AI (ver1.0): Hosted by mindlace

[mindlace]

The general consensus is that although Firaxis should hire/have some wicked AI programmers, no finite group of people will be able to build an AI capable of withstanding the depredations of all CIV players.

Therefore, the AI should be script driven.
Indeed, the AI should be entirely scripts, with the Game Engine just handling environmental issues, pathing, etc.

JT has expressed a concern that this will cause instability.

The other major thread, aside from structural, is what the AI should be able to do:
Have a knowledge of geography
Have basic military competency
understand choke points
a sense of distance
intelligence increases with difficulty
distinct personalities
personalities reflect political changes
evolve to contend with your strategies.

And EnochF is freaked.

[yin26]

Mindlace,

Great to see you here! We were crying for the AI thread...

[mindlace]

(oh- please see the AI Credits post)

Bingman suggested open source, and specifically Python. I'd say it's worth looking at python, but being able to imbed C and C++ programs, etc, opens up the door for too many game crashing behaviors. The scripting needs to be limited.

Rong had some great commentary on the behavior of the AI. Here's my (re)interpretation:

The AI has 3 major areas where the event hooks are:
Govenor (whether city or reigonal (BuildingComplete))
Unit (com or noncom (move, attack, defend, suicide, terraform))
Leader (this is mostly for the computer player- handling diplomacy, etc.)
Global (TurnStart, GlobalWarming, etc)

The engine passes the values for these hooks/variables to the AI. Only Global variables are global- a terraforming unit could 'see' GlobalWarming, for example, and start raising land.

Other variables are global in definition (BuildingComplete) but local in use-
Spartan Headquarter's: BuildingComplete(recycling_tanks)

However, these variables pass into other scripts name-space in certain circumstances: pacts allow scripts to 'see' the other's building variables, same as the human. Units can 'see' the status/type of units in a city when they are near it, etc.

Then there are the 'private' variables- anything declared in the course of the script.

One thought I had is that you could let the 'leader' script run for the human faction if the difficulty level is low enough- and it would act as an advisor. Basically parse whatever decisions it made into text:

"Sir: I believe the defences at #BASENAME are weak. Shall I build a #DEFENDER?"

you could even have a 'time passes' button, and let the (sub)Leader handle the game for a few turns.

[Druid2]

mindlace,

If I'm reading your comments right, I think you're headed for trouble.

"Only Global variables are global- a terraforming unit could 'see' GlobalWarming, for example, and start raising land."

having individual units decide for themselves what they should be doing would lead to the kind of AI lack of direction that we have now.

The <u>faction</u> should look at the situation, decide which squares make sense to terraform to higher altitude, and assign the job to a unit. THEN the unit-level logic takes over: go to the site, do the terraform, etc. When done, it puts itself back into the "I'm available" queue.

[Rong]

A comment on OSxAI. I see the OSxAI idea is more about the AI architecture, how they would go about implementing a new AI model. While this thread is more about the actual AI algorithms that are going to civ3. So there is a distinction there, but not a whole lot. Anyone who is interested in AI issues should read both threads.

Our friendship is indeed a strong one.

[Ralph]

In one area the human logic is VASTLY superior to any strategy-game AI, and that is the human ability to, within a blink of an eye, filter out good and worthwhile abstract strategic choices, from the not-so-good ones.
Artificial intelligence often stinks in this respect – it often had to rely on pure number-crunching capability alone, as a poor substitute.
Just look at how long it took for IBM to create a Deep blue program that could finally beat Garry Kasparov (and that in a game with very few and simple rules, on a tiny uncovered 64 square “world”, and with no element of chance involved whatsoever).

The bottom line:

Before suggesting some rather complicated and abstract game-ideas – please bear this in mind: It is almost certain that the human player can utilise these choices MUCH more effective then the upcoming Civ-3 AI.
The more abstract and complicated some of these choices are - the harder its gonna be for the game-AI to really compete on FAIR and EQUAL terms against the human player.

Therefore we should perhaps avoid at least some of them.

[kmj]

blah. I think we should make high demands. Tell them to reach for the stars. Work their asses of and spend a good deal of cash on good ai developers.

I'm not expecting big blue or anything, but I want the ai for this game to be as good as it can possibly be.

Demand the best.

And if they fall short? Well, they will fall short of what I want. I can guarantee it. But the closer they come, the happier I am.

And I feel we should do our best to let them know that we want them to do a damn good job on the ai. The higher we raise the bar, the higher they'll try to jump, no?

[Bingmann]

I think it's important to not be too "pie in the sky" with these suggestions. Unless they are really gung-ho about an idea, the harder and more complex it is to do, the less likely it is to be undertaken. Sure, a brand-spanking-new dedicated AI scripting language would be great, but it would be a massive job, diverting resources from other aspects of the game. There's very little payoff to the company to pursue this idea unless someone high up the chain of command has a personal interest in it. Lots of work for little to no impact on the game for most of the buyers is a no-go. The beneficial impact on the game from an unknown group of AI hackers of unknown size and ability is a great big unknown which makes a large investment very risky.

That's why I propose several degrees of open-sourcing the AI, so that the designers can pick the level of commitment they can afford:

1 - Segregate the AI code into a dll and publish the source code. This takes extremely little effort on their part to do - mainly determined by how detailed they want to document the code. (All code is self-documenting, right?)

2 - Use an existing script language for the AI like Python or Javascript. If this is the approach taken from the start, then there isn't any more effort involved in implementing the AI this way. Retrofitting a script language onto existing AI would be a big job. I guarantee that some of the AI code is going to have to be in C/C++/assembler because some routines are just going to be too computationally intense that a script implementation will be too slow. These fast routines will have to be a finite set available in the main program, or provisions are going to have to be made to attach home-grown dll's to provide unlimited expansion. Pathfinding comes to mind with regards to this issue; it's going to choke in a script language implementation. There can be a default pathing routine in the program, but custom pathfinding routines are certainly a desirable AI feature.

3 - Create a new dedicated script language (and dedicated debugging tools - AI scripts are going to be too large and complex to debug otherwise). This would be really nice, but I think this is going over the top - it's just too much work.

Stability - There are always stability issues, especially in a free-for-all environment. That doesn't mean that there won't be reputable sources of stable versions of AI. Sure, getting abc.dll/abc.script from a random xyz web site might cause problems, but just because some might cause problems or crashes doesn't mean there won't be a large supply of usable ones. I guarantee any AI code that I write will be at least as stable as the code put out by the game company, especially if I use their own code as the starting point.

Script vs dll's - Scripts are not inherently more "stable" than dll's. You can make it so that scripts won't crash the program (failing silently instead - harder to catch the bugs?), but you can't make it so that scripts will work correctly any more than dll's. The main issue in scripts vs. dll's is accessibility. You pretty much need a software development environment to make new dll's while all you need is a text editor to fiddle with scripts.

Specific implementation issues (global/private variables, etc.) - This is kind of like back-seat driving. They've already made AI in the past; they know how to put it together. Unless the suggestion is a new paradigm for the game (say, switching to a client-player/server-game module), there really isn't much point. Please, I sincerely hope nobody takes this personally. As a programmer, my clients often include "suggested" implementations of features that they want; they are invariably useless because they are unaware of how the rest of the program is implemented. Anything past feature descriptions and perhaps general design principles is not helpful. In the long run, it will have very little impact on us if something is implemented as a global variable or a routine or a whatever.

AI helpers for players - This is a great idea if it works. Works really well if the players can write their own AI code/scripts. This is SMAC governors, auto-terraforming, and unit patrol/bomb/explore orders (and to some extent, Civ 2 advisors). It makes sense to piggy-back player helper AI on the computer player AI.

[Druid2]

Ralph, agreed.

I dont think it will be possible for the AI to beat a good human 1 vs 1. But the AI players are 6 v 1. *g*

All we're trying to do is to let it be as smart as we can get it to be. Certainly smarter than the imbecile that is currently "deciding" for the AI.

There have been good chess games for decades.. Good enough to give an average player a strong contest. We dont need to beat Kasparov... just Joe Average.

----------
Bingmann: one more thing Firaxis need to do if they're interested at all. Along with the open source code for the AI.dll, they need to share the data interface. What fields are stored where/ in what format, etc. So that when us "wildcatters" try and roll our own, we'll know what to look for and what to answer with.

I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

Also, the scripting idea can wait until new dll's are written. The built-in scripts [in the existing AI code] can be replaced by the parameter-driven script files.. if/when... If Firaxis will just agree to the concept, it will be like opening a door.

btw: if they *do* agree to this, I'm going to be here, posting a notice for a new AI-programming company that would sell improved AI modules for cheap *L*

[This message has been edited by Druid2 (edited May 20, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Druid2 (edited May 20, 1999).]

[Rong]

Bingmann,

This idea has been discussed extensively by the hard-core AI programmers on comp.ai.games. If you are really serious about this (looks like you are), you can read the archive at

<a href="http://www.gameai.com/exai.thread.html">http://www.gameai.com/exai.thread.html</a>

[Darkstar]

Greetings and salutations!

The Player(Human/AI)/Game relationship SHOULD be a client-server deal. It shouldn't matter to the GAME whether its getting the input via the Human UI Client, the Human UI Remote Client, or the AI Seperate Threaded GI (Game Interface). If someone wants to then write a script driven engine, let it. I want an API and a list of all game functions so that I can make the Game Module give me a data vision so that I write a Moronic AI that can actually re-evaluate what is going on, rather than just hit simple script triggers. But as long as the GAME API is fully exposed, it won't matter WHAT interfaces with it so long as basic programmic sanity is maintained. That lets all of us C/C++/ASM guys write what we want, while basic scripters can use the Javascript Engine that would be inevitably developed, or the Perl engine, etc etc etc. The key is encapsulating and publicizing the Game API.



------------------
-Darkstar
(Knight Errant Of Spam)

[Bingmann]

Darkstar(r) - Client/server with published API would be ideal.

Druid - I just want to make sure that at the very least, we get an AI dll & source code even without documentation. Just anything! Right now we have nothing, so even a little bit would be infinitely better, and it would require the most minimal of efforts on their part. (If we don't get even this, then we know we are being completely ignored.)

Rong - Hey, I know that thread! That's what softened my view of dll's vs. scripts - I used to think that scripts were the only way to go for many of the same reasons others have listed. It surprised me when the consensus appeared to be dll's over scripts, mainly for speed issues (most were referring to RTS games and shooter games), but they convinced me that dll's are OK even if they seem scary at first.

[Josse]

Darkstar - I like the idea of having an API, but even better would be to have a framework that allow us to write AI components that can be used together. It would be really fun to write AIs and have them competing against each other.

I have some proposals both related to AI and difficult levels. My suggestions are:
1. Do not use difficult levels. Instead the player should be able to choose what AI or other human players he wants to play against.
2. Rate players and AI like in chess. If player or AI wins increase it is rating. If the loses decrease the rating.
3. Use different AI:s that can improve either by writing better AI scripts/AI programs or by learning themselfs (I know this hard to realise).
4. A dream would that the AI:s are good enought to compete with humans without cheating and having different characteristics.

[mindlace]

DICTATING IMPLEMENTATION:
I agree. I'll henceforth stop with the script examples.

.DLL/SCRIPTING
Well... I don't have a problem with the general idea, but it seems that there are a few 'features' that would be compromised by this notion:

1. copycat- if the computer/human player wants to steal a behavior, and it's written in a .dll, how are you going to pull it off? separate files for each 'type' (units, govenor, faction)?

2. human AI use- Ideally, the human players should be able to describe, to some reasonable level of detail, the behavior of units/govenors. if you go with a 'roll your own' interface/language approach, how would a reasonably addicted non-programmer put together some scripts? Plus, I would think that being able to pop a few lines out _in_ the game would be handy- with all these differing implementations, how would you pull that off?

essentially, I agree with the notion, especially for 'faction' level behavior. I'm just not positive it's the right approach for unit/govenor behavior.

I *want* the computer players to be smarter, but I want my govenors to do things the way I want, and the same goes for my formers, etc.

[Druid2]

mindlace,

I think that the scripts we've been talking about would be like the *.txt files that are read in at the start of the game. Essentially they are data that are used by the program.

the AI.dll is a library of compiled program code that is *part* of the program that resides in memory.

So, non-programmers should be able to change the scripts... with enough documentation. And, yes, they could be screwed up enough to make the game unplayable. That's true now with the *.txt files.

The scripts would have to be details of a predefined set of logic steps. Just like you were doing before.

I think the scripts that have been outlined WILL be of use to the game, and you should continue to do it. Because: (a) if they open the AI logic for us, they'll be needed .. OR (b) if they dont, Firaxis can see some logic that we think will make for better AI.

[Bingmann]

I agree on the dll vs scripting issue, mainly on the grounds of accessibility by non-programmers. Only programmers with all the development tools are going to be able to modify dlls. However, someone with the capability to change dlls would be able to do just as much with a dll as everyone would be able to do with scripts - reuse, sharing, etc.

I would much prefer scripts to a dll, but I would include the dll suggestion as a minimal effort - it really shouldn't matter to the game developers if the AI is either compiled directly into the program or is in a dll.

[Rong]

mindlace,

Just a quick note. I put a note in the opening post of the radical thread to ask everyone to continue the OSxAI discussion in here.

[yin26]

-=*BUMP*=-

------------------
CIV3 DEVELOPMENT LIST COORDINATOR

**(un)Officially Making Lists for Firaxis Since SMAC Enhancement 3!**

[Seeker]

Finally an official list. My suggestion (for me better AI is even ahead of big maps and many players) is to look at SSG's scripted AI they used in Warlords2 Deluxe, Warlords 2, and Carriers at War. Basically there seemed to be hundreds of "what would a human do in situation x?" events, and in those events the AI would select from a list of weighted strategies, usually picking conventional moves. However, specific AI players used specicic strategies, real strategies not just building certain units like "ratsbane" who will "make war on the cheap".

[Darkstar]

I understand that many of the best CivIII players and customizers won't be Coders with access to the Software Development Toys that many of us have. That is why I think someone would write an engine to parse script IF they go via DLL/exposed API. But I do think that we should be able to specify WHICH AI engines/Scripts are used (1 Hitler, 1 Napolean, X Idiot1, X Idiot2, X Idiot3) and even to say use ANY AI found in Opponent Directory. Yeah. Keeping track of how well they did as well would be a nice feature.

But no matter, I want to be able to customize the AI to not send Spys against Nation with Hunter Seeker Wonder (example from SMAC).

Being able to write and code my own assistants is less important to me than improving my computer controlled playmates or find modified AI components that I can plug into my game.

-Darkstar
(Knight Errant Of Spam)

[Rong]

It seems strange to me people are argueing over trivial things (no need to mention which ) while ignoring the most important improvement Civ3 needs: AI. Let me just throw some more ideas around.

I've been thinking about a "Client/Server" model of game play. Namely, the whole game runs on a Server, with its own AI, open source or not, and everyone just connects to it to play. If it's a solo game, you run the server on your localhost, and connect to it as a single, local Client. If it's a multiplayer game, the host starts the server, and everyone, including the host, connects to the server to play. Your local civ3 process becomes nothing more than a graphical client. All the actions are resolved on the server.

What does this have anything to do with AI? Well, if they open up the network protocol, then we can write autonomous clients that connect to the server and play just like a human. You know where this came from if you've ever heard of "client side Quake bots".

Benefits:

* Unlike OSxAI where you are limited by how Firaxis decides to do, here the option is in your hands. You can use your favorite language (Java, C++, Assembly), run it on your favorite OS (Linux, Mac, Be), play with different algorithms (NN, GA), save your AI data however you want (flat file, relational database, OODB), as long as your client speaks the Civ3 protocol.

* A well written, well tuned, perhaps even self-learning client can provide unlimited challenge, whether you play solo or multiplayer.

* For Firaxis, good seperation between client and server code helps maintain modularity.

Issues:

* The guy who wrote the first client should win the Turing Award. In another word, for a game of such complexity, a fully autonomous, smart client may be too hard to write. But who knows? Maybe some one out there is clever enough to pull it off. After that, it'd be a lot easier to follow the example and make minor changes.

So what do you think?

------------------
The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them.
- Mark Twain

[evil conquerer]

That's a great idea Rong, but does it mean that you would have to write your own network routines to program an AI? This is beyond the capacity of the average programmer. I, for one, haven't the slightest idea how to do networks, and I consider myself an intermediate-to-advanced programmer. In addition, many people who don't have a clue of how to program in C or a "real" language (no offense to you BASIC folks out there ) would find it fairly easy to learn a simple scripting language to program the AI. It can even be as easy as BASIC, or even easier, while still having advanced functionality for the advanced user.

[Rong]

Well, if the Quake crowd can do it, why can't we?

[Mark_Everson]

Rong:

I think your client model is a very good one. Only one person, or group, would have to do the hard parts of the client once, as I understand such things. Then, if they were willing to make it open source, or provide an associated interface (or scripting language for those who don't want to go to the code level) you'd be in business. If you're lucky Firaxis will do it, if not, someone will soon enough. Good Luck with it!

------------------
Mark Everson
Project lead for The Clash of Civilizations
(That means I do the things nobody else wants to do )
This Radically different civ game needs your suggestions and/or criticism of our design.
Check our our Forum right here at Apolyton...

[Druid2]

*L* they better save Client/Server for the Civ3 Expansion pack .. available 2002 for $49.95. It's a serious change in development effort.. different skills.. than developing a single-machine single-exe program.

I'm interested in whatever AI improvement methodology can be developed... But I have to admit I'm skeptical. I guess I'll have to hear it from Firaxis that they 're going to do something .. other than just "we'll make it better next time."

[Blade Runner]

Rong,

I whole-heartly support your idea. I think this kind of program structure easier to implement, than a traditional (one exe) with multiplayer possibility.

Blade Runner

[JaC]

Not sure if this is the right thread for this but here goes anyway :-)

Trading / giving advances to allies.

Isn't it crazy how you can give your allies computers when they haven't even discovered electricity yet?

The AI should only allow you to trade / give advances which the receiving player could have discovered at that time on his own.

You should also have more choice as to what advances you can give your allies / friends / enemies(?).

Instead of them saying we want A or B where you wanted to give them C you should have the choice of what advances they are eligible to receive ( see above) and out of your benevolence give them one of your choice.

Incidently do any other Civ players reularly give their enemies advances just to spice up the game a bit? Maybe its just my weird sense of fun......

:-)

No expert here, but I think Ralph and others are too pessimistic. Chess is so different from a military strategy game. You aren't limited to moving one piece per turn, the capabilities of units overlap extensively, the terrain isn't homogeneous.

Many have pointed out that extremely simple changes such as massing invasion forces instead of small groups of invading units would make a huge difference.

------------------
*a friendly note from your favorite heretic

[mindlace]

Druid2: I assume that Civ3, like SMAC, will be a ground-up effort: it's my understanding that BR/SM couldn't take any code with them when they left MicroProse (at least that's SOP with most SW firms.)


JaC: I believe your comments would be best directed to the DIPLOMACY thread.



will firaxis listen?
Regarding the question of whether firaxis will implement a client/server model, open source AI, etc:


I believe that Firaxis/BR (though isn't it Sid's turn to be the designer?) will take our suggestions seriously. I think (hope) we can expect some feedback from them after the first rev. hits BR's desk.


I will make sure that the AI list, at least, requests that <em>BR lets us know whether we're completely out to lunch or not.</em>



But the bottom line is this is what <em>we</em> want to see. JT is the only one who said 'no open' and that was a qualified no. I think it's safe to say that there's a consensus that there needs to be <em>some</em> degree of AI customization, and the more the better.



~mindlace

[Ecce Homo]

I don't know whether this idea fits here... Anyway:

Not all human/AI players would be civ leaders. Some could be religious leaders or corporate heads.

The Religion-civs would start "missioning" inside civs, collecting tithes and building temples/churches. The leaders would allow them because they would keep people happy, reduce crime and make propaganda against enemies.

The Corporate-civs would use trade units and industries to earn money.

These would hopefully remove micromanagement, and also bring diplomacy to a new dimension.