Posts made by Lucifer

@newpaintbrush:

I can write a fairly good AI for Axis and Allies.  I can’t do it for chess tho.

Then write the new AI for tripleA!

Generally, if one of your capitals is lost and u can’t take it back, and if u can’t take one of the enemies capitals, then
the game is lost.

I’ve had Berlin as allies, and jap had moscow, allies won. Another game the same happened, jap
was too strong and I conceded rnd 15-16 something  :-)

If G have Moscow and US have Tokyo most games will probably be won by the player who has the stamina to
play 50 rnds…  :-) :lol:

It would be easy to do this in triplea just change the alliance values in xml file.

Problem with G+R is, a game would probably take 15-20 rnds or more.
Revised it’s usually 5-9, at least the games I play.

I would like to try this against a human. As G+R vs rest of the world  :-)
Tried against weak AI but it’s pointless  :-P

@AgentOrange:

Okay, I’ve asked this before, but some of you guys are relatively new here, so I’ll ask it again!

Imagine a game where the teams are Germany and Russia vs Everyone else.  No alterations to the standard set-up, no bids, just leave the board the way it is.  Britain gets Colonial Garrison.  Where should they put it?

Very interesting case scenario.
I played with different teams in the old classic days.
I can’t remember if I ever playtested G+Russia though, I guess they couldn’t be cracked because of lack of creative player strats.
Germany and US was the only other teams that worked.
Have somone else tried this with OOB rules?
Why not try this with triplea?

G+Rus  :evil: :roll:

@Jennifer:

My tripleA supports LHTR, to some extent.  Dunno about yours.

In the latest tripleA version the LHTR is included.
But u can’t land fighters on sz at end of turn and then move them to the newly built AC.
And u can’t build fighters and place them on AC.
LHTR, NA, is not supported by the current java version of tripleA.
A lot of others stuff is also missing in the tripleA compared to rules, variants etc.

I’m happy someone made the tripleA version so we all can play A&A against anyone who’s online, but it’s not like
tripleA is “good enough” as it is now.
This is the freeware cons and pros.
It’s not for sure that even if Hasbro didn’t (yet) make a PC game of A&A with different versions it would not be profitable.
We don’t know that before it’s done. And only then we would know if A&A PC game would sell big enough to pay for
development costs. And it doesn’t have to include good AI, but then I would definately buy it and use it instead of tripleA.

@newpaintbrush:

Just WHO will be paying for the cost of developing this program that you want?

Avalon Hill?
Whoever holds the copyrights.

It’s fully possible to make much better game than triplea.
How much will it sell……I don’t know.
I guess Halo 3, Civilization 8, sells better than A&A.

A&A is not completely different from chess. And chess is quite popular.
I don’t know how many A&A players there are in the world.
But if all are counted, also boardgamers, CD version from 98?, triplea, then I’m sure there’s big enough market to
make it profitable.

Dice and luck/low luck can be both good and bad.
This week I played 2 games in the lobby, both multiplayer, where my team won only because of good dicerolls.
Last game, G had 82% on sealion rnd 2. It failed. G lost all except a bomber….    :-D :-D
I played on the allies team both games and the opponents conceded rnd 3-4.
No strat beats dicerolls!
It’s always nice to win, but if u win with lowluck then u know for sure that u played more skillfully in the games u win.
For some strange reason I don’t feel good even if I can blame losses on bad dice.

And winning is better than losing, but the taste of victory doesn’t taste that sweet when u have to go to the
hospital to get a bloodtransfusion after everygame u win win with reg.dice  :evil:

TripleA is the best there is right now.
But it would be much better if someone made a commercial PC game.
Triplea is freeware and it has its restraints.
With a A&A PC game it should include all variants, like LHTR, 3.rd.,4ht.ed. etc.
Guadalcanal, Revised, Europe, BOTB etc.
Online gaming inlcuded.
And GOOD AI to play against.

Thx for advice but there is not any edit in my game-menu.  :cry:
Perhaps someone could link to the triplea version with the edit feature. Becuase I don’t
have it and I have never seen the edit option in any triplea version.

I would like to have som standards in A&A. Or 2-3-4 alternate options for gameplay rules.
I think this game is already complicated… :-)
Thats why I prefer the triplea version.
Can’t do any wrong moves, except the transport unloading bug. And a few others, but this is same for alle players.
Everything is the same for all, u can’t “forget” or make “mistakes”, that isn’t allowed.
The LHTR should either be mandatory/original or excluded.
Someone should make a good A&A PC game with only one set of rules, or maybe several. And then the online gaming would be handled much better than now.
But with several set of gamerules it should not be possible to mix this rules.
I.e. in triplea the TTL should not be an option it should be included like the 4th.ed. rules.
With boardgame u can everything u want to… of course everyone try to follow the rules but that isn’t easy.
I played with some friends a few weeks ago and they didn’t even notice the change of rules from the classic version!!  :lol:
With classic it wasn’t all that complicated once u get used to it, but the revised 4th.ed. it’s really easy to make mistakes, that is when playing the boardgame variant.
And other mistakes than the rules I do all the time…
I like to play one variant at a time, and learn to play it well. Like revised 4th.ed.
And when, or if I become really good, then it’s time to move on.

What’s your point nuno?

A&A AI.

A philosophical or techichal question, or both?

Is it even possible to create a competent AI in A&A?
I think so.
Some of the differences between chess and A&A is that for computers chess is purely calculations.
An A&A AI algorithm cannot be based on brute force only.
Another difference is that it takes only short time to learn a human how to play chess. The rules etc. is
quite simple. To be good at anything is never easy, but to reach a “decent” level in A&A is much more difficult than in chess.
Whereas in chess the AI must “know” to value the king and the queen higher than the pawns and bishop etc.,
an algorithm in A&A cannot be based on the same judgement values. It might be a good move to sacrifice
both fighters, bombers and naval units, in some cases.
In chess there are many 0-1 moves, it’s obvious what to do or don’t, and especially for humans who can’t think much more than 2-3 moves ahead, to some extent.
There are big debates among the best human A&A players on what is the best tactics, for which power, and
in which situations. When I ask experienced players in the triplea lobby what is the best opening moves, they say it depends on what the opponent does….

There’s an interesting thread in the triplea dev forum on AI in triplea and AI in general.
I think it boils down to time and money. How many programmers must spend how many years to make a good, decent, or hard AI in an A&A computer game? Or how many highly trained monkeys :-)

At least until no one has ever tried hard enough, then I still think it’s fully possible. But I know
for sure it won’t happen in the triplea version, it’s too much work to implement “good” AI into
a freeware application of A&A, because the A&A game itself is very complicated.
A&A is all about numbers, mathematics and economy. And computers are generally better than humans in this
aspects.
In 1996 (?) it was the first time ever that a chess computer beat the world champion.
When will we see an A&A AI that beats the best human A&A players?

Hey, Zhukov, that Hitler-cat is mighty cool  8-) 8-)

Where can I buy one?

Chess isn’t millitary strategy?
Most games are not simulations for that matter, try Harpoon or similar pc games.
No boardgames are simulation of wars or battles.
Legend says chess was made for a king who couldn’t live without war.
A&A  was never meant to be a simulation of WW2.
And both chess and A&A are games in which millitary strategy is an important factor.

U think Hitler and Hirohito lost because they didn’t sacrifice enough blood to the dice gods?

And FDR, Churchill and Stalin bled themselves dry, made dice gods happy, and therefore won the war???

@newpaintbrush:

I will always have a standing army of 1,000,000,000 men.

This is the current absorb-the-enemy-philosophy of modern and ancient China, and the numbers increase each year  :-)

I would consider buying bombers if they attack at 6. If bombers had att.def.mov.cost: 5-1-6-15, fighters are still the better choice.
Or if bombers cost 12. Wouldn’t buy them at 14, but with cheaper bombers then u have the SBR problem…

DD’s are too expensive.
Subs are better because numbers are important.
And only subs get to fire back if hit by attacking subs.
Best buy to protect fleet is AC+ftrs * 2.
U don’t really want to buy any naval units, but to get the land units to their destination, transports need
protection.
Remember, all capitals in A&A are placed on land, not sea……Atlantis anyone, Waterworld?  :lol:
And DD’s are too pricey to give value for money.
Same goes for bombers.
But if u are a good player, then u will win a lot of games even if u don’t buy the most cost-effectice units all the time.
Buying is important, but not the most important issue in A&A.

@Jennifer:

If I had to change SBR/AA rules it would be thus:

You may have any number of AA Guns in a territory you want that has an IC.  (Limit 1 per territory if no IC is present.)
Each AA Gun gets to shoot at up to 5 Aircraft Each and they may over lap. (3 AA Guns can target one bomber if they want too.)
Bombers can only do 50% the damage shown on the die.  Heavy bombers re-instated.
Radar NA is now a tech in place of Super Submarines, which is, was and always will be a stupid tech.
Bombers now cost 10 IPC

THat leaves SBR in but makes it much more realistic with the majority of bombers attacking being shot down.

Another option is to change the AA units, let AA guns act to air units like subs act to naval units…when defending…!
If u attack 3 subs with 3 AC and 5 ftrs, if the subs get one hit in defense, u can’t choose the fighter as casuality.

U may buy as many AA guns as u want, each fire 1 dice at 1 defense point (?), and they can be killed,
but AA guns only fire at air units, and still only move during noncombat movement.
I still don’t think players would buy i.e. 5 AA guns and stack’em on any territory,
as AA guns can’t defend against ground units.

Pimp my units, pimp my bomber, pimp my battleship  :-D

Tech should definately be removed completely!

But I would like to see some options to buy “improved” units, like DD’s with coastal bombardment,
long range aircraft and jet power. If u can buy these improvements for a set price, then maybe that could work?
Best option overall, is to have all units/values set from the start of the game.

There should be a “skill variant”, low luck, no tech, no NA’s, no SBR etc. Then this variant would
attract ppl who would like to play A&A where the winner is not decided by the one who has sacrificed most
blod to the dice gods, but by pure skills, and virtue!!!