spent most of my time secretly
building a counter against the predictable AI's counter design. If
you know what I mean.

Ofcourse if players tend to specialise extremely in different weapon
technologies, this may not be much of a problem, but with more than
two players, I may be able to trade my advanced mass drivers against
an ally's advanced beams, and surprise my enemy who has just put a
lot of effort into a mass driver resistent fleet.

By the way, I love the unique Drengin ship names, and especially the
fact that their naming scheme changes when their alignment changes.
Probably not very hard to program, but still a very cute detail.

One comment about the Orbital Fleet Manager. For a software engineer,
it's natural to call everything that manages something a Manager, but
in a military SF setting, would Orbital Command Center sound better?

I'm pretty amazed that the Drengin still put up such a good fight,
despite not seeing the importance of most of its own planets.

Great read. Looks like a really exciting game. Any chance you're
looking for beta testers?


mcv.
--
"Serenity is a very personal work with political resonance and a
heartfelt message about the human condition and stuff blowing up.
'Cause let's face it, nobody cares about that 'human condition'
stuff... in fact if you notice it, try to keep it to yourself."
-- Joss Whedon on his new film

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Brad Wardell <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote:
>
> Anyway, here's the URL to the AI debugging session entitled "Human/Drengin
> wars". I through in flavor text as well to make it more interesting to
> read.
>
> http://www.galciv2.com/Journals.aspx?AID=98513

I hadn't read it yet when I made my previous comments, so here are some
more:

First you have trouble with the AI building too many Constructors early,
later you mention them reaching Transports too late. One easy fix (the
way a modder would do it), is too make Constructors availlable later,
and Transports availlable earlier. To be honest, exploiting those
mysterious Galactic Resources sounds a bit more high tech than getting
people from A to B anyway.

I really like the fact that the AI does counter design. A game with
ship design wouldn't be complete without it. A have a few questions,
though: is every ship a counter design, or does it also make alround
ships? Perhaps it depends on how much trouble its having with its
enemy's specialised ships? And can it make one design to counter two
different enemy designs?

Also, how predictable is it in its counter design? A big risk in
counter design in multiplayer games (Stars! is my main example), is
that you may not know exactly how many ships of a certain design the
enemy has built. If it responds to quickly to a new design, I may be
able to trick it into building a lot of ships on a type to counter a
design I only built two of, while I spent most of my time secretly
building a counter against the predictable AI's counter design. If
you know what I mean.

Ofcourse if players tend to specialise extremely in different weapon
technologies, this may not be much of a problem, but with more than
two players, I may be able to trade my advanced mass drivers against
an ally's advanced beams, and surprise my enemy who has just put a
lot of effort into a mass driver resistent fleet.

By the way, I love the unique Drengin ship names, and especially the
fact that their naming scheme changes when their alignment changes.
Probably not very hard to program, but still a very cute detail.

One comment about the Orbital Fleet Manager. For a software engineer,
it's natural to call everything that manages something a Manager, but
in a military SF setting, would Orbital Command Center sound better?

I'm pretty amazed that the Drengin still put up such a good fight,
despite not seeing the importance of most of its own planets.

Great read. Looks like a really exciting game. Any chance you're
looking for beta testers?


mcv.
--
"Serenity is a very personal work with political resonance and a
heartfelt message about the human condition and stuff blowing up.
'Cause let's face it, nobody cares about that 'human condition'
stuff... in fact if you notice it, try to keep it to yourself."
-- Joss Whedon on his new film