Skip to Content
 

Simple, tactical game for AI writers

3 replies [Last post]
Sun, 10/02/2011 - 05:58
pimmhogeling
Offline
Joined: 10/01/2011

Hey guys,

I teach kids how to program by having them write AI for a board game. Writing AI is cool, because it can be kept at a not-so-technical level and still feel rewarding.

The rules to the game are on Google Docs.

There are two things I don't like about this game. Those things are described in the document. I invite all of you to contribute your thoughts.

Thanks, you're awesome!

Top
Sat, 10/29/2011 - 11:26
#1
Maaartin
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2011
Some thoughts

No idea if anything of the following suits you, but here it is:

Against "capture the capture fields as fast as you can" strengthening the victory condition could help:

  • Require holding the capture fields for e.g., three moves in a row, or for 4 moves (with re-captures allowed).
  • Increase the number of capture fields and also the requirements to e.g. 5 of 7.
  • Or replace the middle field by an obstacle and require to capture all 4 capture fields.
  • Reduce the number of initial soldiers to maybe 15, so any tactics ignoring the spawning fields gets too risky.

Reducing the number of spawning fields could make the game more interesting, with 12 circles nobody really cares. Breaking the symmetry by making some soldier type more scarce could help, too (you can still keep the axis symmetry). Moreover, currently the circle positions are very homogeneous, there's no area giving an advantage in a single unit type.

So I'd suggest to drop the four most central circles. This makes the lances more abundant, which makes the swords less useful and thus actually all units types sort of unique. But this is still too symmetric, IMHO.

So maybe change all the "near" circles into swords, and make the NE part more into lances and the SW part more into axes.

Top
Wed, 11/09/2011 - 16:33
#2
loserforsale
loserforsale's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/08/2011
My thoughts

I agree with reducing the number of spawning fields; I would also introduce some incentive to have larger armies as currently I can see nothing to stop you marching through all of the spawning fields and dropping off one person in each field as you go to get the benefits of them at minimal cost. Perhaps a minimum army size, an advantage to the numerically larger side in any fight (taking total strength of armies and squaring before comparison, maybe?), or linking the growth of armies in spawning fields to their size.

The fighting system in general would need clarification, e.g. 10 swords and 10 lances vs 10 axes and 10 swords: who has the advantage, if anyone? I can think of a few ways it might be resolved, but all of them could have problems:
a) match up identically-armed soldiers in pairs to fight, before matching up the remaining soldiers.
b) the attacker (or defender, depending on what you're aiming for in the game) in any fight gets to choose how they are matched up.
c) deciding the match-up could be an advantage given to the larger player, as a way of encouraging larger armies.
d) remove axes, limit players to swords to begin with, and have the square fields, instead of generating more troops, generate troops with lances. Even if you don't go down this line, I also like the idea of mixing up the distributions of soldiers.

Regarding objectives, you could try having a "flag" which, in order to win, must be taken to a capture field in the opponent's quarter of the battlefield. This could be in addition to or in replacement of the current system, and would introduce an imperative to invade enemy territory in serious force rather than turtling and covering only two of the triangles.

Top
Fri, 11/11/2011 - 14:20
#3
Maaartin
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2011
Agreed...

loserforsale wrote:
I agree with reducing the number of spawning fields; I would also introduce some incentive to have larger armies as currently I can see nothing to stop you marching through all of the spawning fields and dropping off one person in each field as you go to get the benefits of them at minimal cost.

In theory, when you drop there a single unit only it can be destroyed by two enemy units (or a unit having an advantage over your unit). However, there's no way for the enemy to come there unexpectedly, so in practice it doesn't help; dropping a single unit is enough.

loserforsale wrote:
Perhaps a minimum army size, an advantage to the numerically larger side in any fight (taking total strength of armies and squaring before comparison, maybe?), or linking the growth of armies in spawning fields to their size.

I like both. The squaring might be too much, or maybe not. The losses of the winning army could be inversely proportional to the strength ratio, but this may be too much math for some players.

loserforsale wrote:
The fighting system in general would need clarification, e.g. 10 swords and 10 lances vs 10 axes and 10 swords: who has the advantage, if anyone? I can think of a few ways it might be resolved, but all of them could have problems: ...

e) match the soldiers so that the advantage gets used as much as possible. This is what I'm using in my RPS-based fight and it makes the choice of soldiers more important than the variant a.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut