Quote:
Originally Posted by Storebror
One thing we shouldn't forget is that AI is comparably "stupid" when it comes to draw conclusions based on the facts they know.
|
It doesn't have to be. For relatively simple "pure" air combat (i.e., no bomber defense, no ground attack, no strategic objectives, just a dogfight) the "decision tree" can make AI fight fairly realistically. In fact, I would guess that the real trick is to keep it from being too good!
I'd bet that "deep learning" AI programming - were it to be implemented into an air combat sim - would result in some frighteningly effective and realistic AI behavior after a short period of time, to the point that the AI is legitimately unbeatable by all but the most talented human players. Of course, that's a pipe dream given the current time and cost required for machine learning (unless you work for DARPA or General Atomics).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storebror
In that regards, letting AI "cheat" in another regime to compensate this lack of experience might be a valid decision to some degree.
|
I agree, but any AI cheats have to seem fair to the players. In particular, AI "reflexes" can't be any better than a good human player's - no laser-guided gunnery, 360-degree radar vision, or instant, perfect control inputs.
I think that the best way to prevent cheats from being obvious is to have a simple percentage chance based on skill that the AI will screw up and do something random and/or stupid, rather than acting with killer robot efficiency.