Re: Computer version of Risk
> > > All AI programming is centered around 2 concepts:
> > > 1) What does the computer player know
> > > 2) What does he do about what he knows
> >
> > Ooh.. That's a very simplistic view...
>
> yup. AI programming isn't a whoodoo voodo thing only guru's can do. It's
> just making your computer opponents aware of the game and their options,
> and giving them some way of choosing their options.
This rhymes poorly with what you say about the klingons later...
> > > If you ask 5 risk players how to play, you'll get at least 6 "optimal"
> > > strategies.
> > ----------8<----------
> > strategy stuff deleted
> > -------->8------------
> >
> > > The "best" way to create computer AI is to make the game playable by human
> > > players, then play about 20 games with human players and have the computer
> > > keep track of every move of every player. You then can "teach" the
> > > computer to play like you do.
> >
> > And who says you're so good? (Don't take it personally, but I'm not
> > convinced)
>
> It doesn't matter if you're good or not. You know the game, you know the
> rules, you give your alter ego a goal and a strategy, then watch him play
> and advise him when he does something stupid. It's really easy to teach a
> computer player to play better than you do. You won't always follow your
> agenda to your best interest, you'll sometimes miss an opportunity, you'll
> sometimes get desperate and do something stupid. The computer is more
> disciplined. You give it your decision priority list and it will follow
> it until it wins or loses.
Again (Hopefully more clearly): Who says your strategy is so good?
> > The normal aproach to board-game AI's is the one (normally) used for chess:
> > Max-Min algorithm
> > =================
> In chess you do this dynamically after the opening moves. I designed a
Yeah. My explanation wasn't that great...
> nifty chess program for Interplay that analyzed your moves, as well as for
> the computer or modem opponent and warned you if you or they did something
> stupid. It told you why the opponent was doing what he did and what
> advantage or disadvantage the move gave him.
Was this like, a tactical/strategical expert system or did it go through the
move-tree? (Or both?)
(Sounds really cool though... How far technically did you do designs?)
> <snip>
I can relate to that... 
> > It's only in real-time games or games with *enormous* branching that really
> > require something as obscure and intagible as "tactics and strategy".
> > For Risk, I'd write the valuation function to valuate for any player,
> > since *each* player is trying to *max* his own score. (If there were
> > trying to *minimize* *your* score, like chess AI's, they'd all gang up
> > on you! )
> Strategy is ALWAYS important. Even in Chess, you have agendas, you have a
> basic strategy. A game situation is dynamic, sometimes the table
> generated "optimal" move isn't the "right" move for your character this
> time. Sometimes you let the queen do her thing while you move your pieces
I must admit that I really don't have the patience required for chess, but I
would like to beg to differ; in chess there are no other objectives than
checkmating you opponent. The optimal is optimal, if you go deep enough, and
the valuation is good enough.
(The valuation may very well consider positions and composition of pieces and
more, rather than just a hard point value for each surviving piece...)
> around. The whole point in doing computer AI for something like RISK is
> to give multiple opponents multiple personalitiess, multiple game play
This is a good argument. I plead no contest.
> agendas and options. You need to give them some room to work around the
> rules they play by. If they always do what you expect, the game isn't
> fun, you always win or you always lose.
You'd of course have a random-factor in the choice of move-tree... Sorry I
forgot this part in my explanation of the algorithm... (Though I agree it would
be boring to always win/lose...)
> The various "players" may or may not try to maximize their score all of
> the time. They may choose to kick your wimpy butt out of their area of
> influence because you annoy them rather than do a move into africa that
> will give them more points. My AI's would taunt you at that point =)
This is a part of the 'character' argument, and it's good. The min-max would
always go for the points, if doesn't see a chance at something bigger comming
up later... But the valuation function could take fewer players as a good
sign...
This is how I would try to put in some strategy, because this way you can make
"soft" priorities: Even though you're an annoy little shit, the juicy deal in
Africa is just to good to let slip. Besides, you have nowhere to go, so we'll
step on your bug ass next turn...
> Another example. In StarTrek: Judgment Rites, when you were in
> space combat against the Klingons, their basic strategy was to turn their
> ships toward you and shoot at you no matter where you were. Their AI was
> simple "kill the target. Stay out of their sites, cloak if possible."
>
> They were pretty easy to destroy: get one in your sites and do whatever it
> did and keep firing. If you faced 2 or three of them, as long as you kept
> one in your sights and fired, the others would have to keep turning and
> moving to try and hit you. If you kept moving, they couldn't target you
> easily and you could blow up the ships one by one if you were good.
Example to prove what?
(All I see is the results of a too simplistic view on AI)
> In StarFleet Academy, the Kilngon AI is slightly different. When you face
> multiple klingons, they have multple attack strategies that they use when
> necessary. They form up together moving away from you, when you pursue,
> one or more breaks formation and peels off away, around, behind your ship
> then blasts the bejeebers out of you, then they regroup and depending on
> your damage\ability to fight, they do something else. They like to
> disable you then gang up on you for the kill. They also learn your
> tactics as you face them in combat and can anticipate your moves. As you
> play they get harder to defeat because they KNOW you better.
Like this isn't voodoo...! "Learn". Yeah, sure boss, we'll put that in before
lunch...
> One way is hard and repetitive once you get the hang of it, the other is
> manical and constantly challenging.
The max-min would prolly keep its playing style, but controlling depth and
random-factor it would probably still be tricky to beat...
> The more varied your AI the more interesting your game.
Yeah.
> I build landscapes with nice trees. =)
I see the smily, is it *only* a joke?
(Oh yeah: And be careful with equal signs around here...)
>>> Michael Packard
>> Anders Eurenius
> Michael Packard
Anders Eurenius
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Eurenius <c96aes at cs.umu.se> ICQ UIN:1453793
Computer Science/Engineering student at the university of Umeaa
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
