 |
|  |
 |
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999 time: 05:13
|
|
Very unfortunate. Brian is an excellent designer and added a considerable amount of intelligence and style to both SMAC and Gettysburg. But maybe he has a game he wants to do, and Firaxis won't have time to get to it? Or maybe he just got a really good offer? Or just doesn't like the hours? I doubt any answers will be forthcoming, unless Brian himself says something.
Firaxis will be left with an extremely young team. There's nothing wrong with this, I guess. But I'm afraid that it might take something away from the deeper aspects of CIV3. It will probably also result in a less sophisticated AI.
As I said, very unfortunate.
[This message has been edited by Vanguard (edited February 07, 2000).]
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lord Maxwell
|
|
Uppsala - Sweden
Dec 1999 time: 05:13
|
|
Vanguard: It will result in a LESS sophisticated ai-script? Is that at all possible? Maybe they could hire a lead designer that has atleast heard rumours about object oriented programming. (Almost all problems with the ai-scripts in SMAC could have been solved with an oo model for it. (Except that the scripts can't learn, but there would be vastly to much overhead for learning scripts.)
Ok, delays might get worse, but I don't think the quality in the code will go down. Maybe the fun of the games. (Neither Sid nor Brian were ever great programmers, they made fun games, that's about it. Too bad neither of em is likely to admit it.)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999 time: 05:13
|
|
Well, I'm not sure about Gettysburg, but SMAC is clearly object oriented. It may not be the most extreme example of modular programming ever built, but it certainly has classes and single function code blocks.
In any event, I don't see how an object oriented coding would improve ai scripting, except inasmuch as it would improve the general code base. Smac's ai (like almost all game ai) is mainly rule based and there really are no class objects, as such, involved in it.
SMAC's ai deficiencies exist primarily because it is complex game and is therefore subject to "runaway strategy syndrome". I thought SMAC's ai was very good---the first ten games I played. But we human quickly learn what strategies work and which don't. We can also learn them from others on-line and put those tactics together with our own to make the "perfect strategy".
Rule based ai doesn't learn, so there is no "strategic dialogue". That is, the ai doesn't respond to your moves, as a human would, countering your "perfect strategy" with the "counter-perfect strategy". The ai just keeps following its rules.
So yes, I agree that the answer to the problem is an ai that learns. But there is still the Simple Matter of Programming It. This is easier said than done. If you have the solution (in nice clean VC++ code), please send it to me immediately. Please. The pointer based fuzzy logic ai engine I'm working on has thrown a rod and is spewing oil all over my debugger.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999 time: 05:13
|
|
You could use VC++ to program in C, if you really wanted to. Or you could use C legacy code with vcc. No doubt this is what is being suggested---- that Firaxis used code from Civ2 to program SMAC.
Personally I see no reason to believe that this is true. Certainly the games are similar, but this is just a function of following the game design, not the programming design. But I can't prove a negative. SMAC is certainly mainly object oriented however, whatever that indicates.
As for ai, I think it is almost certain that SMAC's scripting was done with a subset of Lisp. There are probably ai features (pathfinding, ie) that are done in C, but most of the strategic decision making is likely done by Lisp-like rules.
I could be wrong though--anybody have any better information?
[This message has been edited by Vanguard (edited February 08, 2000).]
|
|
|  |
 |
|
pris
|
|
First off it's a big shame to see BR leave, SMAC & Civ2 are my favourite versions of Civ & he was responsible for both. It would be really cool if he now went & contributed to the freeciv project (freeciv.org) in his spare time. Maybe we'll see a decent post-Civ Sid Meier game but I'm doubting it.
One the subject of AI;
OO modelling/programming will not result in a better AI. What will produce a better AI is lots of hard work trying different angles & playtesting them to death. You'll be suggesting the AI would have worked better if programmed in Java next!
Despite popular opinion it is actually very hard to develop a decent AI for games especially when they're as complex as SMAC. Perhaps the biggest problem here is that there are two distinct ways to play the game (builder or conqueror) and an AI that plays well for one will play very badly for the other & worse, neither will be any good coping with a combination of both. IMO this is where SMAC fell down it was fine for the builders but it couldn't fight a decent battle.
AI that learns tends to be bad idea as it's so damn hard to debug & is unpredictable (ref Game Developer 8/99). In fact one of the SMAC ai's weakest features is that it tries to learn & anticipate your actions. (ie. attacking with convention units for a 10+ turns then switching to psi).
Making an AI that can always beat you is no good where's the fun in always losing? What you need is an AI that is a challenging opponent for 100% of players; one that won't pummel a newbie into the ground, one that will have a veteran using every trick in the book just to stay level & one that is just as much fun for everyone else. This is a much harder task.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lord Maxwell
|
|
Uppsala - Sweden
Dec 1999 time: 05:13
|
|
Sikander: If you are really interested I think you could find some opposition in the freeciv circles. (They have a civ ii clone broken up into a server and a client. A client side ai couldn't cheat at all, as it gets exactly the same info as the players at their clients. Some people have made client-side ai programs. If you want to compete with em, go ahead. 
pris: In smac it is pretty obvious that several parts of the ai works on an individual unit level. Formers atleast behave as if they thought for themselves. Whereas there should be a terraform buyer in cities which placed orders for terraform improvements with the formers if the code was more oo oriented. (And an overall terraform planner for inter-city needs.)(Certainly this isn't the only way to do it. But it would rock the poor ai formers of ac atleast.) The communication between city and formers and city and military units suggest that there are serious deficiencies in the message passing if indeed an oo model has been used.
Btw, I actually like Java, I can test out my ideas in about 25% of the time it would take to do it in c++. Now, if I want a program to actually run the same day it starts I would have to switch to c++. (But with a working prototype in java I can focus on not getting the common c++ errors, like memory leaks etc.) I could just as well do it in smalltalk, but it doesn't sell as well. (Dunno about you americans, but here in europe right about every it company wants you to be able to code java...)
And I happily foresee two developments in the "ai" business for games: The use of small-scale learning algorithms, ala the one Zsozso suggested. And online databases where the local games upload their best patterns. (Where they are evaluated by first a computer, and then, likely, a human, and after eval they are put in a library from which the local games copy extra tricks. Adding to the ai after the release of the game is likely to be a trend, atleast with some companies.)
Ok, the smegheads in economics will probably continue to maintain that only substandard products are worthy of being put on the market. (Someone must be responsible for the abysmal stability of later EA releases.) And they will argue that there is no need to upgrade software once sold.
They will get their sorry asses kicked by on-line gaming, which requires a steady stream of up-dates to keep it fresh. (We're not there yet, but we're going there.)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
James Sterrett
|
|
Glen Mills, PA
Feb 2000 time: 05:13
|
|
Regarding Robot Wars:
You can play a version of this with the game MindRover, wherein you wire together components on small vehicles to program to accomplish various tasks, ranging from races to bumper-cars to rocket duels. The programming is accomplished by the attachment of wires and setting the information that flows down them.
There's a demo available at: http://www.mindrover.com/
[This message has been edited by James Sterrett (edited February 10, 2000).]
|
|
|  |
 |
|
pris
|
|
Sid left Microprose because they were having serious financial trouble & had to get bought out first by Spectrum Holobyte & them Hasbro. In case you've not noticed Microprose haven't released a decent game since Wild Bill left.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
Negative, Alinestra, MicroProse is not associated with Microsoft.
MicroProse is a division of Hasbro Interactive.
----------------
Dan; Apolyton CS
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Greg Foertsch FIRAXIS
|
|
Bkeela and AC,
Sure alot of successful people are egomaniacs, however, you could not be more wrong about Sid.
Greg Foertsch
FIRAXIS GAMES
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13. Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|