Re: Computer version of Risk
On Thu, 3 Jul 1997, Anders Eurenius wrote:
> > 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?
Nobody. That's the point. There is no "correct" way to play RISK, just
like there is no "correct" way to play chess. You come to the game with
some pre-formulated game plan based on your previous experience. Your
primary goal is to win the game, your secondary and tertiary goals may
differ from mine. It doesn't matter how you get where you're going as long
as you know where you are going and have a plan to get there.
> Was this like, a tactical/strategical expert system or did it go through the
> move-tree? (Or both?)
It kept track of every move of every piece then analyzed the board after
each move. It would ask each piece what it now could do or not, then
prioritize each possibility then advise the player of his options now.
The player could view every move for every piece and it would tell the
advantages and disadvantages of every move. Tactically, how did the
players situation change as a result of that move?
> > 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...)
You miss the beauty of chess here. It's not winning the game, it's HOW
you do it. It ceases to be AI if it's just going for points. There are
brilliant strategies that take 20 moves to accomplish, those 20 moves may
not be the "optimal" point wise, but they win the game faster than the
point wise moves.
> > 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...)
I'm not talking about a random-factor that every once in awhile does
something different for the hell of it! I'm talking about a deliberate,
calculated action that is in the character's game plan that may or not be
in his best interest. We all try something stupid when we play,
sometimes it pays off bigtime, sometimes we look really stupid.
> > 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...
Pretty much. Teach the computer player how to play, then what you do when
you play and tell it how you choose your move based on whatever info is
required, then let it play. As you play against it, you adjust the "how
you choose" part until it plays better than you, then get other people to
play against it and get feedback.
> > 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)
Turn and shoot is the "optimal" way to win, but not the best way.
Your method is go for the points, you kill by pointing at the target and
shooting, not by flying into formation in your enemy's sights for awhile,
taking hits then sacrificing 1/3 of your attack force to give the others a
possible better shot at the target.
> > 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...
It ain't voodoo. It's keeping track of what you are doing, what you do
often, and choosing another route based on that info. It's the same
stuff. If I play 10 games against you and in every game you go for africa
with reckless abandon and leave other things helpless, I will try and
capitalize on that weakness in your strategy. It's just tables. It's
just telling the computer player something, and what to do with that
something he knows.
If I know that as soon as one ship breaks formation you follow it most of
the time I will look to see if you do it this time and have the other
ships do something different in response. In practice it's more like one
ship tells the others that it's being followed and the others try and
sneak up from behind. If I know a particular strategy isn't effective
against you, I'll try something different. Go to plan B.
> > 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...
I'm sure it would be, but is it "smart?" Would it be like playing against
a real person?
> (Oh yeah: And be careful with equal signs around here...)
why?
Michael Packard
Lord Generic Productions
lgp at exo.com http://exo.com/~lgp
A Crash Course in Game Design and Production
http://exo.com/~lgp/euphoria
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
