Board Game AI?

amazing post on simplification, it is true that video games can be considered just larger values of a simpler system

although i myself am against AI that is too lengthy to track in a board game, IMO only a chain of command no higher than 3 is satisfactory, for a board game that is

Hi Lofwyr

Don't worry, I have not abandoned my game at all. It's a big endeavor and will be challenging, but that's what makes it a fun project. Thank you for your words of encouragement, though. I definitely like being challenged and actually want people to challenge my ideas as much as possible (particularly, in a friendly, constructive manner). Your post was well received, and well thought out. Sometimes people just need to have things laid out in front of them.

I definitely think a board game AI system can be incredibly simple yet still have depth, complexity, and fun. In my game, enemies use two combat dice, one that determines the ability to use, and another determines the target. It's as simple as rolling two die and the monster's actions are decided. Additionally, where designed as such, the cards may override or circumvent the dice, to prevent any obvious and erroneous actions (such as the monster healing an enemy). The cards can also dictate a certain ability in a certain situation. For example, the Fire Elemental may use Combustion his first turn with HP less than 5.

You are right that player anticipation and adaptation is key. To help broaden the target audience and keep more people interested, simplicity is also key. You are right, again, that the question should always be "Is this fun?" (As an engineer, the question in my mind, work or non-work related, is "Does this solve the problem?"

Anyways, I would be really happy to see some of your projects and how you have implemented AI mechanics into your games. In return, I would be happy to provide constructive feedback as well.

Thanks for the post, Lofwyr. It's always great to hear other people's ideas and opinions. Enjoy your Labor Day weekend!

TwentyPercent

I'm intrigued, as recent feedback on my game included "if this could be played solitaire, I'd be all over it".

My game (Magic Maelstrom) has a lot of player interaction, with alternate player actions, so, whilst being grateful for the feedback, I filed it away as 'interesting'.

Now you are making me reconsider. If the Board Game AI can have some decision making taken by other players then I can see how I could make this work, but for solitaire, I can only see scripted responses, as described by Lew...am I wrong?

In an era when most players don't even read the rules, someone explains them - yes, there was a time when a large proportion of players actually read the rules - a wall of text artificial opponent is very problematic. Unfortunately, so is anything that uses tables or flowcharts - publishers will usually tell you those are no-nos. It has to be in a deck of cards, pretty much, as in Pandemic. When a computer is used, all those more-complex options are available. No computer, forget it, in the 21st century.

Furthermore, any simple artificial opponent is predictable. Solo or cooperative tabletop games are actually puzzles, where you can calculate a best move once you know the artificial opponent well. That's why co-op games have different levels of difficulty, as players learn to consistently beat the artificial opponent at simpler difficulty.

For that matter, most single-player video games amount to puzzles, as players learn the best solution, which leads to "speed runs" where the player can fire through the game in a few minutes that originally took many hours to play.

I'm afraid I didn't get the point of the Aggro example. First, a simple tabletop aggro mechanic (especially without random factors) can probably be "gamed" by the player(s) to guide what the opponent does. Second, I think aggro is a crutch invented for MMOs so that the computer opponents can be predictable and so contribute to "the grind" - the stupid computer opponent attacks the tanks while the dps guys slaughter it and the healers cure the tanks. That doesn't happen with a good human referee, the badguys go after the dps pukes first. (Or the healers if healing is REALLY important.) Third, does a method of representing aggro even begin to approach what a good computer opponent can do? Not only no, but Hell No.

A major advantage of tabletop games over computer games is that humans are immensely better opponents than any computer opponent, unless the game is essentially a sport depending on perception and reflexes. Some things are better done with a computer, some with tabletop games. A non-player opponent is much better done with computers.

If the players are rolling the dice for the artificial opponent, then they know the odds, which makes the AO predictable if not entirely controllable. In computer opponents, randomization is often unused, making the opponent highly predictable and ultimately controllable.

Of course, "it depends".

Big thread, I'll try not to repeat what has already been said.

Of course, some game/mechanic can be AIed more easily than other. The RPG example is one of the easiest one. That is exactly what I did for my Wizardry Legacy video game, you build up an action table with various probability and select an entry randomly. Simple and usable in board games, the D&D dungeon crawl did it.

Now there are other games that even if the calculation is simple, there is so many calculation that a human mind cannot do it.

For example, in Reversi the board could be evaluated by counting the number of pieces of a players color afer a certain move and then calculate all the possible move of the opponent after each of those move and select the move with the best scenario (least worst move). If a player can play in 30 different position, you end up with 30x29 board evaluation to do which is simply impossible to do. Add up important position worth more points (like corners) and you simply complexify the calculation.

I also did an AI for playing Starcraft board game as solitaire. It works, but there are still many situation that occured that I did not consider in the rules, so it's hard to anticipate all possibilities and assign an AI action.

Finally, the worst AI I have seen are for 4X video games (Civ and company), even today most of them sucks. Mostly because the game depends on different micro AI that needs to communicate with each other. There could be ways to simplify the game design to avoid the need of AI. For example, instead of moving individual unit on hexes, you could make all unit stay in cities and move from cities to cities. That simplify the path finding AI and avoid bad maneuvers.

I tried using an AI in a 4X board game of mine. The results were pretty limited, and I ended up rather using a system where those AI kingdoms could be manipulated by the players.

I am even thinking about designing some board game like games as a video game and the biggest threat for me is AI.

So yes, Board Game and Video Game AI are different in the amount of calculation in a given time it can do, in an amount of information it can remember (including the possibility to learn while playing). These are 2 important variable that determines what could be possibly implemented in a board game.

Sorry, a bit late, but can't resist.

What OP (and others) say, to summarize, is actually "some types of very simple game AI, like RPG-enemies or zombies, you can make that in a boardgame by just drawing a card or rolling some dice".

That is not very controversial, or interesting. What is interesting is trying to push the limits of how interesting and fun and surprising you can make boardgame enemy AI without making the game an unplayable mess of lookup-tables. Yes, the player could do any computation that the computer could, but as noted even a very simple program will take ages for a human to process, when a computer can do so in less than a millisecond. Also to make anything interesting the AI is going to have to save some state, and you not only have to save that, but also keep the player as ignorant as possible about what the state means (usually using numbered codes or code-words) (it is not very fun to know all the enemy plans, so they are ideally encoded in some way that makes the player have to try really hard (ie cheat) to figure out what they are).

There are some boardgames that do a very good job at including unpredictable but clever AI opponents (eg Ambush!) but I have not seen one that can do that while also be playable by average (21st century) boardgame players. To retain the amount of intelligence that the opponents in Ambush! have, but still be playable, THAT is a difficult and interesting problem, and no small tricks that works to simulate a WoW boss is of much help. I can think of (and have to some extent implemented) a few shortcuts that try to keep as much as possible of what Ambush! can do, but I can't claim that in doing so I also had to remove some fun parts. There are probably some very playable, elegant solution waiting to be found.

Making zombies decide what character to eat next, or script a semi-random RPG boss is lowest level of AI to figure out. Look beyond that to find the real problems, and then we can discuss (board)game AI and how complex it is (or not, if you still claim that).

@Lewpuls
Some people prefer it, myself included. But non-randomizing AI isn't used nearly as often as it was in the old days.

Modern game developer's usually implement a number of randomized factors into their AI to make them feel more a living being. Enemies usually don't "Move Up" because of a set state... but because a random number is less than their aggression level.

Even Valves "Director" in Left4Dead is little more than a fancy RNG. While the developers tell stories about it watching you and studying your moves... its not actually doing that. It is just a hidden threat rating that goes up over time and drops when you take a hit. Every frame a random number is rolled... if it's lower than your threat they spawn a powerful enemy.

Valve's real success was that they make people think it was more than that. Player's don't know what is happening internally, which means appearance is everything.

Developers use a number of tricks to make the AI look more human. Part of this is using randomization to create an unpredictable "Living" opponent.

*My source... I used to write AI for games.

Crazy as this sounds, thats also one of the biggest weaknesses in computer AI. The hidden calculations and randomizing means that players often argue that the AI is "Cheating". If a manual die roll has 2 critical hits in a row it's bad luck, but if an AI does it the game was clearly cheating.

Something that is becoming increasingly common in games is to actually cheat in the players favor. I've seen everything from:
- Enemies have excellent accuracy while the player is at full health, but can't hit a dying one.
- Enemies can't shoot a player in the back.
- Enemies refuse to use cover while flanking because to a player who didn't see him... the enemy teleported behind him.
- Dungeons of Dredmore fudges dice rolls to ensure that the player doesn't encounter too many bad things in a row.
- The new X-Com fudges dice rolls in the players favor (About +15% I think) on Easy and Normal. Funny note on this... do a bit of research and you'll note that many players think that classic mode where the AI is cheating.
- My own personal computer version of Cards Of Cthulhu features "EZ Dice" where rerolls are less likely to be worse than their original value. Even knowing the code in and out... I felt like the game was BSing me sometimes.

To be fair, I do prefer games with set patterns rather than random. I'm an old-school gamer and I like my levels being a puzzle rather than a twitch-fest.

The only major problem with patterns is that they suck for re-playability*. Speed Runs, Pacifist Runs, etc are part of the video game world. It's an accepted part of video gaming.
Very few players keep playing Arkham Horror to see if they can win faster. They play it for the challenge of overcoming the challenge each time.

Ian

* Each enemy having a pattern is fine as long as the freshness comes from elsewhere. A book of custom puzzle maps, random enemies every game, etc.