This paper compares genetic algorithms against bitsetting hill-climbers for generating competitive plans to beat an opponent in the initial stages of real-time strategy games. Specifically, we search for build-orders that generate the right mix of entities and attack orders and compare the algorithms' performance against optimal plans from exhaustive search. Since multiple possible global optima exist, three hand-coded opponents that follow different strategies serve to provide a baseline for plan comparisons. Our results show that while our hill-climber takes three hours to produce optimal plans against our three hard-coded baselines, it only finds these plans six percent of the time. On the other hand, genetic algorithms routinely find the best plans against our baselines but take significantly longer. This work helps game artificial intelligence designers evaluate the strengths of these types of heuristic search algorithms and serves to inform our research on improving evolutionary approaches to real-time strategy game player design.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.