Avoiding repetition by City/Hero quest templates

I like to micro everything when my empire is small.  Is there a way to micro everything for a huge empire AND without the repetition by clever use of UI?  I am proposing a questing/queuing system for hero/city that might allow exactly that.  I’ve written a crude from of this in this post

For example, Gamer quests a city concerned to build 10 Bear Calvary units.  The game will automatically calculate what buildings will be needed.   The game will queue up all buildings required in its production queue automatically, and then the 10 units.    Gamer can then fine tune the queue calculated when needed.  Whenever a building/unit is created or a city quest is completed, the game notify gamer via his event log.

This basically means the gamer has created a new template on what he demands from a city.  It is not AI governor and gamer can see exactly what the city will end up doing in coming turns.   These City Quests templates can be reused and apply to multiple cities to your liking.  The UI allows you to reuse the templates to group of cities.

Gamer can assign quests to his heroes.   Gamer select a hero stack moving it from point A to point B, arrow shows up indicating the its route.  Gamer can adjust its route using rally points ala google map.   At any point of its route, the stack can be ordered to do some, if not all of the following quests.  Instead of writing all this on my own hero quest templates, I’ve hijacked NTJedi’s post (I’ve added the point #0 & #0a)
0) Gather troops: Friendly unit(s) joins the stack and move along with the hero afterwards. 
0a) Hire troops:  same as above, the hero hire mercenary when they are encountered.
1) Guard: Unit(s) does not move on the map and always stands its ground.
2) Guard Area: Unit(s) normally does not move on the map, but will attack any player units within its movement reach.
3) Wise Guard: Unit(s) does not move, but will attack any player units within movement reach which are overall weaker.
4) Patrol: Unit(s) randomly travel within 15 squares of original position and will attack any enemy player units it sees.
5) Wise Patrol: Unit(s) randomly travel within 15 squares of original position and will attack any enemy player units it sees which are overall weaker.
6) Thief: Unit(s) randomly travels into areas on the map and will take unguarded resources, items, and structures, but will not attack any player units.  Unit(s) will return to a friendly town for dropping off any items or resources collected.   
7) Raid: Unit(s) randomly travel the map attacking, burning and looting any structures.  Unit(s) do not attack any player units unless they are protecting a targeted structure.
8) Wander: Unit(s) randomly travel the map peacefully.
9) Skill Actor: Unit(s) travel the map using their special skill.  Thus a healer type will travel towards wounded units, a dryad would increase nature growth on a tile, a trader would transport goods, etc., etc., .
10) Scout: Unit(s) randomly travels the unexplored map areas with a second focus of avoiding units from enemy players.
11) Conqueror: Unit(s) randomly travels the unexplored map areas seeking to attack any enemy units or structures.  These units will attack any enemy units after moving 5 turns.
12) …. (refer to NTJedi’s post to keep reading)


The hero will write entries to gamers’ event log whenever the quest succeed/fail or got a new unexpected encounter within its sight.

6,525 views 19 replies
Reply #1 Top

Couldn't hurt!

Reply #2 Top

The use of quest is misleading.  You're asking for a smart order que that fills in the blanks to achieve the given command, and preset attitudes that will automate certain things.

 

It's something I definitely want to see, but a very misleading title. :)

Reply #3 Top

Very interesting, I like it. I could see myself using something like this on occasion. Although I'm traditionally a big picture kind of guy and don't micromanage unless necessary.

Reply #4 Top

It's something I definitely want to see, but a very misleading title.
End of quote

I think that "royal decree" would be abetter term.

Reply #5 Top

Quoting psychoak, reply 2
The use of quest is misleading.  You're asking for a smart order que that fills in the blanks to achieve the given command, and preset attitudes that will automate certain things.

It's something I definitely want to see, but a very misleading title.

End of psychoak's quote

IT-land is profoundly polluted with bad slash-compounds, so it's understandable that he'd use a slash instead of "and." The bulk of the OP is about champion assignments, so quests seems reasonable to include in the title to me.

And I definitely like the idea of seeing AI help the players in this sort of situation. (I'm also very greedy and like even more the idea that these assistant-AIs would be able to notice when their zone of action has gotten weird, turn themselves off, and tell you to come look.)

Reply #6 Top

Goodmorning all

This idea is very simulare to my Guided AI idea
https://forums.elementalgame.com/357530

Any or all of those could be set up as goals, Town goals, Hero goals, Army goals.

and the UI would outline precisly what actions it would take to achive the goals given. Which you would then be able to edit the action plan to your likeing.

I tend to agree that for some of the Goals mentioned 'quest' is a poor chose of word.  A quest goal for a single person or small team, normally of a simple nature ['bring me the holy grail' being a quest that got a bit out of control.]

'Questing' a town to make 10 bugbear troops.... seams aquward. 

Thats my 2 copper

Take care all

Robbie Price.

Reply #7 Top

Probably ‘quest’ is the wrong word for this, ‘Order’ maybe more appropriate.  
Robbie, my approach is different to yours.   All orders do not involve AI’s speculation at all.  Even if there are a few pre-requisites for the Stable building, the game will queue up the pre-req in a sequence determined by its building cost (or some other quantifiable criteria).   The game UI explicitly tells how it is prioritized.  The UI shows the queue and allows gamer to adjust it; nothing is hidden compared to AI governor, or try giving AI a goal to achieve.

Even when some pre-req building requires tech research, the game will queue up the tech research, which the sequence is also adjustable by gamer.

Here I am not asking SD devs to create AI that defend the city well, or do something that requires AI’s judgment.  There are a lot of mouse clicks that can be saved by my suggestion, for simple things like building a structure or order a hero around, all sort of mandane tasks.

This UI feature allows Macro-management without the use of AI governor (which will surely disappoint).  For those for when to mirco, they can queue up all production the old fashion way, one by one.  For macro guys (or when your empire is have 20+ cities), he probably doesn’t mind building new structures in a slightly inefficient way.

The same principle applies to orders given to heroes.  All orders are clear cut & well defined.  Whenever the heroes encounter something requires attention in its LOS, he writes a log entry.

This suggestion should reduce a lot of Micro what most of us don't wants!

Reply #8 Top

i would have to disagree about the most of us not wanting micro, I think the poll on that would probably come out wieghted well in favour of micro. . . but. 

I think we're talking two sides of the same coin.

My suggestion is that all AI's that work for you should be transparent, and demonstrate thier logic and what steps they are going to take to achive thier goals. 

You say give the town the goal of blot,  I say give the AI the goal of Blot, in that town.
you say the game would open up research if need be, put the prereque tech somewhere, you ajust
   I say the AI would have in it's list of subgoals, Develope this tech, then in the how to section,  'include research this tech between blot and blotprime [proably by showing the research tech UI]' 

The only differeance is that My suggestion has ALL The AI's you want working for you all in one meta AI including the AI town governer,  and none of them will disapoint, because none of them will surprise you,  if you set the AI govner on a town, it showes you what it thinks your town needs, why, what goals it's setting for itself, and what it's going to build to meet those goals.  and if you don't like it, you change them. no more dissapointment,  no more global, AI goveners can't build A, B, C, D, and E,  Units build by AI govener start as patrol, search, blot.  This is not a case of choose one at random from the list.


You say tomAto, i say tomahto, what do you think?


Reply #9 Top

Quoting Robbie.Price, reply 8
The only differeance is that My suggestion has ALL The AI's you want working for you all in one meta AI including the AI town governer,  and none of them will disapoint, because none of them will surprise you,  if you set the AI govner on a town, it showes you what it thinks your town needs, why, what goals it's setting for itself, and what it's going to build to meet those goals.  and if you don't like it, you change them. no more dissapointment,  no more global, AI goveners can't build A, B, C, D, and E,  Units build by AI govener start as patrol, search, blot.  This is not a case of choose one at random from the list.


You say tomAto, i say tomahto, what do you think?
End of Robbie.Price's quote

I think your idea is too lofty. Don't get me wrong, if they did it it would be awesome, but I just don't see it happening. Have an AI capable of doing the kinds of things you want while taking the 'bigger picture' from the player via some method of communication still seems like sci-fi to me, unless you get a billion dollar DoD contract... And the problem is, if they try for something like this and fail, they end up with a lump of worthless coal.

Reply #10 Top

Actually, this sort of thing looks feasible, especially since this sort of thing will be included in the opponent AI anyway. The "parser" for the objectives might take a little work, but that should be fairly simple as well.

Reply #11 Top

Quoting Scoutdog, reply 10
Actually, this sort of thing looks feasible, especially since this sort of thing will be included in the opponent AI anyway. The "parser" for the objectives might take a little work, but that should be fairly simple as well.
End of Scoutdog's quote

I disagree. If it were easy or simple in any way to make an AI able to converse meaningfully with a human, then AI governors - not to mention diplomacy with AIs - and the like would be so much better than they are. Getting an AI of today to actually understand human intentions and goals and strategies seems like way too much to ask.

But then, whether or not I disagree on its feasibility is irrelevant because I'm not a professional programmer or game developer or anything like that, and I wouldn't be the one tasked with the job :P

Reply #12 Top

I want control, which is not necessarily micro.  If I have to put up with micro to get control, I'll take the micro over an irritating abstraction or automation that disagrees with my choices.  If I can do something without micro while still retaining control, I'll be happy as can be.  Well, happy for a cynic that thinks the world is going down the shitter.

Reply #13 Top

I agree with Post #9 to 11. 

Robbie, your idea is at one higher level of the micromanagement spectrum.  The lowest form of the spectrum starts at micro everything, aka traditional TBS.  Mine is the next higher one, automate everything possible without the use of AI, the AI never make any decision on behalf of you.   Yours is a version of AI governor.  Then the highest level of the spectrum is AI play the game (basically) without gamers’ input, aka MOO3.

Quoting psychoak, reply 12
… If I can do something without micro while still retaining control, I'll be happy as can be….
End of psychoak's quote


Basically, I am suggesting a way that the UI do most of the micro while gamer still retaining complete control.

Reply #14 Top

I agree that Robbies AI-assistant ideas are ambitious, but I wonder if they're not quite as ambitious as pigeon and Climber seem to think. I can't find it quickly, but some time ago, Brad made an OP that discussed just how 'smart' PCs could become as multiple cores and 64-bit BUS become the norm. He sounded very ambitious to me there, but he's a pro and I'm not. (He also avoided direct talk about timeframes, IIRC.)

Anyhow, it might be pie-in-the-sky for Elemental, but maybe even by GC3 we could see the beginnings of the kind of truly smart (observant) player-assist AIs that Robbie (and I) would like to see. Until then, I'm with psycho:

I want control, which is not necessarily micro. If I have to put up with micro to get control, I'll take the micro over an irritating abstraction or automation that disagrees with my choices. If I can do something without micro while still retaining control, I'll be happy as can be. ..
End of quote

Reply #15 Top

Goodmorning all,

I know that the system i am proposing is ambitious,  but i don't think it is overly ambitious.

Consider, half the system is almost a requirment. the A top down AI desission making process will be needed.

Some part of the AI will have to desided what it's top priorities are, and baced on those top priorities devise secondary goals, and from those what direct actions it will need to take.

At this stage all i'm adding is that those choises contain strings, expressing explicately what the meta, goal, and subgoals are, and since the AI must have some way of deciding to do B because of A, then have a string expressing that,


Now you have a system where you can ask the AI what it is upto.

so you make that list, and parts of it, Espionoge stealable,  you make parts of that that list also accesesible to users when they turn on Govners and managers of cities/caravans/whatever.  Still free.

Now if you wrap that all into one AI governing aid-de-campe.  You've got a very powerful too, highly mod-able, to the extent that users can Program thier own Complete AI's to compeat against one another.

Now the hard part, Since players can Steal AI plans,   AI's need to be able to steal User plans. 
Thats harder.  but not impossible, Consider if the AI tools are powerful and useful enough, people will volentairally keep them mostly accurate.  "build me a stables, and weapons and armour, to equip Bear calvary" [more accurately, subgoal, Build: Bear Calvary, Actions: Build: Stable,weapons(of bear calvery),armour(of bear calvery)].

Now you have the AI fill in the Meta goals, by looking at all the goals, and guessing what Meta goals the user is going for [unless the AI is directly told ofcourse]  for any set of exlicate or obvious subgoals the goals can be guessed moderately accurately,  and the Meta goals from those goals.  At first it would be inaccurate, but if it is capable of remembering which meta goals seamed favoured by the user, eventually it would learn.

The last step IS hard, and it IS going to be more work, probably involving at least a small neuronet like proccessing stage. I do not belive it is beyond Stardock, personally.  and even if THAT part of the AI isn't perfect the rest is easy enough and WELL within Stardocks abilities I am confident in that. If they choose to, they could. 

It would add a LOT to gameplay to have an AI govnor who isn't doing blind secret stuff behind your back and always needs to be corrected for building the wrong buildings or making units you don't need can't afford. (like every other 4X 4E game ever).

and it is possible.
I'm pritty sure i could find at least 3 undergrads graduating this year who could do it, in just my collage alone. at least all but that last step. that one is hard(er).


Take care all

Robbie Price



Reply #16 Top

Quoting GW, reply 14
I agree that Robbies AI-assistant ideas are ambitious, but I wonder if they're not quite as ambitious as pigeon and Climber seem to think. I can't find it quickly, but some time ago, Brad made an OP that discussed just how 'smart' PCs could become as multiple cores and 64-bit BUS become the norm. He sounded very ambitious to me there, but he's a pro and I'm not. (He also avoided direct talk about timeframes, IIRC.)
End of GW's quote

I remember that post of his, but I was doubtful of it then and still am now. I mean, I'm sure at some point in the future these things will be manageable, but processor speed and such isn't the only limitation - you have to figure out how to code it, too. And even research projects with millions of dollars and top minds behind them hardly manage to make AIs capable of actually interacting intelligently with humans - and even then at a very basic level. Getting one to actually understand your intentions and your goals is an entirely different matter. Now, it's been done already to an extent (US military) - but I think it'll be quite some time before we see forward-thinking military technology making it into TBS games.

Quoting Robbie.Price, reply 15
I know that the system i am proposing is ambitious,  but i don't think it is overly ambitious.

Consider, half the system is almost a requirment. the A top down AI desission making process will be needed.
End of Robbie.Price's quote

The part you just mentioned isn't even a tiny fraction of the system you're proposing. The way I see it, Stardock won't be able to make an AI that can meaningfully interact with the player on an overall strategic level (which is what your system would require). If they scrapped Elemental and diverted all their funds, time and man-power into pulling off such an AI, maybe they could manage a semi-functional prototype. But the notion that Stardock might be able to essentially recreate state-of-the-art prototypical military technology as a little piece of their AI in a game is beyond wishful thinking.

Getting an AI to speak to itself an other AIs is one thing - all the relevant information they need is self contained and they all speak the same language. Having an AI create all those fancy goals and levels of decision and all seems somewhat reasonable to me, but the moment you try to add in significant AI-human interaction above a basic level I think you're just asking for trouble. The AI doesn't have access to all the relevant information (it's in the player's head, not in the computer - and inputting all that into a computer in a meaningful way that the AI can understand would probably make playing Elemental a very dreary experience) - not to mention the fact that people are so unpredictable. 

Reply #17 Top

While yes any form of diologe would be over the top, and parcing sentence structure to extract battle plans, would be undoable. The AI will have a limited list of goals, meta goals, avalible to it.  You add to each of them a string, and you can communicate to a user.   Then you show the list and the user chooses from it. 

No real diologe is provided, it's build by lego. Unless somebody wants to Phython script a NEW meta goal, or a new goal, then you work with the lego you've got.

To do all but the guessing what the user is doing, at a functional level is not hard, as long as you expect the humans to be able to play by the AI's rules. which we can.   Most users will use little more then the city manager AI, and maybe the caravan AI. Those have sufficently limited variablity that the AI interactions can be made much more pleasent then say SMAC's city managment, or CIV's.   IN those you have little more control the to say, 'you can't build these types of units, you can't build these types of buildings.' and give VERY basic commands to new units. 

This isn't about making something the US army is going to want to buy from stardock this is Show the users what your going to do, Show the user why,(Both you need to have in the desicion proccess somewhere, so show it), then let the user tell you your wrong. The user has to use the AI's language sure, It's programming not stratagising Yes, But it's three steps above anything anybody else is offering.

All this is is an AI with a UI.

take care

Reply #18 Top

Are you actually referring to an AI that actually interperets user commands? That technology is years away, at least. Although the reverse (an AI that "explains" it's directives in sentance format) is well within Stardock's capabilities, and controlling it would be easy: just have an "auto make" list with all units on it.

Reply #19 Top

The hard thing would be for the opposing AI's to be able to espianoge steal your plans.


There are two ways to handle that, you can have them not be able to steal them/steal more bacis information, this unit was sent there, this town's got this on it's build list.  or you can something populate a plan for the user, both so that they can keep it up to date [allowing them to build stratagies, check things off as they get them finished, remind them of things they were trying to do... when playing at night(pronounced early in the morning before going to bed) having a handy turn by turn checklist would be nice for my sleep addled brain],  and so it can get stolen.


It's hard, but to do a 40% job of it, isn't.

Consider a 3 win game sanario.  You can win by diplomacy, concour, or magic spell.  An AI would know that if IT was trying to win by Concour it would have a big army, modest number of spells, and not very much trade, and a few good wars.  If IT was trying to win by Magic it would have a LOT of reasearch, a LOT of spells, modest army, and good trade relations, and if IT were trying to win by diplomacy it would have LOTS of trade, smaller armies, and a decent but not scary spellbook. A real AI would also have Expand and Explore as meta goals, and probably more things too, but simple demonstration of concept.


If the player fits into one of those sets,  the AI would set a meta goal for the player as that.  IT might be wrong, infact it quite probably would be wrong 30-40% of the time. but it would be better then nothing, and it would be enough that the user doesn't have to populate ALL the fields by themselves to make a resonable plan if the user wanted.

For every Meta goal the has goals and subgoals it thinks are best to meet those,  By looking the Subgoals and goals you've achived lately it decides the most probable goals meta goals your working towards.

The last thing a User wants to have to do is input manually all the goals all the proceedures, So the AI populates each field with a guess, a semi intelligent guess, but still a guess.  If the User  opens the AI planbook and changes a goal it changes all the subgoals under that goal to match. so that the user can then look at those subgoals and deside that they are sane, or change them. 

The user isn't required to follow those plans, and if the user doesn't the plans will change to match the actions the user does take so that the user doesn't have to Update it all manually when they return, if they return.

I think i've made the system sound much more powerful then ever i intended it to be.  The AI is not guessing your thoughts,  It's matching your  actions to what goals it would have to have to take those same actions. Or more acturally finding the most likely goals it would have to have to have it take those actions.  Having made a guess at what goals you were trying to meet, it then builds a plan for what goals IT would meet in the next 15 turns if it were you, and it had the same goals as it thinks you have.


It's big, but it's not impossible.

i hope that's clearer.

Robbie Price