Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jackson
And eventually we may get to an AI with difficulty levels, but that's not the immediate goal. Chess programs have actual degrees of difficulty built into AI opponents, but as far as I know most digital games just apply a handicap in terms of resource gathering, unit numbers, hit points, whatever. Can anyone with wide knowledge of the field comment?
|
Ogre is different enough from chess, and far less researched, that I don't think the chess approaches will work. Minimax look-ahead works really well for chess, and there's a huge catalog of opening moves available.
For example, one theme in Ogre is the difficulty of changing your goals after you've committed to them. "Pick mostly GEVs, get rid of the main battery, then go after treads to preserve your GEVs." vs "Pick mostly HVYs, and take the ogre apart to preserve your HVYs." Every decision you make commits you further.
I think a playbook approach fits Ogre particularly well - to some degree imitating that catalog of opening moves. Look-ahead minimax makes some sense just before and during contact, to pick just which option to take. However, look-ahead should be confined to following the overall strategy.
One way to add levels in a playbook is to include better strategies and tactics at higher levels. The introductory AI sets up its GEVs too far forward. The diabolical AI knows the inverted V of HVYs and the 4 howitzer defense.
A more dynamic option is to add "rookie mistakes" to the playbook to rebalance the game part-way through. The AI could take a game from a near-certain win to 4:3 odds with a mistake that gives up a tank. (At some point you switch to a mercy kill to wrap up the gaim. That's in the entertainment spectrum of AI. DARPA didn't ask for that.) One advantage of having the video game is that the AI can harvest results from many players and get a good idea of the odds from each move.
The AI included in the game now - to my mind at least - seems to make a lot of rookie mistakes.