"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a44a1ae@news.povray.org...
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>   I suppose that the reason for this is rather simple: Adjusting the game
AI
> to consistently correspond to some kind of difficulty level is probably a
> really hard problem, and the game developers have their hands full of work
> already with everything else that needs to be done by the deadline and
under
> the given budget to worry about such irrelevant things.
>
>   About the only game type where difficulty level directly correlates to
AI
> strength are board game programs, chess programs being the most prominent
> example.

I might be wrong but all chess games I used to play used analogous fake
difficulty / cheap tricks too, in that instead of using a different,
"smarter" engine, they use the same engine but allowed it longer time to
calculate ahead (alternatively, they artifically limit the calculation
time/level for lower difficulty levels). Coding multiple chess engines for
different difficulty levels doesn't make any more economic sense than coding
multiple AI's in action games. Of course the parameters to tweak are
different in action games than in board games, but I don't think it's fair
to say that longer times (or more properly, more processor cycles) allocated
for a given task makes the AI stronger.

Post a reply to this message