AI still coming?

World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: AI Still Coming?

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

To be true, I didn't see them say there will be no AI, just, AFTER clearing bugs in the game itself, AFTER clearing bugs in the MP, and AFTER PBEM. Then they will work the AI which could take about 1 year (hopefully) or who-knows-how-much considering how the game is evolving.

So, if you can wait some years you may be satisfied. [;)][:'(]

Jose I personally do not think PBEM will work with this type of game I could be wrong, too much interaction between players, for example, my son plays Battlefronts Combat Mission Normandy, I gougo game but it works well, one player gives his orders and sends it to my son he then gives his orders and the result plays for a minute to two minutes, there is no interaction other than that, not so with MWIF as you well know there is constant interaction.

Just in a carrier battle sequence there could be many interactions back and forth, it could take a year or more to complete the battle [:D] okay just kidding, I could see it working with Barbarossa though, so who knows what the Shadow knows [old time radio soap opera] We shall see [:(]

Bo
LeeChard
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:24 pm
Location: Michigan

RE: AI Still Coming?

Post by LeeChard »

Thanks Bo, Lots to look forward to! Waiting while the computer wizards do their thing isn't that hard, after all
I have WitP AE that needs my attention [:D]
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

RE: AI Still Coming?

Post by Joseignacio »

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

To be true, I didn't see them say there will be no AI, just, AFTER clearing bugs in the game itself, AFTER clearing bugs in the MP, and AFTER PBEM. Then they will work the AI which could take about 1 year (hopefully) or who-knows-how-much considering how the game is evolving.

So, if you can wait some years you may be satisfied. [;)][:'(]

Jose I personally do not think PBEM will work with this type of game I could be wrong, too much interaction between players, for example, my son plays Battlefronts Combat Mission Normandy, I gougo game but it works well, one player gives his orders and sends it to my son he then gives his orders and the result plays for a minute to two minutes, there is no interaction other than that, not so with MWIF as you well know there is constant interaction.

Just in a carrier battle sequence there could be many interactions back and forth, it could take a year or more to complete the battle [:D] okay just kidding, I could see it working with Barbarossa though, so who knows what the Shadow knows [old time radio soap opera] We shall see [:(]

Bo

True, I have always had a hard time guessing how he could manage PBEM, I think it was through "standing orders" but even though...too much interaction needed.

PD: My computer is in repairs now, so I cannot connect to skype for a chat.
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: AI Still Coming?

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: Ranger5355

Thanks Bo, Lots to look forward to! Waiting while the computer wizards do their thing isn't that hard, after all
I have WitP AE that needs my attention [:D]

Errrr a lot of attention[:D]

Bo
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: AI Still Coming?

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

To be true, I didn't see them say there will be no AI, just, AFTER clearing bugs in the game itself, AFTER clearing bugs in the MP, and AFTER PBEM. Then they will work the AI which could take about 1 year (hopefully) or who-knows-how-much considering how the game is evolving.

So, if you can wait some years you may be satisfied. [;)][:'(]

Jose I personally do not think PBEM will work with this type of game I could be wrong, too much interaction between players, for example, my son plays Battlefronts Combat Mission Normandy, I gougo game but it works well, one player gives his orders and sends it to my son he then gives his orders and the result plays for a minute to two minutes, there is no interaction other than that, not so with MWIF as you well know there is constant interaction.

Just in a carrier battle sequence there could be many interactions back and forth, it could take a year or more to complete the battle [:D] okay just kidding, I could see it working with Barbarossa though, so who knows what the Shadow knows [old time radio soap opera] We shall see [:(]

Bo

True, I have always had a hard time guessing how he could manage PBEM, I think it was through "standing orders" but even though...too much interaction needed.

PD: My computer is in repairs now, so I cannot connect to skype for a chat.


Good lord Jose, knowing how bad Spanish computer techs are by the time you get your computer back I will have learned to speak fluent Spanish[:D]

Bo
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

RE: AI Still Coming?

Post by Joseignacio »

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

ORIGINAL: bo




Jose I personally do not think PBEM will work with this type of game I could be wrong, too much interaction between players, for example, my son plays Battlefronts Combat Mission Normandy, I gougo game but it works well, one player gives his orders and sends it to my son he then gives his orders and the result plays for a minute to two minutes, there is no interaction other than that, not so with MWIF as you well know there is constant interaction.

Just in a carrier battle sequence there could be many interactions back and forth, it could take a year or more to complete the battle [:D] okay just kidding, I could see it working with Barbarossa though, so who knows what the Shadow knows [old time radio soap opera] We shall see [:(]

Bo

True, I have always had a hard time guessing how he could manage PBEM, I think it was through "standing orders" but even though...too much interaction needed.

PD: My computer is in repairs now, so I cannot connect to skype for a chat.


Good lord Jose, knowing how bad Spanish computer techs are by the time you get your computer back I will have learned to speak fluent Spanish[:D]

Bo

Problem is that it was a small shop (I went there because a friend recommended it to me) and my computer was #21 repair [:@]

So, even though my repair was just welding a couple of cables at the power button, I have to wait until all the 20 viruses and hardware gaffs are solved. Or pay extra, and I am poor ... [:'(] I will get it back hopefully for tomorrow.
User avatar
Rasputitsa
Posts: 2902
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Bedfordshire UK
Contact:

RE: AI Still Coming?

Post by Rasputitsa »

It is obvious that if you want a challenging game, you can play a human opponent, but a reasonable AI has great value and can be just as challenging, if you want to play an historical game. The forum is full of comments and complaints about play balance and how to get (force) human players to act more historically.

The Eastern Front as an example, give a human player a full Soviet OOB (20,000 tanks and huge manpower), then try get some historical balance, because the human will not play under the chaotic circumstances faced by the real commanders, but the artificial ignorance can and will make a good job of simulating it and it doesn't have to be easy, that is what game settings, preferences and options are for.

Same goes for the performance of the Western Allies early in the war, how good does an AI have to be to replicate that. The AI is never going to be brilliant and able to handle every aspect of a long war, from both sides, but it will be able to achieve a lot of it and provide a more historically accurate opponent than human players are prepared to suffer. I think the historical commanders after Dunkirk, Peal Harbor, Kiev, Stalingrad, etc., felt plenty challenged, that's part of the WW2 experience.

I wagered £100 that the developers would/can produce an AI, if I win - great, otherwise I will have made a contribution to pushing this niche industry a little further. [:)]
"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon

“A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything” - Napoleon

“Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: AI Still Coming?

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

It is obvious that if you want a challenging game, you can play a human opponent, but a reasonable AI has great value and can be just as challenging, if you want to play an historical game. The forum is full of comments and complaints about play balance and how to get (force) human players to act more historically.

The Eastern Front as an example, give a human player a full Soviet OOB (20,000 tanks and huge manpower), then try get some historical balance, because the human will not play under the chaotic circumstances faced by the real commanders, but the artificial ignorance can and will make a good job of simulating it and it doesn't have to be easy, that is what game settings, preferences and options are for.

Same goes for the performance of the Western Allies early in the war, how good does an AI have to be to replicate that. The AI is never going to be brilliant and able to handle every aspect of a long war, from both sides, but it will be able to achieve a lot of it and provide a more historically accurate opponent than human players are prepared to suffer. I think the historical commanders after Dunkirk, Peal Harbor, Kiev, Stalingrad, etc., felt plenty challenged, that's part of the WW2 experience.

I wagered £100 that the developers would/can produce an AI, if I win - great, otherwise I will have made a contribution to pushing this niche industry a little further. [:)]


There will be an AI Rasputitsa, do not know when, we are really working hard to get a netplay for Barbarossa up and running, I have always wanted an AI first but got no wheres with that, what irks me with the anti AI establishment is the comments about how bad the AI is, no AI is a good AI, on and on with the bull crap, many times I just want to sit down when it is convenient for me and not for someone else [selfish, of course] and move my units around and wait for the AI to make a mistake so I can crush it [:(]

But what I like best about playing the AI is if for some reason it gets all the good die rolls I turn the computer off and start a new game [;)] real live players don't take kindly to that [:@] but for some strange reason I would like doing that to a few anti AI posters here while playing them, that is if they are winning. [:D]
User avatar
Rasputitsa
Posts: 2902
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Bedfordshire UK
Contact:

RE: AI Still Coming?

Post by Rasputitsa »

ORIGINAL: bo
ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

It is obvious that if you want a challenging game, you can play a human opponent, but a reasonable AI has great value and can be just as challenging, if you want to play an historical game. The forum is full of comments and complaints about play balance and how to get (force) human players to act more historically.

The Eastern Front as an example, give a human player a full Soviet OOB (20,000 tanks and huge manpower), then try get some historical balance, because the human will not play under the chaotic circumstances faced by the real commanders, but the artificial ignorance can and will make a good job of simulating it and it doesn't have to be easy, that is what game settings, preferences and options are for.

Same goes for the performance of the Western Allies early in the war, how good does an AI have to be to replicate that. The AI is never going to be brilliant and able to handle every aspect of a long war, from both sides, but it will be able to achieve a lot of it and provide a more historically accurate opponent than human players are prepared to suffer. I think the historical commanders after Dunkirk, Peal Harbor, Kiev, Stalingrad, etc., felt plenty challenged, that's part of the WW2 experience.

I wagered £100 that the developers would/can produce an AI, if I win - great, otherwise I will have made a contribution to pushing this niche industry a little further. [:)]


There will be an AI Rasputitsa, do not know when, we are really working hard to get a netplay for Barbarossa up and running, I have always wanted an AI first but got no wheres with that, what irks me with the anti AI establishment is the comments about how bad the AI is, no AI is a good AI, on and on with the bull crap, many times I just want to sit down when it is convenient for me and not for someone else [selfish, of course] and move my units around and wait for the AI to make a mistake so I can crush it [:(]

But what I like best about playing the AI is if for some reason it gets all the good die rolls I turn the computer off and start a new game [;)] real live players don't take kindly to that [:@] but for some strange reason I would like doing that to a few anti AI posters here while playing them, that is if they are winning. [:D]

I have every confidence that, if it is at all possible, a working AI will appear. I know from your previous posts how you feel, when you're younger time takes forever, but now time seem to be racing by. Patience becomes a difficult virtue, but there are some great games to play in the meantime. Keep that finger on the ON switch. [8D]
"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon

“A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything” - Napoleon

“Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: AI Still Coming?

Post by paulderynck »

If you're going to rage-quit after a series of good rolls by the enemy, a properly designed AI should refuse to play with you after that. [;)]
Paul
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: AI Still Coming?

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

If you're going to rage-quit after a series of good rolls by the enemy, a properly designed AI should refuse to play with you after that. [;)]

But that would make the AI more intelligent than I am [:(] on second thought that would not be too hard. See you are starting to see the light paul, as long as I can play someone with my beta button I could become awesome[;)]

Bo
pzgndr
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: AI still coming?

Post by pzgndr »

May I make a modest request for an interim AI feature? Could we at least have the unit setup implemented for the scenarios? In lieu of getting any more saved starts with different setups, maybe we could get the AI to do this for us. An additional benefit would be to have players see how the setups work with the different game options, and thus provide some feedback if needed.
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
User avatar
Cataphract88
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:02 am
Location: Britannia

RE: AI still coming?

Post by Cataphract88 »

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

May I make a modest request for an interim AI feature? Could we at least have the unit setup implemented for the scenarios? In lieu of getting any more saved starts with different setups, maybe we could get the AI to do this for us. An additional benefit would be to have players see how the setups work with the different game options, and thus provide some feedback if needed.

This sounds like a great idea to me.
Richard
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: AI still coming?

Post by brian brian »

I wouldn't get your hopes up on that, and I don't think it would be a wise use of limited resources. I mean, would you wan the AI to do your first move also? When you set up the pieces, you make your initial decisions on what you want each of your military units to do. If you use a pre-determined, AI, or random set-up, I think most of the time you would lose more time in your first movement phase than you saved by using a fixed set-up. You still ultimately have to decide what each unit will do. If you can't decide, your opponent will soon be thrashing you.

I think this is true in any scenario in the game. In Barbarossa, do you want to drive north of the Pripets, or south? Both? Do you want your best Panzer corps at the point of your primary drive?

The scenarios already allocate most of your forces to the various theaters, the decisions after that are all tactical that you will have to make when the units move anyway. Naval set-ups are the slowest but even there it is better to make your own decisions. Maybe the USN wants to send a Cruiser squadron on a winter-time raid of Japanese home waters from their convenient base at Dutch Harbor. It's your call.
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: AI still coming?

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I wouldn't get your hopes up on that, and I don't think it would be a wise use of limited resources. I mean, would you wan the AI to do your first move also? When you set up the pieces, you make your initial decisions on what you want each of your military units to do. If you use a pre-determined, AI, or random set-up, I think most of the time you would lose more time in your first movement phase than you saved by using a fixed set-up. You still ultimately have to decide what each unit will do. If you can't decide, your opponent will soon be thrashing you.

I think this is true in any scenario in the game. In Barbarossa, do you want to drive north of the Pripets, or south? Both? Do you want your best Panzer corps at the point of your primary drive?

The scenarios already allocate most of your forces to the various theaters, the decisions after that are all tactical that you will have to make when the units move anyway. Naval set-ups are the slowest but even there it is better to make your own decisions. Maybe the USN wants to send a Cruiser squadron on a winter-time raid of Japanese home waters from their convenient base at Dutch Harbor. It's your call.


I agree with you 110% brian about the setup, if people complain about how bad the AI is all the time in all their games what makes you think the AI is going to change course and be brilliant during setup [;)] There is something else I do not understand here, IMHO the setup is one one of my pleasures about WIF, maybe not in the board game with all of its cardboard counters but on the computer it is a pleasure at least for me.

All the reasons that brian gave are right on, different scenarios require different strategies according to the way you play, why let a computer dictate to you about a setup that you would feel is all wrong for the way you play.

I know that Global war can be a little testy with all the countries to be set up, but I feel that each unit I set up is examined by me for at least a few seconds and I get a feel for these units what they can do, their purpose in the game, their power etc. I play with carrier planes and pilots optional rules, and I enjoy placing the individual carrier plane squadrons on their carriers.

Of course I have made a few mistakes with that when I put my 2 best air units on one carrier and that carrier got sunk, sorry but I do not find this a chore in the least, now cutting my grass at home is a chore [:(] Enjoy the setup it might be the best part of the game if you happen to get beat all the time [:@]

Bo
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9013
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: AI still coming?

Post by Centuur »

Agreed. You have to find out what's the best way to put your units to use yourself. An AI won't do a proper job for this...
Peter
pzgndr
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: AI still coming?

Post by pzgndr »

ORIGINAL: Centuur
An AI won't do a proper job for this...

Of course not. According to some, an AI won't ever do a proper job for anything so why bother. Blah, blah, blah... [8|]

But according to many paying customers who want to and in many cases prefer to play against a computer opponent for the speed and convenience that it offers, and of course Matrix acknowledges this fact of life, an AI may very well do a decent job. Good enough is fine.

I recognize that the wise use of limited resources means priority should go towards the bug fixes and NetPlay features first, and then probably the implementation of all the other optional rules and scenarios. We probably won't see a fully functional AI in 2015. I got that. I'll continue to be patient. But again, as a modest request, there may be enough AI code structure already in place to at least partially implement the setup feature. No, I don't want the AI to also do my first move, but let me see a random setup for a given set of optional rules and perhaps allow me to make adjustments, and that would be fine. It would be faster and more convenient, which is the whole point of buying a computer wargame in the first place. A year ago, and we wait...
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: AI still coming?

Post by brian brian »

Well, a lot of the set-up structure is already done for you. You set up X many pieces in this country, a very few are allowed in any hex you control, naval units are allowed in this map or that map, etc., so a lot of decisions are already made for you. Why write up something beyond that and then allow a player to adjust it?

I thought the game did ship with a few saved set-ups. That would be trivial to add I'm sure. If you skip the easy-to-set-up scenarios and dive in to a pre-set-up Global War you will just flail around losing far more time than playing the scenarios and doing and learning things yourself. Your whole first game will be changed by missing one simple thing and you will start over relatively quickly.

I was thinking about this on a drive today. I would say this - in a professional military, if a young officer was offered a chance to make a decision and indicated a preference that someone else make the decision for them, well, that young officer would soon find themselves doing logistics paperwork. If you don't want to decide where the pieces go, you won't do very well playing this game. The game offers you the chance to be commander-in-chief, not be a one-star general. Making the decision is the essence of military command. The set-up is the first turn, essentially.
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9013
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: AI still coming?

Post by Centuur »

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: Centuur
An AI won't do a proper job for this...

Of course not. According to some, an AI won't ever do a proper job for anything so why bother. Blah, blah, blah... [8|]

But according to many paying customers who want to and in many cases prefer to play against a computer opponent for the speed and convenience that it offers, and of course Matrix acknowledges this fact of life, an AI may very well do a decent job. Good enough is fine.

I recognize that the wise use of limited resources means priority should go towards the bug fixes and NetPlay features first, and then probably the implementation of all the other optional rules and scenarios. We probably won't see a fully functional AI in 2015. I got that. I'll continue to be patient. But again, as a modest request, there may be enough AI code structure already in place to at least partially implement the setup feature. No, I don't want the AI to also do my first move, but let me see a random setup for a given set of optional rules and perhaps allow me to make adjustments, and that would be fine. It would be faster and more convenient, which is the whole point of buying a computer wargame in the first place. A year ago, and we wait...

I think you are misunderstanding me here. Probably caused by the fact that I'm not a native English speaker.

What I meant was that if you let an AI make a set up for you, you have to know the reasoning behind the AI for why it will put a certain unit in a certain hex. What was the intended use for the unit in that position if it was up to the AI? That's very difficult to understand.

Also, it is my believe that it is always better to make you own decisions regarding the setup of units, just because you need to understand the units capabilities. And that isn't easy in World in Flames, since you never get the same draw of units at start and therefore always have to consider what unit goes where and will do what in the first impulse.

I should have written: the AI will never do a proper job, because it is a human who takes over that setup...

I apologize for this misunderstanding...


Peter
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: AI still coming?

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: Centuur
An AI won't do a proper job for this...

Of course not. According to some, an AI won't ever do a proper job for anything so why bother. Blah, blah, blah... [8|]

But according to many paying customers who want to and in many cases prefer to play against a computer opponent for the speed and convenience that it offers, and of course Matrix acknowledges this fact of life, an AI may very well do a decent job. Good enough is fine.

I recognize that the wise use of limited resources means priority should go towards the bug fixes and NetPlay features first, and then probably the implementation of all the other optional rules and scenarios. We probably won't see a fully functional AI in 2015. I got that. I'll continue to be patient. But again, as a modest request, there may be enough AI code structure already in place to at least partially implement the setup feature. No, I don't want the AI to also do my first move, but let me see a random setup for a given set of optional rules and perhaps allow me to make adjustments, and that would be fine. It would be faster and more convenient, which is the whole point of buying a computer wargame in the first place. A year ago, and we wait...


Hi pzgndr, how are you? I thought centuur explained it very well, and his English was perfect. I realize you and others are "paying customers" as you say but the game is programmed a certain way and the paying customer really does not have a say in how its programmed, I believe Steve will tweak certain things after everything is up and running.

I am AI through and through, just maybe more than anyone on these posts as you know because of my posts the last five years, but why would I want a computer AI to set up my units, I apologize if I am saying something against what you would like but I really do not see this point you are trying to make. There is a fast start for most of the scenarios or soon will be for all of them. Not knocking the fast start setups but they are not for me I want to do my own setups.

I actually enjoy doing the new game unit setup and I am not talking like a fan boy of Matrix and have you thinking I agree with everything Steve has programmed into the game, meaning I would have preferred the AI first instead of netplay and Pbem. Maybe someday Steve will do this if he has the time but right now I could care less about the AI setting up my units game wise or any other way.

Bo
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”