AI in Heroes of Might and Magic 5 - Nival principles

[Jolly Joker]

Interesting that you name Warlords. Warlords' Lead Designer is and was Steve Fawkner - who happens to be Design & AI Consultant for H 5, so to see in the Credits of the game.
I know I played a lot Warlords II - a game that had a mighty competetive AI. Cheated like hell, btw.

[zarakand]

Just out of curiosity Jolly Joker, do you find the game challenging on hard or heroic? And do you enjoy the gameplay against the AI.

[ThunderTitan]

Just out of curiosity Jolly Joker, do you find the game challenging on hard or heroic? And do you enjoy the gameplay against the AI.

Of course he does. I mean, he wouldn't go to all thiss trouble arguing with everyone if he didn't, would he!

[Psyringe]

Interesting that you name Warlords. Warlords' Lead Designer is and was Steve Fawkner - who happens to be Design & AI Consultant for H 5, so to see in the Credits of the game.
I know I played a lot Warlords II - a game that had a mighty competetive AI. Cheated like hell, btw.

Of course it cheated. The game was released in 1993, for 386 CPUs - in these times, game designers had to choose between either write a cheating AI, or limit their game's complexity to the level of, say, Risk. But that wasn't my point ... I probably didn't present it too well, so I'll try to sum it up.

In the early 90s, there were very complex games (say, Civ1), and more straightforward games (say, Warlords 2). While writing a competitive non-cheating AI wasn't technically feasible for either game, writing a *competitive* AI for the latter game was easier than doing so for the former. The Warlords 2 AI was much more competitive than the Civ1 AI.

In the Mid-2000s, there are very complex games (say, Civ4 or GalCiv2), and more straightforward games (say, HoMM5). The technology has advanced far enough to make an at least initially competitive non-cheating AI possible for the former games. Hence, it should be very weil possible to write an initially competitive, non-cheating AI for a more straightforward game like HoMM5.

Hence I understand the frustration of HoMM fans who feel disappointed about an apperent AI design approach for HoMM5 which was necessary in the 90s, but has been overcome since then. (I say apparent because, as I cannot check the game's AI myself, and cannot read Russian, I'll give Nival the benefit of the doubt.)

Thanks for the information about Fawkner's involvement with HoMM btw, I didn't know this.

[MistWeaver]

Ok, here we go again.

If you want to, you can think that H IV is oh so complex, but for me it isn't.

Be more attentive, please. I never meant H4 battle to be "oh so complex". I mean that it is more complex than in any other heroes.

I think, however, that the complexity of battles in H IV is highly overrated. The only complex thing there is actually the hero/units ratio or, in other words, the force you field into the battle (i.e. how many heroes and what kind of heroes)

Ok, Jolly here goes direct question:
Where battles are more complex in H5 or H4? And why.
Ill bring here small comparison:

Spells:
H4-many(+ wands&potions); H5-not so many

Heroes on BF:
H4-yes; H5-no

Creatures peculiarities:
H4-many; H5-not so many

Creatures abilities:
H4-spells only; H5-spells+special

Shooting & Casting trajectory blocking (line of sight)
H4-yes; H5-no

--

and by the way, being able to conquer a town with a dozen Titans in it does simply show wrong priorities and no planning abilities

Here its mentioned as level 6 creature handicap for easy and normal levels.
https://www.celestialheavens.com/397

That leaves H V and there we have an opponent again which is why I rate it as on par with H II

Na-a. You see, the only H5 AI salvation is ugly cheating. If you remove at least money cheat - it will be as dead and hoples as in H4. So - it has no where more to move.
But H2 has! People who want to get extra chalenge will pick custom map where H2 AI gets +5k (not 10!!) daily. And belive me that gonna be quite a diffrence.

IN fact it should not even play like one, because it simply cannot.

It cannot if it was developed somewere in nival, that's for sure. While other devs prove opposite

Just why is it so important, whether the AI cheats or not?

Ill try to explain. The TBS game is about making decisions dependent on
prescribed set of rules. If you play with human - you compete with him, you put all your mind skills to win within this set of rules. When you play with non-cheating AI, you compete with the mind of its creator (developer) - a person who knows game perfectly and knows how to automate decisions within this set rules, a really smart person AND a mechanism that can do millions math operations in one second.

When AI starts to use transparent cheating (fixed, and known) - its still ok. For example H2. On highest level its gold resources income doubles. That not breaking the rules much. I know that if Ill capture its mine - ill do hit on its economy.. ets.

But! When AI does ugly cheating (H5) - thats just ruins the game. Victory over that, as you call it, - opponent means nothing! Because this opponent does not play by rules. Its just creating obstacles which you must overpass still playing by game rules. Example with mine will not work in H5, because AI doesnt need it at all, it just makes illusion that it needs it. You see point?
I can illustrate that type of game on chess example, where you must play by chess rules and opponents - may not. But he is moron. So when you killed his bishop, after some time he(AI) puts that bishop back on desk and kills your other piece. That continues until you do some easy trick and kill his king, or until AI will say to himself "ok, I guess now I need to lose, so that human-being will feel himself superior. Just like devs taught me"
Will you, JJ, find that opponent satisfying ?

And were exactly lies the line that makes cheating but agressive AI bad for you ? Lets say if AI would do nothing but constantly produce heroes with constantly growing armies to random directions to destroy any enemy targets. That would not be easy to bring down that one. Though that would be more like turn-based pacman. Are you fine with it ?

[Romanov77]

In soviet russia, good AI creates Nival

[DaemianLucifer]

[Jolly Joker]

On whether I find the AI enjoyable or challenging on hard or heroic: Yes, I do. I think, it depends on what to expect.

Heroes of Might and Magic for me is and was always a game of TIMING most of all (and let's leave out H IV here for a moment). Timing is all-important: when to attack a crucial mine (and when to spare an irrelevant one); how to hero-chain to get the troops where they are needed in time to get the resources in time to bild something in time. How to be at the enemy gate on day 1 (or on day 7, when you play against a human and move after him or her). And so on. It's always about the right timing to make the most out of any given situation.

But timing is not all. Since Heroes 3 you'd be on the lookout for crucial skills - looking for a stack to kill to get the necessary experience to gain another level in the hope of getting, say, expert Earth Magic in 3, or Tactics in 5 or whatever.

All of this is the realm of the adventure AI. I don't think it is possible to develop a satisfactory adventure AI that would really be a challenge IN ITSELF, doing all that, when having to play the same game than a human. If you look at what the AI in Heroes II gets on impossible - more than double income, 2 resources each day for free, knowledge of the map and everything the player does - you cannot say that the AI is playing under the same rules than a human. And why not? How is an AI supposed to play a really sharp game?

The problem is, the AI must be able to reproduce good timing. Since the AI cannot reload you cannot have the AI attacking a stack guarding a priority mine like, say, Sulfur for Inferno/Dungeon - and lose 80% of its army in the process because there were 46 Minotaur Kings guarding the mine and they got moral boosts twice too often. If you'd allow this you had an AI like in H 4 - underdeveloped very often.

However, you cannot allow the AI to "play it safe" either. Taking things only when it's safe will lead to underdevelopment as well because it will simply take too long then. So you need a fair amount of cheating. For example: if deciding whether to attack the AI sees the exact number of creatures; it may emulate the battle; it may half it's losses, if any. If the result is below an allowed % of losses -> attack and conquer. It's cheating for sure, but it's clearly necessary.

RULES. Let's have a look at a certain kind of single-player map we all know of since Heroes III: the ones that have a portal EXIT near your town. Yes, the annoying ones. I'd say, on all these maps - and there are quite a few - the AI opponent is NOT playing under the same rules than the human. The AI opponent may surprise the human every time, but not the other way round, so the rules are QUITE different - with the sole purpose to make things difficult for the human.

On second look ALOT of SP maps let the AI play under their own rules. There's a plethora of maps that give the AI a massive amount of everything. Playing under the same rules?

But here we are not talking about a specific map, we are talking about MP maps. We are talking about the AI playing on randomly created maps. If you play on a high difficulty level you obviously always play against a RICH opponent. It's an opponent whose coffers are well-filled - with money and resources - and who's pressing their subjects for a lot of additional income. For me this is ABSOLUTELY within the set of rules. Why not give the AI a couple additional gold mines? The AI does NOT get additional creatures out of nowhere (as opposed to previous Homms). I think it has better chances for joins, and since it is rich (on higher diff) it can pay for joins as well. Within the rules? Yup, definitely. Rich guys tend to hire additional merceries, if available.

The battle AI is good, no question about it. You'll have fun in a full-blown battle. You'll lose stuff, no question again. At least most of the time. Battling the AI is fun. Does the AI adhere to the rules. Of course it does. Does it get better percentages for all or part of the probability based things? Not that I know of. Would that be a possible AI tweak to make things more difficult? As much as I hate to say it, but I think so, yes.

The main problem some people seem to have is the fact that no AI can emulate the thought processes of a human being. I doubt, that it will ever be possible, on principle: Computers are working with rational numbers (what is named "Q" in arithmetics; the brain is AT LEAST working with irrational numbers (what is named "R") in arithmetics.

All of this doesn't mean there is no room for improvement.

[Mytical]

Ok I am going to try to add my 2cents in..so you may want to skip to the next post. JJ has one aspect right, AI can not in any way shape or form mimic human thought, and probably wont for a very long time. Also, factor in the complex building/resource/ect management the AI has to accomplish it does not seem easy to get an AI that would, without cheating, be able to keep up. I can conceed that much gracefully.

Now...I personally don't mind the AI cheating, as long as it isn't god awful cheating, and as long as said cheating makes it interesting but not insane. So yeah, I can see it being able to calculate losses/benifits/ratios.. I can even see giving it a small boost in resources, have no problem with that whatsoever. When you give it near unlimited resources, armies that appear out of nowhere (and not campain driven either), and remove it's need for mines it becomes a little crazy. If you cut off a human enemies resources, you've all but won baring some fluke of fate. Maybe the skill tree, resource algorithems, building prereqs are too much for the ai and need to be scaled back to allow a AI to actually stand a chance.

[DaemianLucifer]

In the Mid-2000s

Somewhere around 2500,you mean?

On whether I find the AI enjoyable or challenging on hard or heroic: Yes, I do. I think, it depends on what to expect.

Heroes of Might and Magic for me is and was always a game of TIMING most of all (and let's leave out H IV here for a moment). Timing is all-important: when to attack a crucial mine (and when to spare an irrelevant one); how to hero-chain to get the troops where they are needed in time to get the resources in time to bild something in time. How to be at the enemy gate on day 1 (or on day 7, when you play against a human and move after him or her). And so on. It's always about the right timing to make the most out of any given situation.

Well that sure explains a lot.You enjoy the cheating AI because you play a game of exploits.Fair enough.But some of us dont like exploits,thus lots of things get banned in the MP.

All of this is the realm of the adventure AI. I don't think it is possible to develop a satisfactory adventure AI that would really be a challenge IN ITSELF, doing all that, when having to play the same game than a human. If you look at what the AI in Heroes II gets on impossible - more than double income, 2 resources each day for free, knowledge of the map and everything the player does - you cannot say that the AI is playing under the same rules than a human. And why not? How is an AI supposed to play a really sharp game?

Yes,it got a few extra mines,but on imposible,not on normal.And it had to spend those extra resources,not get free buildings.I have nothing against an option to make the AI more difficult for experienced players by giving it extra resources,but this should be reserved just for higher dificulties.I checked the options of space empires V,and it has maybe the best map setup Ive ever seen.For the AI you choose both the difficulty and handicap/bonus.So you can have a dumb AI with tons of resources,or a smart one with nothing at all.

The problem is, the AI must be able to reproduce good timing. Since the AI cannot reload you cannot have the AI attacking a stack guarding a priority mine like, say, Sulfur for Inferno/Dungeon - and lose 80% of its army in the process because there were 46 Minotaur Kings guarding the mine and they got moral boosts twice too often. If you'd allow this you had an AI like in H 4 - underdeveloped very often.

However, you cannot allow the AI to "play it safe" either. Taking things only when it's safe will lead to underdevelopment as well because it will simply take too long then. So you need a fair amount of cheating. For example: if deciding whether to attack the AI sees the exact number of creatures; it may emulate the battle; it may half it's losses, if any. If the result is below an allowed % of losses -> attack and conquer. It's cheating for sure, but it's clearly necessary.

Using a bit different quick combat for pure AI battles,one that gets more lucky rolls is no big deal.Like someone said,an AI opponent that simulates a child struck with incredible luck posses no problem,and is enjoyable to beat.But an AI that simulates a child that cheats heavilly is a problem.

RULES. Let's have a look at a certain kind of single-player map we all know of since Heroes III: the ones that have a portal EXIT near your town. Yes, the annoying ones. I'd say, on all these maps - and there are quite a few - the AI opponent is NOT playing under the same rules than the human. The AI opponent may surprise the human every time, but not the other way round, so the rules are QUITE different - with the sole purpose to make things difficult for the human.

But we arent talking about SP maps but MP maps.There is a huge difference.In MP maps you want those computer opponents to act as close to human behaviour as posible.

But here we are not talking about a specific map, we are talking about MP maps. We are talking about the AI playing on randomly created maps. If you play on a high difficulty level you obviously always play against a RICH opponent. It's an opponent whose coffers are well-filled - with money and resources - and who's pressing their subjects for a lot of additional income. For me this is ABSOLUTELY within the set of rules. Why not give the AI a couple additional gold mines? The AI does NOT get additional creatures out of nowhere (as opposed to previous Homms). I think it has better chances for joins, and since it is rich (on higher diff) it can pay for joins as well. Within the rules? Yup, definitely. Rich guys tend to hire additional merceries, if available.

Um...Wait,additional creatures out of nowhere?Isnt that exactly what free buildings are?And I dont seem to remember HIII getting free anything.It just got more initial resources,and thats it.

The main problem some people seem to have is the fact that no AI can emulate the thought processes of a human being. I doubt, that it will ever be possible, on principle: Computers are working with rational numbers (what is named "Q" in arithmetics; the brain is AT LEAST working with irrational numbers (what is named "R") in arithmetics.

Thats so untrue.In any simulation(and computer games are simulations,not always acurate real world simulations,but simulations nevertheless)AI can act exactly as a human,if it is given enough power.1 GB ram may be not enough to emulate an expert heroes player,but it sure is enough to emulate the actions of some n00b.

Ok I am going to try to add my 2cents in..so you may want to skip to the next post. JJ has one aspect right, AI can not in any way shape or form mimic human thought, and probably wont for a very long time.

Yes,it was some guy in a box posing as deep blue Give the AI enoguh rules and enough processing power and it will beat any human in any game.

[Jolly Joker]

Heroes of Might and Magic for me is and was always a game of TIMING most of all (and let's leave out H IV here for a moment). Timing is all-important: when to attack a crucial mine (and when to spare an irrelevant one); how to hero-chain to get the troops where they are needed in time to get the resources in time to bild something in time. How to be at the enemy gate on day 1 (or on day 7, when you play against a human and move after him or her). And so on. It's always about the right timing to make the most out of any given situation.

Well that sure explains a lot.You enjoy the cheating AI because you play a game of exploits.Fair enough.But some of us dont like exploits,thus lots of things get banned in the MP.

I play within the given rules. It hass nothing to do with exploits. The notion as such is ridiculous. If you play under severe money constraints and find the money to invest in hero-chaining it's not only perfectly legal it's common practise in every MP game.

All of this is the realm of the adventure AI. I don't think it is possible to develop a satisfactory adventure AI that would really be a challenge IN ITSELF, doing all that, when having to play the same game than a human. If you look at what the AI in Heroes II gets on impossible - more than double income, 2 resources each day for free, knowledge of the map and everything the player does - you cannot say that the AI is playing under the same rules than a human. And why not? How is an AI supposed to play a really sharp game?

Yes,it got a few extra mines,but on imposible,not on normal.And it had to spend those extra resources,not get free buildings.I have nothing against an option to make the AI more difficult for experienced players by giving it extra resources,but this should be reserved just for higher dificulties.I checked the options of space empires V,and it has maybe the best map setup Ive ever seen.For the AI you choose both the difficulty and handicap/bonus.So you can have a dumb AI with tons of resources,or a smart one with nothing at all.

The AI in H 5 doesn't cheat on NORMAL. It can even build only every second day. The AI should always play its best. It's handicapped anyway.

Using a bit different quick combat for pure AI battles,one that gets more lucky rolls is no big deal.Like someone said,an AI opponent that simulates a child struck with incredible luck posses no problem,and is enjoyable to beat.But an AI that simulates a child that cheats heavilly is a problem.

The AI doesn't cheat at all in battles against a human.

RULES. Let's have a look at a certain kind of single-player map we all know of since Heroes III: the ones that have a portal EXIT near your town. Yes, the annoying ones. I'd say, on all these maps - and there are quite a few - the AI opponent is NOT playing under the same rules than the human. The AI opponent may surprise the human every time, but not the other way round, so the rules are QUITE different - with the sole purpose to make things difficult for the human.

But we arent talking about SP maps but MP maps.There is a huge difference.In MP maps you want those computer opponents to act as close to human behaviour as posible.

No. You want the AI to play as good as possible. The only difference I see in SP maps is that it is a more controlled environment.

Um...Wait,additional creatures out of nowhere?Isnt that exactly what free buildings are?And I dont seem to remember HIII getting free anything.It just got more initial resources,and thats it.

Take a town in H 3 on the first day and you'll see exactly the bonus creatures the AI gets. And "free buildings" aren't free; the AI can build only one per day (and that only on higher diff) and has to adhere to building limitations as well.

The main problem some people seem to have is the fact that no AI can emulate the thought processes of a human being. I doubt, that it will ever be possible, on principle: Computers are working with rational numbers (what is named "Q" in arithmetics; the brain is AT LEAST working with irrational numbers (what is named "R") in arithmetics.

Thats so untrue.In any simulation(and computer games are simulations,not always acurate real world simulations,but simulations nevertheless)AI can act exactly as a human,if it is given enough power.1 GB ram may be not enough to emulate an expert heroes player,but it sure is enough to emulate the actions of some n00b.

Now that's silly. I'm talking about emulating human thought processes, and NO AI can do that. No PC or pc game can. Get down onto earth again. A simulation has nothing to do with humans. You can, for example simulate an engine, the workings of a machine, even a complex system of machines and their workings, but not humans and their thought processes. You just CAN'T

Mod note: use quote tags instead of putting your replies in italics. It'll be much easier for everyone to read. GC

[DaemianLucifer]

I play within the given rules. It hass nothing to do with exploits. The notion as such is ridiculous. If you play under severe money constraints and find the money to invest in hero-chaining it's not only perfectly legal it's common practise in every MP game.

I was refering more to the day 1 exploit.It is a clear exploit,you must admit that too.Play first,and you are guaranteed an unfair advantage over all others.

The AI in H 5 doesn't cheat on NORMAL. It can even build only every second day. The AI should always play its best. It's handicapped anyway.

Im not sure about that.Ill have to ask Sir_Toejam to check,because I have no idea where the starting bonuses are located.

The AI doesn't cheat at all in battles against a human.

I never said it does.What I said it that that kind of cheating would be ok.

No. You want the AI to play as good as possible. The only difference I see in SP maps is that it is a more controlled environment.

Curently the way humans play is best as possible,thats why I said as close to human as posible.

Take a town in H 3 on the first day and you'll see exactly the bonus creatures the AI gets. And "free buildings" aren't free; the AI can build only one per day (and that only on higher diff) and has to adhere to building limitations as well.

Those buildings are still free(cost 0 money).An increadably big bonus.

Now that's silly. I'm talking about emulating human thought processes, and NO AI can do that. No PC or pc game can. Get down onto earth again. A simulation has nothing to do with humans. You can, for example simulate an engine, the workings of a machine, even a complex system of machines and their workings, but not humans and their thought processes. You just CAN'T

Correction:It cant yet.Who knows whatll happen 1000 years from now.But thats not important.You dont need AI to think as a human to outmatch him in a computer game.AI can always play better than human in any game if it is given enough power.

[ThunderTitan]

Now that's silly. I'm talking about emulating human thought processes, and NO AI can do that. No PC or pc game can. Get down onto earth again. A simulation has nothing to do with humans. You can, for example simulate an engine, the workings of a machine, even a complex system of machines and their workings, but not humans and their thought processes. You just CAN'T

I know a bunch of scientists that would dissagree. If they're right and we're nothing but a bunch of biological machines then there's nothing irrational about our thinking, so simulation wouldn't be a problem. Once we know every variable used that is.

And an AI doesn't even have to think like a human to play like one, you just have to make it able to see every variable in the game. Complicated - yes, impossible - no.

[okrane]

I foresee I 20 page thread here... and in the end we will reach the unanimous conclusion that we can't reach an unanimous conclusion... so... let's give it a rest shall we?
You know pretty good no matter how much we argue here no one will change his mind, nor the developpers will change their game... so...why are we arguing?

[ThunderTitan]

Arguing is fun. Now go away and let us enjoy it.

[Jolly Joker]

It get's too philosophical here. It's the deterministic approach that once you know every variable you can do.
That needs some requirements, though. It must be possible (in general) every variable and the number of variables must be finite or at least countable infinite (like the rational numbers, Q, as opposed to UNcountable infinite like R). Luckily enough the universe in general and the human brain specifically seem to be working with the Uncountable infinite approach. Many scientists and philosophers seem to believe that Heisenberg proved the general impossibility of determining every variable and I tend to agree with them.
However, that's pretty much irrelevant. We are talking about a simple pc game here. The AI is simply not able to emulate a human brain, it plays in a completely different league.

[DaemianLucifer]

It get's too philosophical here. It's the deterministic approach that once you know every variable you can do.
That needs some requirements, though. It must be possible (in general) every variable and the number of variables must be finite or at least countable infinite (like the rational numbers, Q, as opposed to UNcountable infinite like R). Luckily enough the universe in general and the human brain specifically seem to be working with the Uncountable infinite approach. Many scientists and philosophers seem to believe that Heisenberg proved the general impossibility of determining every variable and I tend to agree with them.

Heisenerg was talking about the universe itself,and particle interactions,not human brain.Human brain is just a giant organic computer.Though much more advanced than classical electronic computer,it is copyable.Maybe not now,maybe not in 100 years,but in 1000 years we will probably have an exact duplicate of a human brain.Oh,and mind you that scientist did manage to breed a cats brain(or at least part of it.I stopped following that experiment,but I dont think its still finished),so breeding a fully functional human brain isnt pure SF any more.

However, that's pretty much irrelevant. We are talking about a simple pc game here. The AI is simply not able to emulate a human brain, it plays in a completely different league.

Why?Because you say so?It can emulate a game of some n00b very well(or at least it could if someone at least tried to develop it).In many games it can now emulate even average to expert players(yes,I am talking about civ/civ-like games).

I foresee I 20 page thread here... and in the end we will reach the unanimous conclusion that we can't reach an unanimous conclusion... so... let's give it a rest shall we?
You know pretty good no matter how much we argue here no one will change his mind, nor the developpers will change their game... so...why are we arguing?

Simple:people like to fight.Wheter it is actual war,sports,computer game or words,people enjoy fighting.Profesional soldiers dont go to war to win,but to fight the enemy.

[Jolly Joker]

DL, those games don't emulate human thought processes; they just follow a pre-programmed pattern.
"Human brain is just a giant organic computer."
That is a pretty stupid statement. If you believe that, you'll believe everything.

[DaemianLucifer]

DL, those games don't emulate human thought processes; they just follow a pre-programmed pattern.

AI follows a pre-programmed pattern that is very similar to decisions a human would make under such conditions,or at least tries to be similar.And that is the exact definition of emulation.

"Human brain is just a giant organic computer."
That is a pretty stupid statement. If you believe that, you'll believe everything.

Then I suppose proving it wrong will be a piece of cake for you

[Jolly Joker]

You got that one wrong. I don't have to prove it wrong, you have to prove it right. It's like I'd say, Vega has an earthlilke planet in orbit. There's life on one of the bigger Jupiter or Saturn moons. The human brain is just a big organic computer. Yeah, right.
Now the point here is, though: even if it was, that's only the hardware. You need the software as well. AND the interface.
And, no, the AI does NOT follow pre-programmed patterns that are very similar to decisions a human would make. Definitely not.