Playing to Lose: AI and "Civilization" (Soren Johnson)

Continuing my theme of posting relevant google tech talks, here is Soren Johnson, the lead designer and AI programmer on Sid Meier's Civilisation, discussing this very subject with specific reference to the evolution of civ's AI over the years. Extremely enlightening, whether you are a gamer or not. ▶ this video "Artificial intelligence is crucial to any strategy game, providing a compelling opponent for solo play. While many of the challenges of AI development are technical, significant design challenges exist as well. Can the AI behave like a human? Should it? Should the game design be adjusted to accommodate the limitations of the AI? How do we make the AI fun? Should the AI cheat? If so, how much? Do we even want the AI to win? This session suggests some possible answers to these questions using the "Civilization" series as a case study. Ultimately, developers must choose between a "good" AI and a "fun" one, with an understanding of the trade-offs inherent when deciding between the two."

in “How games cheat to help players” · View on HN

You might enjoy a talk by the designer of much Civilization AI: ▶ this video Its a very good talk, but applied video game AI as a field is kind of a let down.

in “Game AI vs Traditional AI” · View on HN

You may well enjoy this lecture at google from one of the civ5 devs talking about the AI design, and game AI design in general. ▶ this video

in “Civ II game a decade old” · View on HN

I would say diplomacy is the most misunderstood feature of the series. Players constantly say they want a stronger AI that's smarter at diplomacy. But whenever they have built an AI like that, their play testers complained that it doesn't behave like a real world leader (too ruthless). This experience led Soren Johnson (co-designer of Civ III and lead designer of Civ IV) to the realization that Civ AIs are supposed to "play to lose" [1]. [1] ▶ this video

in “OpenCiv3: Open-source, cross-platform reimagining of Civilization III” · View on HN

That sort of game AI isn't designed to be strong. It's designed to be fun. See e.g. this talk titled "playing to lose" ▶ this video

in “DeepMind’s StarCraft II agent will play anonymously on battle.net” · View on HN

"Playing to Lose" : ▶ this video Personal preferences aside, they specifically talk about how to make the game "fun". For example, they try to account for things like real-world leader's personalities. "Gandhi" shouldn't just attack his neighbors unprovoked, but maybe "Caesar" should. And why do the AIs even bother to ally/trade/help the player at all, since the player is the only enemy that really matters anyway? Because the player is also the only person that matters in terms of having fun, and making the game too hard isn't any fun.

in “Ask HN: Game devs, what is the hardest part about designing an AI for your game?” · View on HN