Charles2222
Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Vale I started this thread about the passive AI. After posting, I had planned to quit the CEOW forever, but instead decided to scrap my current game and start over, this time on a slightly harder difficulty rating. Things are going a lot better with the second game. The Allied navy actually attacked my transports (albeit with a weak force) as I prepared to invade England. On the eastern front, the Russians are making great use of air power, although they still can't punch through my line, because the AI is incapable of mustering an attack force. The AI seems much better at tactics than strategy. For example, at one point I decided to encircle part of the Red Army. The AI was unable to react until I had completely encircled about a dozen units. I killed half a dozen of the surrounded units, and then much to my surprise the AI responded very effectively, and rescued the remaining six units. I can't fault the AI for not responding as my units began their encircling movement. Conceptually, I don't understand how to design an AI smart enough to recognize and respond to such a maneuver. On the other hand, I seem some faults in the game which I believe can be remedied. For example, it's a no-brainer than the British should defend their little Isle, and conceptually it's easy to under stand how to do it. It's also a no-brainer that important strategic resources, such as the oil fields in the Caucasus, should be heavily defended (my little Italian strike force took them with ease). If the developers don't want to surrounded the oil fields with historically inaccurate defenses, then the AI should be capable of saying "we lost our oil?!! Get it back at ALL COST!". To recap, here's a list of areas where I believe the AI could be easily improved: -- better defenses for Great Britain. The British need to make use of their sea power, and they need to build ground units to repel invaders. -- The AI needs to react more effectively when strategic resources are attacked. I'm sure other gamers can add to the list of things to improve, but I've yet to finish a game, so I'm just reporting what I've seen so far. I'm all for better AI, but I hope you are trying to merely make a point and instead don't actually play the way you described. I can definitely see complaining about the AI not defending obvious targets, but do consider this. Would you have dared do such a thing with the Italians against a human? What I'm basically saying, it's as though you're playing to exploit the AI, as though you will try to do the most ludicrous things because the AI usually isn't programmed to stop ludicrous strategies. When I played WIR for example, I didn't send a panzer corp from the northern front straight to Moscow without stopping at all. This is an example of a ludicrous strategy, whereby one tries something completely illogical in the hopes the AI doesn't account for it. In short, to play this way is to try to beat the programmer, not win the war. In playing the war your game is vastly improved by limiting yourself to things which are mostly logical. Even pulling 66% of the WIR southern forces, after turn one, and moving them to the north would in some ways be more logical than what you talk about doing with the Italians, and it's not too difficult to see that doing such a thing in WIR probably would either result in absolute disaster for Germany, or overwhleming victory. If you are playing against the programmer, instead of playing the war, then when that likely fails such a person would resort to the exact opposite, and so on and then talk about broken AI. If you did such a lame thing against me I certainly wouldn't play you again. I know when I played WIR as the USSR I certainly did pretty much abandon those oilfields, because there was no sense in leaving units down there if nothing could get to them in 3 months. While I know it's irritating to find something completely defenseless, that should be defended, the short of it is that in order to get the AI to play more staunchly elsewhere, some places HAVE TO be left defenseless. Look over some USSR history and see just how quickly they sent forces to those oilfields because the Germans (let alone the Italians) were such a threat to take them early on. Even Moscow wasn't in such a rush to be defended from the outset, since it does take time for the enemy to get there. Why don't you just pretend those places are defended and play a bit more customary? I like better AI, as I said, but if I find the USSR can't hold Moscow because there's a large not needed force in the Caucuses because of your observation, that is truly when the AI is broken.
|