Making Diplomacy Bots Individual



Diplomacy is a round-based strategy game with simple rules but a real-time component as players move in parallel. It also emphasizes negotiation between players, which is difficult to realize in a bot but essential to achieve a human-like playing style. In a previous work, we found that in Turing Tests, players mainly use three usual shortcomings of current bot implementations to identify them as computer players, a certain level of playing strength which makes planning necessary, the avoidance of mistakes, that is moves a human most likely would not use, and a meaningful communication. According to previous results, it seems to be especially hard to combine well-playing with a human-like move style. While the communication problem has already been treated successfully at least for short games, currently known CI-based bots do not plan ahead. We present a planning Diplomacy bot which employs the negotiation kernel of an already existing bot and apply our believability measure technique in a new and interesting way. Instead of learning how to minimize the number of bad moves according to a mixture of games of several players—this had proved difficult as different players regard different moves as bad or computer-like—we go a step into the direction of mimicking human player styles by using only saved games of one person each. We thus effectively create a bot which is playing well, including planning, uses basic communication and partly inherits the playing style of a specific human player. The different obtained bots are compared according to playing strength and believability.


  1. 1.
    Ackermann, N.: Evolutionäre Spielbaumsuche für das Strategiespiel Diplomacy. Dipl. Inf. Diploma Thesis, Department of Computer Science, TU Dortmund (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Axelrod, R.M.: The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Booijink, B.: Strategy evolution and resolution deduction in diplomacy. Master’s Thesis, University of Groningen, Artificial Intelligence (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calhamer, A.B.: Calhamer on Diplomacy: The Boardgame Diplomacy and Diplomatic History. Authorhouse, Bloomington (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eiben, A.E., Smith, J.E.: Introduction to Evolutionary Computing. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fàbregues, A., Sierra, C.: Diplomacy game: the test bed. PerAdaMagazine (2009).
  7. 7.
    Fàbregues, A., Sierra, C.: A testbed for multiagent systems. Technical report, IIIA-CSIC, Bellaterra, Barcelona (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hand, M.: The diplomatic pouch: the library of diplomacy openings (1995).
  9. 9.
    Johansson, S.J.: On using multi-agent systems in playing board games. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2006), pp. 569–576. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johansson, S.J., Håård, F.: Tactical coordination in no-press diplomacy. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2005), pp. 423–430. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Keaveney, D., O'Riordan, C.: Abstract model of a real time strategy game. Technical report, nuig-it-011008, National University of Ireland, Galway (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kemmerling, M., Ackermann, N., Beume, N., Preuss, M., Uellenbeck, S., Walz, W.: Is human-like and well playing contradictory for diplomacy bots? In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG 2009), pp. 209–216. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kemmerling, M., Ackermann, N., Preuss, M.: Nested look-ahead evolutionary algorithm based planning for a believable diplomacy bot. In: Di Chio, C., et al. (eds.) Applications of Evolutionary Computation—EvoApplicatons 2011: EvoCOMPLEX, EvoGAMES, EvoIASP, EvoINTELLIGENCE, EvoNUM, and EvoSTOC, Torino, 27–29 April 2011, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6624, pp. 83–92. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kraus, S., Lehmann, D.J.: Designing and building a negotiating automated agent. Comput. Intell. 11, 132–171 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Livingstone, D.: Turing’s test and believable AI in games. Comput. Entertain. 4(1), 6 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Loeb, D.E.: Challenges in multi-player gaming by computers. The Diplomatic Pouch Zine (S1995M) (1995).
  17. 17.
    Loeb, D.E.: The observation module. The Diplomatic Pouch Zine (S1995R) (1995).
  18. 18.
    Luhmann, N.: A Sociological Theory of Law. Taylor& Francis, London (1985)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Premack, D.G., Woodruff, G.: Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behav. Brain Sci. 1, 515–526 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ribeiro, J.A., Mariano, P., Seabra Lopes, L.: Darkblade: a program that plays diplomacy. In: Seabra Lopes, L., Lau, N., Mariano, L.M., Rocha, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the 14th Portuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Progress in Artificial Intelligence (EPIA 2009), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5816, pp. 485–496. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shaheed, J.: Creating a diplomat. Master’s Thesis, Imperial College, London (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shapiro, A., Fuchs, G., Levinson, R.: Learning a game strategy using patternweights and self-play. In: Schaeffer, J., Müller, M., Björnsson, Y. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computers and Games (CG 2002), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2883. Springer (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Turing, A.M.: Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59, 433–460 (1950)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Hal, J.: Diplomacy AI—Albert. (2010)
  25. 25.
    Webb, A., Chin, J., Wilkins, T., Payce, J., Dedoyard, V.: Automated negotiation in the game of diplomacy. (2008)
  26. 26.
    Windsor, P.D.: What’s your point. The Diplomatic Pouch Zine (S1999M). (1999)
  27. 27.
    Yannakakis, G.N., Hallam, J.: A generic approach for generating interesting interactive pac-man opponents. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG 2005), pp. 94–101. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yannakakis, G.N., Hallam, J.: Feature selection for capturing the experience of fun. In: Proceedings of the AIIDE’07 Workshop on Optimizing Player Satisfaction, pp. 37–42. AAAI (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus Kemmerling
    • 1
  • Niels Ackermann
    • 2
  • Mike Preuss
    • 2
  1. 1.Robotics Research Institute, Section Information TechnologyTechnische Universität DortmundDortmundGermany
  2. 2.Chair of Algorithm Engineering, Computational Intelligence Group, Department of Computer ScienceTechnische Universität DortmundDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations