Improving The Single Player Game

Examinondas · Post by **Examinondas** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:43 am

Regarding AI troop selection and deployment, I know of a few games which rely on a "database of human actions" to make similar decisions.

Thus, you could create a database of human-created armies and deployments used in multiplayer DAG games (probably sorted by some kind of score based on its success), and then let the AI use them in single-player. Of course you would need a large database so that the AI can randomly choose among a few options, and probably you should also add some purely random elements to spice up things. The database should be updated frequently with new data collected from multiplayer games, so that the system would improve over time. If you want to go even farther, you could use some genetic algorithm to produce better armies and setups.

This might not be a true AI, but I think it would result in a good simulation of a typical human player.

CaptainHuge · Post by **CaptainHuge** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:50 pm

This is not a long term fix, but if you let the single player select two created DAG armies and allow them to deploy both sides, then, when deployment is done, allow the AI to control one side, that would fix the selection and deployment problems.

miki · Post by **miki** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:25 am

Hi gents

I would love to see a single player campaign.

1-You can select your army and initial purchase points.
2-You can select up to three (or other number) different enemy armies to battle against to.
3-You can select the max number of battles of the campaign (in increments of one to five batles, for example)
4-You play the battles. If you win you gain some sort of initiative bonus, more purchase points for the next battle, etc., even allowing to 'upgrade units', that is, purchasing better, veteran, battlegroups, handling the gains in experience in a simple but effective way. In the same way, a lost battle would have some sort of consequence or penalty to the player army.
5-A campaign ranking/record would be great (battles lost, wins, draws, enemy and friendly soldier lost, etc).

Adraeth · Post by **Adraeth** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:05 am

Just like Steel Panthers ^^

miki · Post by **miki** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:12 am

Exactly!

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:09 pm

Ahh FOG, Steel panthers style. Even though such a linked campaign syle game isnt really realsitic for the anient /medieval periord, it would be a lot of fun.

I agree w Captain Huge re AI deployment and army selection. Wouldnt it be so much easier to allow the players to buy and deploy Ai armies , rather than try to program what is likle un-progammable?

Igorputski · Post by **Igorputski** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 1:49 pm

Take a lesson from Creative Assembly and Shogun 2. Make the solo game more DIFFICULT with difficulty levels that are actually difficult against the ai. Improve the ai logic system. Also there would be nothing more dramatic than a CAMPAIGN system like Rome Total War or Greek Total Wars or Spartanlike campaign. Something instead of these boring one off scenarios. We want RANDOM and we want a GOOD AI to play those RANDOM battles with. We want SURPRISES in battles not some layed out boring static map and units. We also want realistic ai battles. Whoever made the Spartacus's last battle scenario sure didn't play test it out enough to see the Slave army wins all the time. That needs to be fixed.

gavril · Post by **gavril** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:49 pm

"CaptainHuge" wrote:

"This is not a long term fix, but if you let the single player select two created DAG armies and allow them to deploy both sides, then, when deployment is done, allow the AI to control one side, that would fix the selection and deployment problems."

I think that's a great idea, and one that would really make the solo game much more of a challenge. I think that enhancing the single player experience is essential to securing the game's long term success.

Cheers,
Jay

Gersen · Post by **Gersen** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:53 am

davouthojo wrote:I'm with Slitherine on this.....partly.

Not to say that they shouldn't do the incremental changes mentioned above, there are some great ideas there.

However, while they will make us happy, I'm not sure they will increase the rate that new players join the FOG system. To do that we need the "buzz" or noise that a significant advance would generate. I can think of only two things:

1) Seriously good AI, that would attract players that like lone challenges, even from other eras

2) Simple campaigns, a la "Panzer General" or "Close Combat" series.
>A series of interlinked scenarios getting progressively more challenging
>Themed with real generals - Hannibal, Caesar, Alexander....
>Different situations, terrains and opposition armies in each scenarios
>Flow over from one scenario to the next - if you do well, your army is better in the next one
>A feature that hooked me in PG (actually Fantasy General) was personalisation of generals and units - you named "1st Macedonian Cavalry" and treasured it as gained battle honours, gained experience and moved from Average to Superior to Elite status

Or these two, my guess is the second would be cheaper to code and increase new player recruitment more

Sorry, just read this thread (one month late), great ideas, davouthojo. +1 for a PG2 type campaign system.

ChrisH · Post by **ChrisH** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:31 pm

Giving the computer more points is the only way to make single player more challenging at the moment. This is doable at the moment by selecting less points than the maximum but I would like to see this as an explicit option.

My biggest bugbear with single player DAG games is the lack of flexibility; there need to be a lot more options. Some things I would like to see are.
1. The ability to add new armies and modify exisitng ones; the mechanism is already there but is blocked for some reason.
2. I would like to able to choose the map size myself and add my own maps. An option for a random map generator would be ideal. Why not add the table top terrain selection systerm?
3. Some control over how the AI chooses troops; the number of generals, which allies to select etc would help replayability.
4. An option for less randomness in combat results would improve things. The table top rules need a simple dice system for speed of play but the computer version could be more complicated. Why not put all the configuration stuff in text files so that I can mess around with it? This goes for things like the points system too.
5. It would be great if I could use photos of my own table top armies instead of the default ones. Support for this looks like it would be quite simple to add.
6. Allow me to continue playing after victory if I want to.

Some changes to reduce the advantage that cheap troops have would help to rebalance things and make more armies viable. I would suggest.
1. Switch to the table top casualty system to avoid the constant attrition of troops even when they win.
2. Increase the range for cohesion tests for routing friends to two hexes for average and three hexes for poor troops,which would make this more like the table top game where poorer troops tend to be in larger battle groups and thus run away in larger quantities.
3. Count poor troops as half for the purposes of victory calculation. Again this would be more like table top where poor troops tend to be in larger battle groups.

I would also like to see a Steel Panthers style campaign would really help to make things more interesting.