We've just had an idea to create 'random' maps. Generating completely random maps bring too many complications with it, but we could create pieces of a large map and also different configurations to connect those pieces. Then before the game starts it randomly picks a number of those pieces and then randomly picks one of the ways to connect them. This way you never know what map you're playing on because it can be any of, let's say, 20-40 configurations.

125ch209: Happy to hear you like it :)

Edited 5/14/2014 07:26:24

We've just had an idea to create 'random' maps.

Great idea!

Once I get my membership, I'm going to be getting a starter bot set up for the Warlight API to distribute so we can start playing games on the fly with each other. I'll see if I can get a game server queued up so your bots can just join at your leisure. It should be a pretty kick-ass project :)

I've got the repository all set up (https://bitbucket.org/trogatog/warlightapistarterbot), but I can't use the API until I get the membership to start parsing out the json objects and sending/receiving test data.

Maybe i'm not understanding you right, but afaik the warlight api only lets you create games, not submit moves. I think i asked Fizzer for bot support at some point (my idea was to be able to let your bot play for you when you get booted) but it wasn't very high on priority list.

Maybe i'm not understanding you right, but afaik the warlight api only lets you create games, not submit moves.

Yes its true. Bot can't play entire game for human.

But I think it we should somehow integrate our bots into warlight. Not now, but maby in future. Because top bots already play much better then default warlight AI.

The bot just need to pass some acceptance tests that prove its stable and adequate play on maps with different settings and on different maps. This is not easy task..

The map is imbalanced, north america is weak, africa is strong when you have its choke points, weak when you dont, asia gives very strong expansion options, the south is very safe etc. These imbalances make the game interesting.

So advantage of one regions (good for expand) compensated by advantages of another regions (safety). This is how I understand 'balance'.

+1 for randomly generated maps

Yes its true. Bot can't play entire game for human.

Then I guess it's time to set up my own server just for bots :P I'll at least be able to use map data from the api

http://theaigames.com/competitions/warlight-ai-challenge/games/53779fca4b5ab24d42614ec3

so funny to watch games of this hardcoded strategies, like Herz here ;)

Right... and pedrito moving this big stack in Asia instead of defending Africa was completely dynamic?

Looks like Herz v170 follows the strategy I proposed. Nice.... although not completely accurate. Actually I'm cool with Herz having this thing hard coded because he takes out other hardcoded fake AI bots especially those from certain german authors. Gadzbot also kind of plays that way, (though not to the extreme) that's why he keeps his top ranked spot.

mweb keep running into Herz's stack:
http://theaigames.com/competitions/warlight-ai-challenge/games/5377da3a4b5ab23b41683dad

With Herz v169 you see him not following my strategy by moving his North Africa stack as he loses sight to the opponent:
http://theaigames.com/competitions/warlight-ai-challenge/games/5377ce784b5ab23b41683c98

looking at this wayy too late, but it seems fun. Only sucks that there is no starter example in C or C++, because while I know basic coding, I've never written an AI before :P

jim: was just thinking yesterday, will there be any some sort of live streaming event for the finals? something like analysing a few games leading up to the winners match up, meanwhile talking about the bots strategy, how this differs from regular warlight scenario, maybe chat a little with some of the coders about what their problems were developing, and with the orgas about how the compo went and what's coming up in the future.

i think it could be interesting for normal warlight players to check, could probably get fizzer to announce it on the site during the transmission to get more viewers, it would certainly be more fun for the guys competing and waiting to know about the results. and it would also be cool just for having a record of these things while they are still fresh in ours minds.

i wouldn't mind hosting it, i've hosted a few warlight live tournaments before. would just need to figure out dates so that i'm available on a good internet connection, poke a few people to join in during the event for commentary / interviews and coordinate with you orgas to somehow to avoid spoilers.

maybe chat a little with some of the coders about what their problems were developing, and with the orgas about how the compo went and what's coming up in the future.

That could be fun :)

http://theaigames.com/competitions/warlight-ai-challenge/games/5378db8d4b5ab23b41685041

Enjoy crazy game %)

what's your guys threshold for a safe hammering attack?

mine is currently 1.15 the estimated armies of the enemy region.
it used to be 1.1 but i had lots of games where i kept hitting them with just 1 army more then the defense and not do much damage, so it would just end up levelling the army count on both sides. i also tried 1.2 but after looking at a few games i felt i was giving the opponent much too leverage to expand into north america when having them pinned on south america.

not sure if the optimum value can be estimated using standard warlight attack simulation. has anyone tried it?

or does anyone has any ideas on how to calculate the best value? i thought of doing a batch test of a huge quantity of games just changing this parameter to test statistically if there is a significant advantage to having it higher or lower but i just been too lazy to actually code that. guess i still have time to try that during this week if no one speaks up.

Edited 5/18/2014 17:53:08

I made simulation of repeated attacks when I always deploy all my income to attack, and enemy always deploy all income to defence. And if after this 'virtual' repeated attacks I see that enemy is broken - then it is some sence to attack. So no magic numbers in my case.

the number of army loss has a random factor, how do you know if your virtual simulation is reliable or not? you could have succeeded out of high luck (like getting a 2vs2 victory).

Considering average values of losts. Yes, sometimes luck is not on my side :(

Edited 5/18/2014 18:36:40

Hello

What do you mean ps? With 100% luck there is never an attack that will give you guaranteed a good outcome.

If I only have one territory with which I can attack an opponent spot then my formula is:
(0.6*attackingArmies) >= (0.7 * (opponentArmies + guessedOpponentDeploymentOnTerritory)) (same formula as I use in my everyday warlight play) With more than one territory you have to write a couple lines of code. This is one of the parts where an AI can beat humans since I doubt that any human player calculates the exact expected outcome when attacking from multiple spots.

This formula is correct but the problem is that sometimes you want to also attack an opponent knowing you will lose more armies. This is the case when you can have a follow up attack next turn that will then kill more opponent armies. The problem is that such situations are quite difficult to safely identify although it's an important task of a good bot. This helps to break what I call fake stalemates. Here my formula / algorithm however is:

Attack if the ratio of ownArmies:opponentArmies before the attack is lower than the ratio of (ownArmiesAfterAttack+ownDeployment : opponentArmiesAfterAttack + opponentDeployment).

Edited 5/18/2014 19:32:37

Norman: well, yes, there is always some luck, i was just commenting specifically on greentea's approach. considering for a moment that luck was 0%, there is still a certain ratio below which is not worth attacking because you'll never manage to break the enemy even if you do have more army stack then they do and both of you lose the expected number of armies. so it's debatable if it's worth to "try your luck" with it when it's something else, but it's still important to make sure you are always above that threshold, else you might just be wasting armies ramming a stack you'll never break. i just tried random values on my bot until it felt right and ended up with 1.15. apparently you're doing the real math which comes from 0.7 / 0.6 = 1.16666667

so i guess i should be using 1.167 instead of 1.15

not sure if greentea's approach isn't better. i mean, if you're attacking with for example a stack of 20 with 22 armies and you end up with 8 9 (fake numbers, i didn't try it) it wasn't much worth attacking. you just lost a 2 armies advantage which you'll never get back. you could have used it for something else like expansion.

EDIT- just read your post again Norman, and you are considering the ratio, have to think how to implement something similar in mine.

Edited 5/18/2014 21:04:09

http://theaigames.com/competitions/warlight-ai-challenge/games/53792f894b5ab25857384a21

turn 18, 52 armies unable to take 29. 28 defender losts, 24 attacker losts!..

Update. I checked, only ~ 77% average chance to capture, so not very special.

Edited 5/18/2014 22:32:38