Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

Ian, do you guys own the rights to Vassal?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

We have no connection with Vassal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

I completely agree on the scripting - I would be surprised if there is any complex game with a competent AI that is not at least partially scripted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

I completely agree on the scripting - I would be surprised if there is any complex game with a competent AI that is not at least partially scripted.

Well you do not what you are talking about I'm afraid to say. Our Command ops is not scripted and I think most would agree that it fills the buill as being a complex game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Well you do not what you are talking about I'm afraid to say. Our Command ops is not scripted and I think most would agree that it fills the buill as being a complex game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Yes it does depend on how you define scripting. I think most would agree that scripting involves executing a series of actions in a sequence. In most games scripts are precanned event sequences. There maybe some conditional logic that at a certain point executes one sequence or another but ultimately they are still precanned sequences. In most games the AI is not capable of developing a plan on the fly itself. It merely decides on which of the pre-canned plans it wishes to implement at that point in time.

In most cases the highest entity (ie the side) will have situational awareness in that it can interrogate the virtual world but subordinate entities (ie the units) only have very limited situational awareness and can at best react to immediate events - eg they can take cover iof fired upon. In many games the subordinates have no flexibility to determine their own course of action. They are in effect dumb entities slaved to the side's script. In a few games some of the entities may have their own scripts which form subsets of the side's script or they may be independent from the side's script but they are precanned scripts nonetheless.

In Command Ops each unit is situationally aware and can develop its own course of action based on the virtual world around it. The only "guides" we use are the side objectives. Note that these are generic tasks like Secure X from time 1 to time 2. There is no specific course of action given as to how they should do this or with what forces. There are victory points assigned to the side objectives but these act only as a guide to the AI in determining how it should allocate its forces to each of the objectives. In fact the AI can reprioritise based on developments. For instance, it can increase the priority of one objective if it is threatened by the enemy and decrease another if it is not. In fact it can abandon objectives if it thinks it has no chance of achieving them or it can sequence their achievement if it thinks its best to take certain objectives one at a time rather than concurrently.

But the real distinguishing feature here is that in a generic AI each entity can reassess and develop a new plan if it thinks that it will be better to do so. A game that relies on a scripted AI doesn't model the full decision loop. It executes a plan someone else has provided. It may be able to react but it can't reassess dynamically only if certain scenario specific events or conditions change. So if the battle unfolds different to the way the designer has scripted things it cannot take advantage nor minimise adverse effects. It is a captive of the original design and concept of operations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel
My fear is that along with everything else it seems that wargames will become increasingly more simple and lack depth.
Publishers and game makers don't seem to be making the 'epic' wargames of yesteryear with a few exceptions. And of those that are released it appears that they fail in terms of wide appeal for a few reasons.

quote:

Well, I have to say from where I'm sitting it doesn't look like that. We have just as many, if not more, complex wargames in the works and planned for the future now than at any time in the past. It also happens that we have more games that are also less complex planned. I think you need to cater to both sides of the market, but making more non-complex games is not the same as making fewer complex games. I can't speak for other publishers, but one of the reasons we created Matrix Games was specifically to serve the community that enjoys complex and realistic strategy games.

In short, as long as there are still gamers interested in playing these games, we plan to be making them.

Regards,

- Erik

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Although the Command Ops AI is good, problems with units halting or companies attacking in an illogical manner, which were fixed and/or introduced and fixed with the recent patch do cripple the system somewhat. If your system depends on a good AI, it collapses quickly if the AI doesn't work as intended.

quote:


The Command Ops AI would presumably also work less well on a strategic scale (which is where most AI's fail, because they are incapable of making good long term plans). Battles are fairly short, distances are not that significant.

quote:

It's also different in the sense that the destruction of units/causing casualties to the enemy often doesn't give a lot of points

quote:

and that objectives are captured in a somewhat abstract manner which took me some serious getting used to.

quote:

It's unique amongst wargames, but the system has its own weaknesses which would make it function less well on a strategic scale in its current shape.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Scripting in an of itself is not a bad word where AI is concerned - it's just another tool and another form of programming. Scripts can range from "here's the entire turn, just do this" to small expert modules that the AI has to know how to assemble to create a larger strategy. While my experience with AI is not as a developer, I've worked with many AIs from the design side and scripting is another tool along with many possible AI implementations that may fit one game better than another.

Regards,

- Erik

quote:

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg

Commander - the Great War is a good example of a challenging AI in a recent game

Its not as inventive as a human, but I certainly provides an interesting enough Single player game

quote:

ORIGINAL: sterckxe
It's not mythical at all - I've played the beta - my review is up here :

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=891383&mpage=1&key=&#

quote:

That is just a scenario designer setting. In the ScenMaker you can set the VPs awarded to enemy destruction to whatever you like.

quote:

What do you mean by "abstract manner"? To achieve an objective depends on its type. For a Secure objective all you have to do is have frinedly forces in the objective perimeter that outnumber the enemy forces 10:1. That's pretty simple really. For a Defend objective you just have some forces within the perimeter. That's even simpler.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

That being said, while I'm an Eastern Front fan, I hold no desire to play Gary Grigsby's WiTE. I say this simply because I want to have time for my real life. If I could afford to be retired for my day job, I might consider it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

That is just a scenario designer setting. In the ScenMaker you can set the VPs awarded to enemy destruction to whatever you like.

Perhaps, but the game still has the usual problem of operational level wargames that the destruction of an enemy force is largely irrelevant because most of the points come from capturing objectives. That's why I don't think it would scale well in its current shape to a more strategic level: if battles last a month or two, in good weather, it matters if the defender loses most of a division in a sector in the opening days. Currently, I can wreck the Allied force and still lose with relative ease due to not holding the final objectives for long enough.

That remains one of the main differences between operational and strategic wargames: in a strategic level wargame, serious losses are much more of a problem, because you have to deal with the initial losses for the entire battle.

The current artillery system, of being able to throw the kitchen sink at any target of choice, would also cause problems on a strategic scale.

quote:

What do you mean by "abstract manner"? To achieve an objective depends on its type. For a Secure objective all you have to do is have frinedly forces in the objective perimeter that outnumber the enemy forces 10:1. That's pretty simple really. For a Defend objective you just have some forces within the perimeter. That's even simpler.

It's abstract in the sense that a point counter starts when you first take hold of an objective, which determines the points you get for an objective (independent of friendly unit strength it seems, which is something I don't entirely like as 1 platoon theoretically captures an objective as quickly as an entire division as long as there's no enemy around). That is more abstract than the usual "you get the points if you capture/hold it" approach.