"AI" in LnLTD?

[Bullman]

Hello,
In previous considerations/evaluations of the CPU opponent in LnLTD, I had never realised that the actual cardboard version of LnLT has it's solitaire "AI system". Is the CPU opponent in LnLTD a one to one digital adaptation of that solo module system?

 

[Barthheart]

No, the AI in the digital version is not the same as the Solo opponent in the physical board game.

 

[Bullman]

No, the AI in the digital version is not the same as the Solo opponent in the physical board game.

Are you familiar with the solo module? Can you comment on it compared to the CPU opponent in LnLTD which I think is bot like and would not be the reason why players are buying LnLTD.

Are the solo module rules not really scenario specific though apply differently depending on scenario circumstances?

 

[Barthheart]

The Solo Module works with any scenario in the entire LnL Tactical system. It does work better is some cases better than others but is designed to work with all the scenarios.

 

[Bullman]

The Solo Module works with any scenario in the entire LnL Tactical system. It does work better is some cases better than others but is designed to work with all the scenarios.

OK, and have you (or anyone else of course) tried it out and are able to make comment on comparing the solo module rules with the AI in LnLTD and which AI typically makes for a more challenging/credible as a single player opponent?

 

[Stéphane Tanguay]

The Solo system makes for a more challenging/credible opponent, even when discounting the fact that you sometimes have to step in to make the final decision for it. The AI in LNLTD is, at the moment, still a bit bot-like but is improving. You can game it, not so with the Solo system (or I have not found how ).

 

[Bullman]

The Solo system makes for a more challenging/credible opponent, even when discounting the fact that you sometimes have to step in to make the final decision for it. The AI in LNLTD is, at the moment, still a bit bot-like but is improving. You can game it, not so with the Solo system 9or I have not found how ).

Ok thanks for the insight. So now the elephant in the room question: So if the solo module "AI" does apparently stand up to make for a challenging/credible SP opponent that literally is adaptable to any and all LnLT scenarios, WHY didn't they literally just code those solo module rules/routines etc directly in to LnLTD??? I mean, seems like a no brainer to do so, all you need to do is convert it to code, a task which could not be made any easier for the coder as the actual AI rules are already very clear, unambiguous and 100% already documented for every situation.

Why reinvent the wheel when it seems to have already been successfully achieved in the LnLT solo module?

I really an somewhat surprised/shocked by this revelation.

 

[Stéphane Tanguay]

I don't know. As I said, the Solo system does requires to step in and make "human" decisions. In a sense, it is "incomplete". Maybe that was a problem, as least for the beta testing version that LNLTD is still. Maybe this will be worked in later?

 

[Barthheart]

I think also the AI for the Digital game was being worked on before the Solo cards for the board game were finished and released. So there wasn't really a time when the board game Solo could be programmed into the digital game.

 

[Bullman]

I don't know. As I said, the Solo system does requires to step in and make "human" decisions. In a sense, it is "incomplete". Maybe that was a problem, as least for the beta testing version that LNLTD is still. Maybe this will be worked in later?

Those "human" decisions that might have to be made using the Solo system I would be confident represent only a minority of the instances. Regardless, from what I am hearing, I have yet to hear a negative assessment for how the Solo system simulates a respectable opponent. Any aspect of "incompleteness" in the Solo system I am sure might just apply to some rare fringe cases that doesn't invalidate how effective the system is for solitaire play. I could even imagine that perhaps it is "incomplete" because proposed rulesets may be too convoluted/complex for PLAYERS to reconcile, whereas if the same ruleset was coded, the CPU doesn't care how complex the algorithms are. The player just sees the end result ie. CPU opponent moves.

I think also the AI for the Digital game was being worked on before the Solo cards for the board game were finished and released. So there wasn't really a time when the board game Solo could be programmed into the digital game.

This definitely is interesting! I would think that the ONLY practical reason why a separate "AI system" specifically designed for a PC adaptation of a board game would be developed would be to remove any "complexity" limitations and take advantage of all the things and possibilities that can otherwise be achieved when coding in a digital medium.

A set of very complex and convoluted AI rules and algorithms developed in computer code is of no consequence to the CPU processing the code, yet it may be too complex to otherwise express as a physical rulebook with literal rules/charts/tables/factors/die rolls etc that a human player would otherwise need to understand and administer manually. As mentioned, unlike humans, a CPU doesn't really care how complex and convoluted an AI algorithm is to process even for the most basic of actions.

This situation would not be so confounding if the AI system in LnLTD was clearly better and superior at simulating a human opponent than the Solo AI system in LnLT. But this clearly does not seem to be the case.

I hope LnLP chime in on this to clear up exactly what decisions (and why) have been made regarding the implementation of a separate AI system in LnLTD that by all accounts is INFERIOR to the Solo AI system of the physical game.