Old Apple ][ Robot Game
Steve Hodsdon
Does anyone recall an old game that was played on the Apple ][
that involved programmable robots? As I remember it, you would
design a complete robot, program it, using a script, and let it
loose on the playing field to see how it stood up to some other
robots.
There was one design that would move back and forth at the bottom
of the screen sending out radar pulses toward the top of the
screen. When it found a reflection, it would then fire at that
spot.
I also seem to remember that each robot had one instruction
executed per "time unit" (but I might be thinking of Core Wars
here)...
I *think* it was published by MUSE but my memory is faint on that.
So, anybody remember that one? If so, I'd like to review the
design "features" of the game with you.
Thanks, Steve
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| I don't ask questions, | shod...@netis.mv.com |
| I just have fun! -- Bugs Bunny | |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Adam Spragg
: Hello,
HI...
: Does anyone recall an old game that was played on the Apple ][
: that involved programmable robots? As I remember it, you would
: design a complete robot, program it, using a script, and let it
: loose on the playing field to see how it stood up to some other
: robots.
Yeah... It was called RoboWar, I think... But yeah, I had it and
remember it, somewhat...
: There was one design that would move back and forth at the bottom
: of the screen sending out radar pulses toward the top of the
: screen. When it found a reflection, it would then fire at that
: spot.
Hehehe... That was Bottom... There was also Target, Mover, Random, and
others... memories are flooding back...
: I also seem to remember that each robot had one instruction
: executed per "time unit" (but I might be thinking of Core Wars
: here)...
They took turns, if that is what you mean... Very fast turns, but that
is all any computer can do...
: I *think* it was published by MUSE but my memory is faint on that.
I think you are right...
: So, anybody remember that one? If so, I'd like to review the
: design "features" of the game with you.
I am not sure what you mean by this, but feel free to mail me...
Adam
--
"Not on the nets I'm not. | ez04...@chip.ucdavis.edu to talk
On the nets, I can name | atsp...@ucdavis.edu to mail
myself anything I want, |
and so can you." | This space for lease-to-own...
- from _Ender's Game_ |
PGP public key given on request, or threat of something particularly wicked...
Jules
shod...@leotech.mv.com (Steve Hodsdon) writes:
>Hello,
>
>Does anyone recall an old game that was played on the Apple ][
>that involved programmable robots? As I remember it, you would
>design a complete robot, program it, using a script, and let it
>loose on the playing field to see how it stood up to some other
>robots.
>
>There was one design that would move back and forth at the bottom
>of the screen sending out radar pulses toward the top of the
>screen. When it found a reflection, it would then fire at that
>spot.
>
>I also seem to remember that each robot had one instruction
>executed per "time unit" (but I might be thinking of Core Wars
>here)...
>
>I *think* it was published by MUSE but my memory is faint on that.
>
>So, anybody remember that one? If so, I'd like to review the
>design "features" of the game with you.
There is currently a 'play by e-mail' version of this game, called C++Robots
(the control scripts for the robots are written in C++...). For more info,
send an e-mail with subject 'help C++Robots' to pbm...@netcom.com.
Great fun...
--
/* Julian R Hall cs...@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Flames should be redirected to /dev/null - I don't know what
I'm saying myself so don't expect it to make sense all the time! */
Michael Marrone
: Does anyone recall an old game that was played on the Apple ][
: design a complete robot, program it, using a script, and let it
: loose on the playing field to see how it stood up to some other
: robots.
think it was published by Origin systems, though I'm not 100% sure of
that.
I played with it a little, but I found it too cumbersome. Although
I had friends who loved it. It was a very interesting concept, though.
Wow, that does bring back memories. I wonder why they don't come
out with original things like that anymore...
Mike
Adam Spragg
: Youngster! Omega is a fairly recent game, 1990 or so. The original program
: was RobotWar, published by MUSE in 1981. This is the same company that
: published Castle Wolfenstein (the REAL Castle Wolfenstein)
Heh... the first 2 games that came with my families Apple][+ were Castle
Wolfenstein and Robotwar. I'll never forget the former... is there a
port for PC's? I think I remember there being a Return to Wolfenstein
for both Apple and PC's...
Bill Nortman
Tom Gooding
> Hello,
>
> Does anyone recall an old game that was played on the Apple ][
> that involved programmable robots? As I remember it, you would
> design a complete robot, program it, using a script, and let it
> loose on the playing field to see how it stood up to some other
> robots.
>
> There was one design that would move back and forth at the bottom
> of the screen sending out radar pulses toward the top of the
> screen. When it found a reflection, it would then fire at that
> spot.
>
> I also seem to remember that each robot had one instruction
> executed per "time unit" (but I might be thinking of Core Wars
> here)...
>
> I *think* it was published by MUSE but my memory is faint on that.
>
> So, anybody remember that one? If so, I'd like to review the
> design "features" of the game with you.
The game is RobotWar by Muse written by Silas Warner (I don't know how I
remembered that). I played the game constantly. Haven't found a
programmable robot game like it. Omega doesn't come close. I am fairly
certain that 1 instruction was executed each cycle, but I could be
mistaken.
Tom
--
Tom Gooding
tgoo...@iastate.edu
Computer Engineering 3
Jonathan Badger
>shod...@leotech.mv.com (Steve Hodsdon) writes:
>: Does anyone recall an old game that was played on the Apple ][
>: that involved programmable robots? As I remember it, you would
>: design a complete robot, program it, using a script, and let it
>: loose on the playing field to see how it stood up to some other
>: robots.
> I believe the program you're refering to is "Omega" and I
>think it was published by Origin systems, though I'm not 100% sure of
>that.
Youngster! Omega is a fairly recent game, 1990 or so. The original program
Nathan Hand
: In article <znr792...@leotech.mv.com>, shod...@leotech.mv.com (Steve
: Hodsdon) wrote:
C-robots exists. It uses a C pseudo language and a text interface.
Quite popular among unix-heads but I think Ive seen a DOS port too.
No ftp site sorry... its free though so look under archie. Probably
not want you wanted :(
I believe there is also Tk-robots (for Tcl/Tk fanatics) and possibly
a gazillion other variations. Why not do an archie search on robots
and cross your fingers.
--
"Ive never been so insulted in my life" +-----------------------
"Well, its early yet" +-----------------+ nat...@bin.anu.edu.au
----------------------+ I read the news reguarly -- sad, isnt it
Dave LeCompte
Nathan Hand <nat...@bin.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>Tom Gooding (tgoo...@iastate.edu) wrote:
>: In article <znr792...@leotech.mv.com>, shod...@leotech.mv.com (Steve
>: Hodsdon) wrote:
>: > So, anybody remember that one? If so, I'd like to review the
>: > design "features" of the game with you.
Ooh. Count me in. I played that game a LITTLE too much in my formative
years.
>: The game is RobotWar by Muse written by Silas Warner (I don't know how I
>: remembered that). I played the game constantly. Haven't found a
>: programmable robot game like it. Omega doesn't come close. I am fairly
>: certain that 1 instruction was executed each cycle, but I could be
>: mistaken.
Omega was OK, in its way. It didn't really have the beauty (?) of
Robotwar. It did run a little faster, though.
>C-robots exists. It uses a C pseudo language and a text interface.
>Quite popular among unix-heads but I think Ive seen a DOS port too.
>No ftp site sorry... its free though so look under archie. Probably
>not want you wanted :(
I have played the DOS port, and I was disappointed. It's interesting
from a compiler guy's point of view, but as a ersatz Robotwar, it
falls short.
Is Silas Werner (Warner?) still around? What's he doing? Why aren't
there more games targetted at programming dweebs like me? :)
-Dave LeCompte
--
David W LeCompte | "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
MaK Technologies | -Ralph Waldo Emerson
Kenneth Graham
Hodsdon) writes:
>
>Hello,
>
>Does anyone recall an old game that was played on the Apple ][
>that involved programmable robots?
> { stuff deleted }
>
>Thanks, Steve
>
>+----------------------------------------------------------------------
+
>| I don't ask questions, | shod...@netis.mv.com
|
>| I just have fun! -- Bugs Bunny |
|
>+----------------------------------------------------------------------
+
>
Yes, I remeber it. It was called Robot Wars and it was by Muse. I used
to have a copy of the docs laying around somewhere.
Basically you programmed your robot with a pseudo assembler type
language and then let several of them loose in an arena until either
time expired or all but one was destroyed.
This concept was redeveloped using a C like language and was available
as CROBOTS.ZIP as a shareware game. I am sure it is still available
somewhere on the net. I tried registering a copy of it several years ago
(if you registered for $25 (if I remember right) you would get the
source). Unfortunately, the check was never cashed and I never got the
source.
Email me if you have any other questions and I will see what I can
remeber of it for you.
Phil Goetz
Or a similar game for IBM, Unix, whatever?
Phil go...@cs.buffalo.edu
Ralph Scott
Steve Hodsdon <shod...@leotech.mv.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Does anyone recall an old game that was played on the Apple ][
>that involved programmable robots? As I remember it, you would
>design a complete robot, program it, using a script, and let it
>loose on the playing field to see how it stood up to some other
>robots.
There are a whole rash of games like this. None of them, IMHO, as
good as the original. I've tied winrob11, crobots, pcrobots,omega.
They all lack that something that made the original ROBOTWARS
great.
>I also seem to remember that each robot had one instruction
>executed per "time unit" (but I might be thinking of Core Wars
>here)...
I still have the manual for the game and have made my own pc
version of the game. Its fun.
I didn't see a 1 instruction 1 time unit mentioned but it worked
out in my game.
>So, anybody remember that one? If so, I'd like to review the
>design "features" of the game with you.
Anytime.
----ralph
jim denton spot esc1-441
>Tom Gooding (tgoo...@iastate.edu) wrote:
>: In article <znr792...@leotech.mv.com>, shod...@leotech.mv.com (Steve
>: Hodsdon) wrote:
>
>: > Hello,
>: >
>: > Does anyone recall an old game that was played on the Apple ][
>: > that involved programmable robots? As I remember it, you would
>: > design a complete robot, program it, using a script, and let it
>: > loose on the playing field to see how it stood up to some other
>: > robots.
>: >
There is an excellent shareware game out (for Mac only, I believe) called
Robowar which used to be available bye anonymous ftp from
sumex-aim.stanford.edu back when I was entering the tournaments. It has
gotten very good with a variety of weapons, robot processor speeds, and has
always been graphical in that you can design your robots icon and watch him
cruise around fighting. The only other info I recall is that David from
RoboWar Hindquarters did most of the support, tournaments, etc.
--
Jim Denton The opinions expressed are mine !
JDento...@Xerox.com
Steve Hodsdon
>
> In article <znr792...@leotech.mv.com>,
> shod...@leotech.mv.com (Steve Hodsdon) writes:
> >Hello,
> >
> >Does anyone recall an old game that was played on the Apple ][
> >that involved programmable robots? As I remember it, you would
> >design a complete robot, program it, using a script, and let it
[snip]
>
> There is currently a 'play by e-mail' version of this game, called C++Robots
> (the control scripts for the robots are written in C++...). For more info,
C-Robots, P-Robots, those aren't what I'm looking for. (Thanks for
reminding me about them, though.)
A couple people mentioned Robot Odyssey to me. (I've never seen the
game, I only have an article published in the Computer Recreations
column of Sci Am.)
Anyone know of the whereabouts of Michael Wallace (once a student at
Stanford University) or Leslie Grimm (of the Learning Company) or the
Learning Company itself? I'd like to get in touch with them about the
game...
Tks, Steve
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Andrew Megowan
: Does anyone recall an old game that was played on the Apple ][
: design a complete robot, program it, using a script, and let it
: loose on the playing field to see how it stood up to some other
: robots.
RobotWar, written by Silas Warner for The Muse Company. A few years
back, Maxis tried to revive it with a similar game called RoboSport.
I loathed it. RobotWar was fun, though. And written in Applesoft with
a few routines in 6502asm.
Trivia: One of the most popular games ever put out by the Muse was
"Castle Wolfenstein", which was also the first Apple ][ game I can think
of with sampled speech coming out of that puny little speaker!
(sigh) Memories....
--Andy
Steve Hodsdon
>
> In article <3i21j8$4...@manuel.anu.edu.au>,
> Nathan Hand <nat...@bin.anu.edu.au> wrote:
> >Tom Gooding (tgoo...@iastate.edu) wrote:
> >: In article <znr792...@leotech.mv.com>, shod...@leotech.mv.com (Steve
> >: Hodsdon) wrote:
> >: > So, anybody remember that one? If so, I'd like to review the
> >: > design "features" of the game with you.
>
> Ooh. Count me in. I played that game a LITTLE too much in my formative
> years.
OK, I'll throw it open to those of you who remember it (and may still
even play it). What did you like / dislike about the game?
What I'm fishing for is hard to describe. What grabbed your attention
and kept you playing? What grated on your nerves until you quit
playing?
>
> >: The game is RobotWar by Muse written by Silas Warner (I don't know how I
> >: remembered that). I played the game constantly. Haven't found a
> >: programmable robot game like it. Omega doesn't come close. I am fairly
> >: certain that 1 instruction was executed each cycle, but I could be
> >: mistaken.
>
> Omega was OK, in its way. It didn't really have the beauty (?) of
> Robotwar. It did run a little faster, though.
I never saw Omega. (The only Omega I recall is a Moria clone.)
>
> >C-robots exists. It uses a C pseudo language and a text interface.
> >Quite popular among unix-heads but I think Ive seen a DOS port too.
> >No ftp site sorry... its free though so look under archie. Probably
> >not want you wanted :(
>
> I have played the DOS port, and I was disappointed. It's interesting
> from a compiler guy's point of view, but as a ersatz Robotwar, it
> falls short.
Why? What did RobotWar have that C-Robots doesn't have? Simpler
"programming language?" Better graphics? :)
>
> Is Silas Werner (Warner?) still around? What's he doing? Why aren't
> there more games targetted at programming dweebs like me? :)
:) Dunno...
Ben Finkel
Yo. Theres a game called Crobots that is exactly like that. It
runs on an IBM. Uses basic C language terms to program yer 'bots. swing
me by yer e-mail adress and I'll send it to ya uuencoded.
Ben Finkel
Sandy Walsh
distributing it, but never got around to it. Its only CGA graphics mode
(remember that kiddies), but it's pretty neat. The old Apple ][ Robotwar
was the model for the game (called TankWars). If there is still interest in
such a beast I will post it (somewhere? oulu?)
email me if you think I should.
Thanx,
Sandy
--
----
Mr. Sandy Walsh| I wish that I die peacefully in my sleep like my Dad ...
sa...@cs.mun.ca| and not screaming hysterically like his passengers.
Raster Master
: :) Dunno...
: Steve
This was a great game for it's time and I for one was writing
decryption code at the time for those old 4-step apple drives...
lot's o fun... The good things about the game are probably subjective,
but if I attempt to put "programming fever" aside, I would say it's
the idea of controlling the players in the environment. I believe
DOOM's success, along with predecessors offered participation in
the environment but few offered true control over players in the
environment. One game I loved, but can't recall, was an old
Atari game placed in a Pacman like field and the player would shoot
cork-gun-like missiles. The control element here was that if the
joystick was pressed right or left when the missile was fired, the
missile would hug the wall and make all right turns or all left turns
and go 'round and 'round... the cork/missile was the only round
as I recall so if the "enemy" didn't "get it" you would have to retrieve
it before being able to fire again.
The obvious possibilities are endless, but back to the poster's question:
what I didn't like was the utter predictability of the range of "bots"
(or whatever) that could be done, but this was simply a limitation of
technology at the time, i.e. mainly speed. Today, there are many
interesting twists which could be applied.
Lastly, I recall the "code view" scroll feature, an elegant feature
especially for that period of computer evolution.
Well, Siskell (sp?) I give it a thumb's up overall but if ya wanna
little something extra, trading those bots was a lot of fun too...
>mag< ras...@netcom.com
Dr. Cat
anybody cares. Or even if nobody cares. I stilll have my stuffed dragon
Freitag after all these years, though she's a bit threadbare now.
I met the author of Robot Odyssey, which still stands as one of the most
amazing games/educational programs ever made. The Learning Company made
a deal with him where he would take time off from college and write the
game, and in return they would pay his way the rest of the way through
Stanford afterwards (a not inconsiderable sum, with what they charge for
tuition there). Afraid I have no idea of his present whereabouts.
***********************************************************************
Dr. Cat / Dragons's Eye Productions ** Come play DragonSpires!
******************************************** ftp.eden.com pub/dspire
Dragonspires is a graphic mud for PCs. ** has everything you need!
***********************************************************************
** http://www.realtime.net/~gauntlet/dspire.html for more info **
***********************************************************************
Rich of RichWare
>
>Hello,
>
>Does anyone recall an old game that was played on the Apple ][
>that involved programmable robots? As I remember it, you would
>design a complete robot, program it, using a script, and let it
>loose on the playing field to see how it stood up to some other
>robots.
I believe you are refering to RobotWar by Silas Warner of MUSE.
>
>There was one design that would move back and forth at the bottom
>of the screen sending out radar pulses toward the top of the
>screen. When it found a reflection, it would then fire at that
>spot.
That was Bottom, the strongest of the pre-supplied robots. My first
Robot that could consistently beat the built-ins was Bottom-Killer. BK
would go to the bottom of the screen, look left and right until it found
Bottom, blow Bottom away and then follow Bottom's algorithm the rest of
the game. ;-)
>
>I also seem to remember that each robot had one instruction
>executed per "time unit" (but I might be thinking of Core Wars
>here)...
I found this to be a disadvantage. It was hard to write a robot that
could look for bad guys in one direction and travel in another without
hitting the wall. Sure optimization can be fun, but getting any piece
of code to act intelligent is hard. Making it fast and intelligent I
found distracting. I think the game would have benefitted from a higher
speed intruction count per time unit.
Scott Schiller x2554
>
>: OK, I'll throw it open to those of you who remember it (and may still
>: even play it). What did you like / dislike about the game?
>
>: What I'm fishing for is hard to describe. What grabbed your attention
>: and kept you playing? What grated on your nerves until you quit
>: playing?
>
>: >
>: > >: The game is RobotWar by Muse written by Silas Warner (I don't know how I
>: > >: remembered that). I played the game constantly. Haven't found a
>: > >: programmable robot game like it. Omega doesn't come close. I am fairly
>: > >: certain that 1 instruction was executed each cycle, but I could be
>: > >: mistaken.
>: >
>: > Omega was OK, in its way. It didn't really have the beauty (?) of
>: > Robotwar. It did run a little faster, though.
>
>
>: "programming language?" Better graphics? :)
>
What was cool about RobotWar is that it made programming fun. I couldn't
write a decent piece of code now to save my soul, but for some reason I
was able to create a robot that would kick serious ass. My friends and I
were mesmerized by that game for two or three months one summer. I think
I may still have the manual for it somewhere...
--scott
--
=========================================
| Scott Schiller (schi...@nicolet.com) |
+ Nicolet Instrument Corporation +
| Madison, Wisconsin USA |
Adam Spragg
: That was Bottom, the strongest of the pre-supplied robots. My first
: Robot that could consistently beat the built-ins was Bottom-Killer. BK
: would go to the bottom of the screen, look left and right until it found
: Bottom, blow Bottom away and then follow Bottom's algorithm the rest of
: the game. ;-)
Hardly sporting... :)
I think the best part of the game was the Benchmark testing... Where you
could put your robot on an active test, and you could see where it was on
the "battlefield", and watch the code go by... Then you could simulate a
collision or a radar blip, or getting hit by enemy fire, and watch how it
reacted... that part, to me, made the game, and I have yet to see
another simulate this...
S.A.B. Jones
Adam Spragg <ez04...@chip.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>Jonathan Badger (bad...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>: Youngster! Omega is a fairly recent game, 1990 or so. The original program
>: was RobotWar, published by MUSE in 1981. This is the same company that
>: published Castle Wolfenstein (the REAL Castle Wolfenstein)
>
>
>Heh... the first 2 games that came with my families Apple][+ were Castle
>Wolfenstein and Robotwar. I'll never forget the former... is there a
>port for PC's? I think I remember there being a Return to Wolfenstein
>for both Apple and PC's...
>Adam
As far as I remember, PC Magazine ran a competition called "PCRobots" in which
the object was to design a robot using a C-library provided by them which could
beat all other entrants in a contest. I never did get around to entering,
although I was quite pleased with my robot. You can get PCRobots from:
ftp.essex.ac.uk in /pub/robots/Simulators/PCrobots.zip
And yes, there was a follow-up to Castle Wolfenstein. It was called "Beyond
Castle Wolfenstein". I loved it, but it had a bug that when you beat it on
the highest difficulty level, it tried to move you up one level and crashed.
It saved the higher level to disk and so never worked again :( That was a
depressing day.
Any idea where I can get RobotWar from? I seem to have missed something great.
Stephen Jones
--------------------
92s...@eng.cam.ac.uk
Dr W.H.Watt
RichWare) writes:
>That was Bottom, the strongest of the pre-supplied robots. My first
>Robot that could consistently beat the built-ins was Bottom-Killer. BK
>would go to the bottom of the screen, look left and right until it found
>Bottom, blow Bottom away and then follow Bottom's algorithm the rest of
>the game. ;-)
You can say that I learned programming mainly because of my interest
in RobotWar. I still have very fond memories of the game, and despite
the state of current games, I don't think I have found any game that
is as challenging as RobotWar.
Yes, I have my own version of Bottom-Killer (I also called it Bottom-
Killer because Bottom appears to be the strongest robots that came
with the suite. I think Random and Scan are the next strongest).
Surprisingly, I have the same idea as you in that after killing
Bottom, my Bottom-Killer will follow Bottom's path too.
I have literally tried hundreds of variants including
1) Top, whose algorithm is similar to Bottom's but hug to top wall
instead. However, Top fared badly. It turns out that at the
start of each round, the turrets of all robots face the upper
wall, and when Top moves up, it became the sitting target.
2) Left, who hug the left wall, and Right, who hug the right wall.
Depending on the situation, both Left and Right can either
destroy Bottom, or be destroyed by Bottom.
3) Corner, who runs and stays at the corner of the battle field.
My design of Corner was based on the fact that a robot at the
corner is less exposed than a robot in the centre of the field.
There are situations where stalemates are almost inevitable because
the remaining robots are outside the scanning angles of each other.
The challenge then becomes to create a robot who is capable of
scanning all angles (e.g. something like an increment of 17 degrees).
>I found this to be a disadvantage. It was hard to write a robot that
>could look for bad guys in one direction and travel in another without
>hitting the wall. Sure optimization can be fun, but getting any piece
>of code to act intelligent is hard. Making it fast and intelligent I
>found distracting. I think the game would have benefitted from a higher
>speed intruction count per time unit.
On the contrary, I think this limitation makes the game very challenging.
The more complicated the routine, the better the robot, but it will also
be slower. For example, one of the routine I used was to get away from
the current location when the robot is being shot. The robot can
either run away as quickly as possible, but there is no guarantee that
the new location will be safe. However, if the robot is to work out
a safe location, it will suffer more damage before a safe location can
be found.
******************************************************************
* Dr W.H.Watt * Email: w.w...@accfin.gla.ac.uk *
* Dept of Accounting & Finance * gua...@arts.gla.ac.uk *
* University of Glasgow * cia...@vaxa.strath.ac.uk *
* 65 Southpark Avenue * *
* Glasgow G12 8LE * Tel: +44-141-3398855 Ext 6289 *
* Scotland, United Kingdom * Fax: +44-141-3304442 *
******************************************************************
Mitch Gunzler
>
>What was cool about RobotWar is that it made programming fun. I couldn't
>write a decent piece of code now to save my soul, but for some reason I
>was able to create a robot that would kick serious ass. My friends and I
>were mesmerized by that game for two or three months one summer. I think
>I may still have the manual for it somewhere...
>
We played an awful lot of this game at the UCLA Computer Club.
I think what made it work better than it's successors was the limitations.
You couldn't put more than 256 instructions in a robot, but that was quite
a challenge to deal with creatively; your robots moved faster than they
thought, but that had great prat-fall potential. On the other hand, unlike
Omega, there was enough room for real differences in style and detail to
allow one to personalize a design. A great deal of thought could be and
was invested in things like how much to swivel the radar between pings,
instead of just "Left, Right, Forward, Backward, Repeat" as in Omega.
Mitch
Mitch Gunzler
>In article <3id5co$4...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, rich...@ix.netcom.com (Rich of
>RichWare) writes:
>>
>
>You can say that I learned programming mainly because of my interest
>in RobotWar. I still have very fond memories of the game, and despite
>the state of current games, I don't think I have found any game that
>is as challenging as RobotWar.
>
>
>
> My design of Corner was based on the fact that a robot at the
> corner is less exposed than a robot in the centre of the field.
I'm not sure about being exposed, but a corner robot only has to *scan*
a total of 90 degrees to see every part of the field, a major advantage.
Of course, because of this many, many robots were optimized to fight
those robots skulking in the corners. I noticed this because most of my
designs were corner-based.:)
>
>There are situations where stalemates are almost inevitable because
>the remaining robots are outside the scanning angles of each other.
>The challenge then becomes to create a robot who is capable of
>scanning all angles (e.g. something like an increment of 17 degrees).
Remarkably, considering how long ago RobotWar was written and how few of
its successors have followed suit, radar detection was determined by
whether or not a piece of the (square shaped) target robots fell within
the arc of the radar beam. Thus a robot's width wasn't 17 degrees, but
something like 850/range degrees. Assuming both robots were stationary,
and disallowing one minor point, adjusting your scan to reflect how far
the wall was on the last scan allowed you to optimally scan the entire
arena without ever missing another robot.
Of course many robots refused to stay stationary. One of our local robots,
Norden (programmed by Richard Fowell) won the national championship
(sponsored by Computer Gaming World, I believe) by always travelling
at maximum speed (and taking advantage of the fact that robots are square
shaped, and several other clever ideas). Of course some local designers
started assuming that, rather than being stationary, whatever they were
shooting at must be moving at maximum speed...
(A copy of Norden was given to all tournament participants, who spent the
next year devising anti-Norden strategies. The basic pattern was to run
along the sides, shooting through the center as often as possible, hoping
that anyone who happened to be running around the center quickly would
run into your bullets. Since there was no ammunition limit or other
penalty for indiscriminate shooting, this paid off. The latest robot
battler I've seen has, thankfully, imposed a small cost per bullet, so
that reckless Ramboesque rampages won't work.)
>
>>I found this to be a disadvantage. It was hard to write a robot that
>>could look for bad guys in one direction and travel in another without
>>hitting the wall. Sure optimization can be fun, but getting any piece
>>of code to act intelligent is hard. Making it fast and intelligent I
>>found distracting. I think the game would have benefitted from a higher
>>speed intruction count per time unit.
>
>On the contrary, I think this limitation makes the game very challenging.
>The more complicated the routine, the better the robot, but it will also
>be slower. For example, one of the routine I used was to get away from
>the current location when the robot is being shot. The robot can
>either run away as quickly as possible, but there is no guarantee that
>the new location will be safe. However, if the robot is to work out
>a safe location, it will suffer more damage before a safe location can
>be found.
Exactly, the robots were restricted enough that *trade-offs* had to be
accepted, instead of perfect solutions discovered.
Mitch Gunzler
MITCHELL E TIMIN
: In article <3id5co$4...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, rich...@ix.netcom.com (Rich of
: RichWare) writes:
: >That was Bottom, the strongest of the pre-supplied robots. My first
: >Robot that could consistently beat the built-ins was Bottom-Killer. BK
: >would go to the bottom of the screen, look left and right until it found
: >Bottom, blow Bottom away and then follow Bottom's algorithm the rest of
: >the game. ;-)
: You can say that I learned programming mainly because of my interest
: in RobotWar. I still have very fond memories of the game, and despite
: the state of current games, I don't think I have found any game that
: is as challenging as RobotWar.
[snip]
RARS (Robot Auto Racing Simulation) is at least as challenging. It
requires some knowledge of physics and math as well as programming.
You program a robot to drive a car and race against other cars driven
by other robots. You get to see the race; there are a variety of tracks
and you can make your own track. The whole project is freeware. It
presenly runs on the PC under DOS. UNIX and Windows ports are coming
very soon. The robot programs are usually written in C or C++; they
are compiled separately and then linked. (Write if you want to know
more.)
Benjohn Barnes
>Muse software also published my first game, The Caverns of Freitag, if
>anybody cares. Or even if nobody cares. I stilll have my stuffed dragon
>Freitag after all these years, though she's a bit threadbare now.
>I met the author of Robot Odyssey, which still stands as one of the most
>amazing games/educational programs ever made. The Learning Company made
>a deal with him where he would take time off from college and write the
>game, and in return they would pay his way the rest of the way through
>Stanford afterwards (a not inconsiderable sum, with what they charge for
>tuition there). Afraid I have no idea of his present whereabouts.
Lucky lucky lucky lucky BASTARD.
In the nicest posible way of course.
Jim Stevenson
How can I get the pc version of this game?
Dr. Jim Stevenson
ji...@eos.arc.nasa.gov
(415) 604-5720 w
Ralph Scott
Mitch Gunzler <gun...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <D4G80...@udcf.glasgow.ac.uk> w.w...@accfin.gla.ac.uk (Dr W.H.Watt) writes:
>>In article <3id5co$4...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, rich...@ix.netcom.com (Rich of
>>RichWare) writes:
>>>
>>
>>3) Corner, who runs and stays at the corner of the battle field.
>> My design of Corner was based on the fact that a robot at the
>> corner is less exposed than a robot in the centre of the field.
>
>I'm not sure about being exposed, but a corner robot only has to *scan*
>a total of 90 degrees to see every part of the field, a major advantage.
Exposure is another aspect that comes into play. I use to classify robots
as middle or edge robots. (Of course some of our robots, rode the edge).
>
>Remarkably, considering how long ago RobotWar was written and how few of
>its successors have followed suit, radar detection was determined by
>whether or not a piece of the (square shaped) target robots fell within
>the arc of the radar beam. Thus a robot's width wasn't 17 degrees, but
>something like 850/range degrees. Assuming both robots were stationary,
Drats, another one of my strategies someone else discovered. But of
course you knew that if you didn't take into account where you were,
then you should adjust your radar by an amount relativiely prime to 360.
>Of course many robots refused to stay stationary. One of our local robots,
>Norden (programmed by Richard Fowell) won the national championship
>(sponsored by Computer Gaming World, I believe) by always travelling
>at maximum speed (and taking advantage of the fact that robots are square
And another of my interesting strategies gets exposed. Great minds must
think alike. Or something.
>shaped, and several other clever ideas). Of course some local designers
>started assuming that, rather than being stationary, whatever they were
>shooting at must be moving at maximum speed...
>
>run into your bullets. Since there was no ammunition limit or other
>penalty for indiscriminate shooting, this paid off. The latest robot
Actually there is a small penalty to be paid for indescriminate shooting,
namely, you are trading a very low percentange random shot vs a
higher percentage 'known robot' shot.
>>On the contrary, I think this limitation makes the game very challenging.
>>The more complicated the routine, the better the robot, but it will also
>>be slower. For example, one of the routine I used was to get away from
>>the current location when the robot is being shot. The robot can
>>either run away as quickly as possible, but there is no guarantee that
>>the new location will be safe. However, if the robot is to work out
>>a safe location, it will suffer more damage before a safe location can
>>be found.
One of my robots kept track of damage ratios for the different locations
it went to, and optimized itself per battle.
>
>Exactly, the robots were restricted enough that *trade-offs* had to be
>accepted, instead of perfect solutions discovered.
WHich made it all the more interesting.
I will repeat my request for anyone who has a working copy currently
(not you Darwin) so they can help me fine tune my robotwars version
for the pc. (Its not quite ready for primetime but the language
and graphics are mostly there).
---ralph
MITCHELL E TIMIN
: How can I get the pc version of this game?
: Dr. Jim Stevenson
: ji...@eos.arc.nasa.gov
: (415) 604-5720 w
The Robot Auto Racing Simulation (RARS) is a simulation of auto racing
in which the cars are driven by robots. Its purpose is two-fold: to
serve as a vehicle for Artificial Intelligence development and as a
recreational competition among software authors. The host software,
including source, is available at no charge. It currently runs under
MSDOS; several persons are now working on ports to other platforms.
This announcement introduces the third release of the software, which
we call version 0.3:
The Robot Auto Racing Simulation
A Challenge for Evolutionary Programming
A Competition for Programmers
by Mitchell E. Timin
(me...@cac.psu.edu)
Version 0.3 of RARS is ready. It is written in the Borland flavor of
C++ and has been compiled and tested with Borland C++ 3.1, to run
under DOS. It should be easy to port to any C++ that has functions
for drawing lines and arcs, a flood-fill or color fill function, and
text output to the graphic screen. Hence it will not be difficult to
make it run on a Macintosh or Unix system. C++ is not required for
the robot "driver" programs.
The race tracks are now defined by ASCII files. Several pre-defined
tracks are supplied. The desired track is named on the command line.
Users can create their own tracks using any text editor, although
this is not a trivial process unless a CAD program is used to find
the exact lengths, angles, and radii for the track segments. It is
possible to do it by trial and error, however.
There is now a RARS anonymous ftp site: magdanoz.mcafee.com in
directory /bin/ftp/rars. Anyone can get any RARS stuff there,
code, announcements, car controllers, documentation, etc.
Jivko Koltchev is our benefactor there. (ji...@magdanoz.mcafee.com)
There is now a listserver so that interested parties may discuss
RARS by e-mail. To subscribe to the list service send e-mail to
list...@NETCOM.COM containing the message:
subscribe rars-list
Rex Sheasby is the volunteer who is handling this. (rs...@netcom.com)
We have a page for the www. Its at http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~bsr/rars.html.
Ben Rometsch in England is taking care of the www part of the project.
(B.S.Romet...@computer-science.birmingham.ac.uk)
RARS consists of a simulation of the physics of cars racing on a
track, with a simple bird's-eye view of the race. The unique feature
is that each car is controlled by a separate and independent control
program. Each car is "driven" by its own control program, which
receives information from the simulation telling it about the car's
local situation. The "driver" (control program) adjusts the steering
and throttle, and then the physics simulation moves the car a little.
This happens many times per second, of course. Every car has exactly
the same physical characteristics, only the "drivers" are different.
Hence, the result is a competition between the control programs.
Furthermore, the competition is visible as an auto race, with
acceleration, passing, cornering, braking, etc.
It is intended that many users will write their own robot "drivers".
Six similar, but not identical, examples are supplied. These are
meant to serve as examples for programmers wishing to develop their
own. The control programs may be written in other languages,
although for version 0.3 they must be linkable with the Borland
linker. (or supplied in source form for C, C++, TASM or Pascal)
For genetic programming, the races will be between several programs
selected from an evolving population of programs. The racing may
take place continuously for long periods of time, with the graphic
display disabled for faster execution. Of course losers will be
eliminated and winners will breed. Genetic Algorithm proponents
will probably design robot drivers with a vector of parameters to
be determined by evolution. Neural nets are also candidate "drivers".
Wanted - People to do or help with any of the following:
Porting to other platforms
Testing the software and suggesting enhancements
Improving the graphics
Locating a corporate or university sponsor
Act as a race director to manage a "race meet"
Reporting, both to academic journals and popular magazines
Improving the software in any of dozens of ways
Adding sound effects
(and of course, building "drivers" to compete in the races!)
Ralph Scott
Omega had many facets you could change about the robot, weapon, chassis...
However, to me, its biggest downfall was the terrain and energy usage.
I had realized very early that the best strategy was to hide until every
other 'stupid' robot got killed, and then come out still strong. I had
a robot in the very first tourny that did this (albeit poorly). When
I realized that this was a VERY good idea, it also struck me that it
leads to a boring visual battle. I then lost interest pretty quick.
Robotwars doesn't give you a 'place' to hide, so there is no impetus
to do so.
However, I did like omegas damages, it was fun to try to build strategies
specific to when your radar went down, or your treads.
---ralph
Jouni Miettunen
sa...@cs.mun.ca (Sandy Walsh) said:
> I wrote a Robotwars kinda game for PC's *years* ago. I was thinking of
> distributing it, but never got around to it. Its only CGA graphics mode
> (remember that kiddies), but it's pretty neat. The old Apple ][ Robotwar
> was the model for the game (called TankWars). If there is still interest in
> such a beast I will post it (somewhere? oulu?)
HAA =-) Yesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesy games source code all here please
x2ftp.oulu.fi:/pub/msdos/incoming/
> Sandy
--jouni
--
* Jouni Miettunen j...@stekt.oulu.fi * Oulu * Finland * Europe *
** I do not represent Oulu university * all opinions mine only **
** x2ftp.oulu.fi * THE pc game graphics sound PROGRAMMING site **
Rich of RichWare
writes:
>3) Corner, who runs and stays at the corner of the battle field.
> My design of Corner was based on the fact that a robot at the
> corner is less exposed than a robot in the centre of the field.
I also had one called Corner. It would race for the lower left hand
corner, turn right and get Bottom and Bottom-Killer, then continuously
scan the field. Another advantage of the corner is that you can cover
the whole field in a quarter of the time of a randomly placed robot.
I tried to develop one that circled the middle of the playing field, but
the distance-to-wall formula took too long to calculate and it didn't
have time to both look out for badies and the wall. Crashed alot.
I wonder why no one has mentioned xtank. It's sort of RobotWars with
robots written in C (plus you can hop in and drive yourself).
Rich
Bradley Schick
Just wanted to let everyone know; there is a new Windows
game called Robot Battle that is similar to RobotWars.
It has a much more advanced event driven language and
allows for very complex robots that actually learn.
Robot Battle can be found at the following sites:
- ftp.interaccess.com /RobotBattle
- ftp.cica.indiana.edu /pub/pc/win3/games
- Brad Schick
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ROBOT BATTLE
email: sch...@interaccess.com
ftp: ftp.interaccess.com /RobotBattle
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~