RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Commander - Europe at War Gold >> RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/3/2007 7:18:33 PM

Phatguy

Posts: 1348
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Buffalo,ny
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LitFuel

quote:

ORIGINAL: apathetic lurker

quote:

ORIGINAL: LitFuel

Actually I think you pout like my daughter did when she was seven...

Actually I haven't pouted since they ran out of barbeque wings and vodka at the Anchor bar

I didn't mean you, I ment the first post...running out of wings and vodka is a good enough reason for me to pout...

I figure it was aimed at me since you replied to my post..

(in reply to LitFuel)

Post #: 31

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/3/2007 7:28:52 PM

themattcurtis

Posts: 287
Joined: 2/9/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

If you two guys make an effort to get the chips off your shoulders we might have a chance at some worthwhile discourse here.

I can appreciate that you are feeling a little "put upon" by the rather harsh criticism coming down from the hardcore gamers here, but a little less "bristling" under the strain of that criticism would go a long way.

I have not criticized the game for it's "lite" approach, in fact if you read my comments in the partisan thread, you will find me arging in the opposite direction. I was merely trying to point out the potential pitfall of making "normal" mode "introductory" mode!

I didn't read the posts as they have chips on their shoulders. Or that they bristled.

A comment was made, and they responded.

I tend to doubt on the side of developers, as I like to give the benefit of the doubt. And if folks DO get a little defensive on these forums, I think there's ample cause when half the criticisms posted on the boards include words like ridiculous, or accusations that playtesters neglected the game...all backed by smilies like dees one here

Hell, look at the post that even started this thread. There was an effort made to acknowledge the guy's comments (a guy with 1 post to date to his credit), and all I saw in there was someone acting like a troll.

Constructive criticism should be offered with the outlook that the developers might actually hit back a little re: the decisions that went into the time they spent creating the thing in the first place.

< Message edited by themattcurtis -- 7/3/2007 7:29:09 PM >

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 32

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/3/2007 7:58:25 PM

targul

Posts: 449
Joined: 8/25/2004
Status: offline

"I wish more people would moan about AI more often, in more forums. That way it might improve. I understand it's hard to do a good AI, especially for a strategic game, but many developers don't spend enough time on this aspect.

I imagine you play online/PBEM mostly? If so, you, like many, don't really care about the AI.. and seem quite happy to post on forums about how it's only ever going to useful as a learning tool, but lots of people - probably the majority - still play solely against the AI and, if it's done well, have a lot of fun doing so.

Having a game with no AI, or a bad AI, forces people to either play with a friend who shares their interest (which for many doesn't exist), or go trawling online for an opponent who may end up being unsuitable for a variety of reasons. This will only make niche wargames even more grognardy and less appealing to many people in my opinion."

AI is okay to play if you cant find a real person or the game supports ahistorical play but as a history buff in these games I find best games are against real people who take real actions. AI will never reach the quality of play of human. Computers do not have brains the can never be a better player then the programmer.

When I do wish to play AI I play SC2 since it has really good AI.

_____________________________

Jim

Cant we just get along.
Hell no I want to kill something!

1st Cav Div 66-69 5th Special Forces 70-73

(in reply to Banquet)

Post #: 33

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/3/2007 9:10:56 PM

Banquet

Posts: 1184
Joined: 8/23/2002
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: targul

"I wish more people would moan about AI more often, in more forums. That way it might improve. I understand it's hard to do a good AI, especially for a strategic game, but many developers don't spend enough time on this aspect.

I imagine you play online/PBEM mostly? If so, you, like many, don't really care about the AI.. and seem quite happy to post on forums about how it's only ever going to useful as a learning tool, but lots of people - probably the majority - still play solely against the AI and, if it's done well, have a lot of fun doing so.

Having a game with no AI, or a bad AI, forces people to either play with a friend who shares their interest (which for many doesn't exist), or go trawling online for an opponent who may end up being unsuitable for a variety of reasons. This will only make niche wargames even more grognardy and less appealing to many people in my opinion."

AI is okay to play if you cant find a real person or the game supports ahistorical play but as a history buff in these games I find best games are against real people who take real actions. AI will never reach the quality of play of human. Computers do not have brains the can never be a better player then the programmer.

When I do wish to play AI I play SC2 since it has really good AI.

I don't disagree that a human will play a better game and provide more of a challenge. It will probably remain that way for a long, long time. That's no excuse not to TRY to develop a better AI though.

As to historical/ahistorical. I find most of the games I've played against human opposition (admittedly not many) have been far less historical than games played against the AI. Another 'plus' for having an AI is it tends to be programmed to behave more or less historically.. where as many human opponents will try things that weren't done and often couldn't be done in real life.

Of course if you have an opponent who you know, and you know plays in a way you enjoy playing against then that's great

< Message edited by Banquet -- 7/3/2007 9:11:45 PM >

_____________________________

http://i904.photobucket.com/albums/ac241/norfolktraveller/command-banner_zps8a55d0fa.jpg

(in reply to targul)

Post #: 34

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/3/2007 9:21:34 PM

IrishGuards

Posts: 542
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline

Can I be a Hero to pls .. I can play ..

And what is this SC I keep hearing about ..

IDG

(in reply to Banquet)

Post #: 35

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/3/2007 9:22:59 PM

Warfare1

Posts: 658
Joined: 10/20/2004
Status: offline

I also prefer to play against the AI. Provided a game has good editors, then I can usually tweak the scenarios to provide myself with some challenging play. I don't mind taking the extra time to tweak a scenario to get that challenge.

I have read AARs on other forums for other wargames, where the players make such gamey moves that it no longer resembles any wargame I am familiar with.

(in reply to Banquet)

Post #: 36

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/3/2007 9:30:53 PM

Warfare1

Posts: 658
Joined: 10/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IrishDragoonGuards

Can I be a Hero to pls .. I can play ..
And what is this SC I keep hearing about ..
IDG

SC means Strategic Command.

It's a turn based game of WWII in the European theater. Not a bad game, and it doesn't have the problems that CEaW currently suffers from.

It's very inexpensive right now (under $10.00) and makes for a great game to play on the laptop.

(in reply to IrishGuards)

Post #: 37

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/4/2007 12:32:26 AM

Duck Doc

Posts: 693
Joined: 6/9/2004
Status: offline

As a lurker I want to say I think Ian McNeil & Johan Perrson should get a medal for how they deal with criticism of this game. It is & was obvious that this game is a labor of love by Johan & nurtured to life by Slitherine & I think the gaming world is a whole lot richer for the all the hard work it took to bring the game into being.

I am also reminded of what Sid Meier said when somebody criticized one of his games (caution, this may be apocryphal). He said & I paraphrase, "Fine. If you think you can do a better job then get a C++ manual & have at it."

There isn't an artificial intelligence yet that will play like a human player in games of this complexity at our level on the retail market. Nothing exceeds another human for an opponent.

Commander is a fantastic game concept & it is a product still under development. Anybody not knowing this simple fact before purchasing hasn't got a clue. The game will be patched & it can only get better. From what I have read on this & the Slitherine forum Commander is a new incarnation of & worthy successor to Panzer General because although it may be easy to play it is very challenging at the same time & very addicting to boot.

You know, you pay your money & you take your chances. I have never regretted a game purchase, ever. If I have a problem with a game I have purchased I am vocal about it but I always take the responsibility as long as the developers have been honest in advertising the product. I have just been through a spell of laying out for three games I looked forward to but haven't delivered for me. I have no regrets. You have to kiss a lot of frogs before you find your prince.

I am going to wait a while before getting Commander but it is on my short list.

Ian & Johan: keep up the good work!

End of rant.

< Message edited by Dale H -- 7/4/2007 1:43:00 AM >

(in reply to Phatguy)

Post #: 38

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/6/2007 2:28:59 PM

spcsisco

Posts: 4
Joined: 7/2/2007
Status: offline

I guess I should...She's smarter then the game!!!!!!

(in reply to Major Victory)

Post #: 39

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/6/2007 2:35:57 PM

spcsisco

Posts: 4
Joined: 7/2/2007
Status: offline

I'm not pouting FireBalls...Just tired of game companies advertising games for what they are not. Watch those matches your daughter might get burned.........

(in reply to LitFuel)

Post #: 40

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/6/2007 4:10:44 PM

IrishGuards

Posts: 542
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline

I am tired .. very tired of people thinking they are decent Wargamers and ....
They are not ... go play Rail Baron ...

IDG

(in reply to spcsisco)

Post #: 41

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/6/2007 4:16:29 PM

LitFuel

Posts: 272
Joined: 10/21/2006
From: Syracuse, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spcsisco

I'm not pouting FireBalls...Just tired of game companies advertising games for what they are not. Watch those matches your daughter might get burned.........

What the F*** does that mean?...your one sick dude.

(in reply to spcsisco)

Post #: 42

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/6/2007 5:26:18 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: themattcurtis

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

If you two guys make an effort to get the chips off your shoulders we might have a chance at some worthwhile discourse here.

I can appreciate that you are feeling a little "put upon" by the rather harsh criticism coming down from the hardcore gamers here, but a little less "bristling" under the strain of that criticism would go a long way.

I have not criticized the game for it's "lite" approach, in fact if you read my comments in the partisan thread, you will find me arging in the opposite direction. I was merely trying to point out the potential pitfall of making "normal" mode "introductory" mode!

I didn't read the posts as they have chips on their shoulders. Or that they bristled.

A comment was made, and they responded.

I tend to doubt on the side of developers, as I like to give the benefit of the doubt. And if folks DO get a little defensive on these forums, I think there's ample cause when half the criticisms posted on the boards include words like ridiculous, or accusations that playtesters neglected the game...all backed by smilies like dees one here

Hell, look at the post that even started this thread. There was an effort made to acknowledge the guy's comments (a guy with 1 post to date to his credit), and all I saw in there was someone acting like a troll.

Constructive criticism should be offered with the outlook that the developers might actually hit back a little re: the decisions that went into the time they spent creating the thing in the first place.

You missed the nuances of the conversation. I made a post criticizing the choice to make "normal" mode "introductory" mode and made a reference to "dumbing down". That reference was clearly in regard to the dumbing down of the AI in normal mode in order to make normal mode introductory mode.

Both respondants immediately jumped to the erroneous assumption that my reference to dumbing down was a comment on the game in general and came with with very defensive posts regarding the "choice" to design a "lite" game. My reference to "dumbing down" had nothing whatsoever to do with the "level" of the game design. I have been playing wargames for almost 35 years. I have a collection of hundreds upon hundreds of baord and computer wargames. I have played, enjoyed and own dozens of "lite" games. I wasn't, in any way, criticizing the choice to design and publish a "lite" game, but the immediate responses in defense of that choice is illustrative of the chips they are carrying on the shoulders with regard to criticism they have already fielded from others over that choice. I was the wrong target for those defensive posts. That's all I was trying to say.

(in reply to themattcurtis)

Post #: 43

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/6/2007 5:49:48 PM

targul

Posts: 449
Joined: 8/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IrishDragoonGuards

I am tired .. very tired of people thinking they are decent Wargamers and ....
They are not ... go play Rail Baron ...
IDG

I would love to great game and I had lots of fun playing it.

_____________________________

Jim

Cant we just get along.
Hell no I want to kill something!

1st Cav Div 66-69 5th Special Forces 70-73

(in reply to IrishGuards)

Post #: 44

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/6/2007 5:52:59 PM

targul

Posts: 449
Joined: 8/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spcsisco

I'm not pouting FireBalls...Just tired of game companies advertising games for what they are not. Watch those matches your daughter might get burned.........

I understand your disappointment here and with many game companies but the cost to produce and market a game is tremendous and typically the labor of love that the game started became one to no money but lots of time invested and all there savings.

Now what put it out and hope or toss it. I like most people put it out and hope I can patch it to good.

_____________________________

Jim

Cant we just get along.
Hell no I want to kill something!

1st Cav Div 66-69 5th Special Forces 70-73

(in reply to spcsisco)

Post #: 45

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/6/2007 5:58:46 PM

IrishGuards

Posts: 542
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline

yep .. we also get together once and a while now and play
7 Ages .. great game .. and history to boot ..

when we go for beer and pretzels ...
It's Enemy in Sight ... fun all the time ..
IDG

(in reply to targul)

Post #: 46

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/15/2007 7:40:02 PM

JonBrave

Posts: 120
Joined: 8/6/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

There are very different expectations from difficulty settings from you guys and from the more casual gamer.

If you add an easy setting, nobody uses it - they play on normal. Nobody wants to feel dumb and play on the easy setting. They are rarely if ever used. It's just the way it is.

We have to make the normal setting easy so that new players will not be beaten by the game. If people lose most of them stop playing. They should try again at an easier setting, but most don't - they give up and say the game is crap. It's just the way it is.

As you guys are all hardened wargamers its obvious you need more of a challenge than the average person. We either had to make it too easy for you on normal or too hard for the average guy. We always go with what the average guy would want. Maybe that was a mistake because this game has more of a niche market than our previous games, but we are trying to reach out to more casual gamers with the slick UI.

It's not something we overlooked, it's a design decision. If other people were prepared to play on easy settings or be beaten it wouldn't be an issue - but they're not. We thought you guys would be willing to up the difficulty, but looks like we were wrong! :)

Iain,

As I posted to a developer elsewhere (whoops, please don't shoot me!) on this type of issue:

Simple question: why not put a choice on difficulty screen selector that asks user is s/he:

newbie to computer war games
regular played a few, won a few, lost a few
expert

and adjust your "normal" level of whatever from that.

Then you wouldn't have to heart-search over which one your human player was, would you.........

(in reply to IainMcNeil)

Post #: 47

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/15/2007 11:48:56 PM

IainMcNeil

Posts: 2804
Joined: 10/26/2004
From: London
Status: offline

It's possible but I think it may just add confusion. Difficulty settings would then mean different things depends on what people had chosen on a set up screen so it makes it very confusing when tracing bugs or trying to set up multiplayer.

_____________________________

Iain McNeil
Director
Matrix Games

(in reply to JonBrave)

Post #: 48

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/15/2007 11:56:17 PM

JonBrave

Posts: 120
Joined: 8/6/2006
Status: offline

Sounds like a developer's point of view to me

I totally respect your opinion, as you respect mine.

I'm still right, though.....

(in reply to IainMcNeil)

Post #: 49

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/16/2007 12:26:21 AM

firepowerjohan

Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline

An aspect of the difficulty level is we want it to be consistent with the multiplayer also and avoid too much clicking and setting to get a game going. The "Small Axis advantage" for instance means same in multiplayer while a difficult level of say "Normal, Hard, ..." or "Corporal, Captain, Colonel, ..." would be of no use when you want 2 players to set up difficulty.

_____________________________

Johan Persson - Firepower Entertainment
Lead developer of:
World Empires Live http://www.worldempireslive.com/
CEAW http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=18
CNAW http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=52

(in reply to JonBrave)

Post #: 50

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/16/2007 5:23:43 PM

zman1974

Posts: 22
Joined: 12/11/2006
Status: offline

Concerning AI:

I was corresponding with Rich over at HPS regarding the poor AI of their ACW Campaign games, and he responded with a very good point. It takes a supercomputer to match a grandmaster's playing ability at chess. Just imagine how much processing power it would take to simulate a very compentent army commander with an OOB the size of Gettysburg. We're just not there technologically yet, although I do think a game can still be "fun" playing the computer, if not competitive.

Jim

(in reply to firepowerjohan)

Post #: 51

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/16/2007 6:11:06 PM

firepowerjohan

Posts: 378
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline

Yes, Chess is 64 squares and with 32 pieces. The combinations will grow exponentially as these numbers grow. CEaW is 10800 hexes with perhaps 150 active units on map at any time from 1941-1945

_____________________________

(in reply to zman1974)

Post #: 52

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/16/2007 7:56:23 PM

dinsdale

Posts: 384
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zman1974

Concerning AI:

I was corresponding with Rich over at HPS regarding the poor AI of their ACW Campaign games, and he responded with a very good point. It takes a supercomputer to match a grandmaster's playing ability at chess. Just imagine how much processing power it would take to simulate a very compentent army commander with an OOB the size of Gettysburg. We're just not there technologically yet, although I do think a game can still be "fun" playing the computer, if not competitive.

Jim

How many chess grandmasters are there on earth? How many "grandmasters" of wargames. Chess games have shipped with AI's capable of beating most players for decades, and using the BigBlue excuse is disingenous. It's an irrelevance which doesn't negate the chess AI which could run on a Spectrum 25 years ago was capable of winning against 99% of humanity.

Further, the chess solution to AI isn't going to be applicable to most wargames, though that doesn't mean that the AIs shipped with some games to be as bad as they are.

(in reply to zman1974)

Post #: 53

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/16/2007 8:10:12 PM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zman1974

Concerning AI:

I was corresponding with Rich over at HPS regarding the poor AI of their ACW Campaign games, and he responded with a very good point.� It takes a supercomputer to match a grandmaster's playing ability at chess.� Just imagine how much processing power it would take to simulate a very compentent army commander with an OOB the size of Gettysburg.� We're just not there technologically yet, although I do think a game can still be "fun" playing the computer, if not competitive.

Jim

Yes, this is a quote that's been floating around for a couple of decades at least. It glosses over the point that the average gamer is not a Grand Master. Few people can beat any Chess program at its hardest setting - let alone Deep Thought/Blue. Besides, compared to 20+ years ago, we are all using supercomputers. Of course some games do have an adequate computer opponent. That seems to disprove the notion that it simply can't be done.

If the above quote is just being used to manage expectations and the game maker actually made a strong effort on the AI portion of a game, then that's just dandy. If it's being trotted out to excuse away a poorly written Artificial Opponent, then it's dishonest to call what's produced a single player game. Label it "multiplayer only" so those uninterested in that play style don't waste their money.

edit -

Oops, sorry Dinsdale. I didn't see your brilliant post. ;)

< Message edited by mjk428 -- 7/16/2007 8:13:51 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to zman1974)

Post #: 54

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/16/2007 8:20:46 PM

zman1974

Posts: 22
Joined: 12/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: zman1974

Concerning AI:

I was corresponding with Rich over at HPS regarding the poor AI of their ACW Campaign games, and he responded with a very good point. It takes a supercomputer to match a grandmaster's playing ability at chess. Just imagine how much processing power it would take to simulate a very compentent army commander with an OOB the size of Gettysburg. We're just not there technologically yet, although I do think a game can still be "fun" playing the computer, if not competitive.

Jim

How many chess grandmasters are there on earth? How many "grandmasters" of wargames. Chess games have shipped with AI's capable of beating most players for decades, and using the BigBlue excuse is disingenous. It's an irrelevance which doesn't negate the chess AI which could run on a Spectrum 25 years ago was capable of winning against 99% of humanity.

Further, the chess solution to AI isn't going to be applicable to most wargames, though that doesn't mean that the AIs shipped with some games to be as bad as they are.

I won't speak for Rich, but I will tell you what I think of his point. It is easier to design a competitive AI in a simple game like chess. However, to design competitive AI's for gigantic wargames is much more difficult. Can it be done? I suppose there are those games where such a result is possible. SSG, for example, usually has an excellent computer opponent. A game like War in the Pacific, however, is challenging not so much because of a great computer opponent, but because it is a very hard system for a person with average skill and time to master. The computer opponent already has this huge edge on you, the player, from the outset. But I think that as one masters the UI, and makes less and less unforced errors, then the computer AI may become a much less vaunted opponent. In a way, by designing an elegant and easy to understand UI, the developer takes away one of the AI's biggest advantages. The assertion that poor AI and the incredible complexity of huge, ambitious wargames are interlinked components remains vaild.

Jim

(in reply to dinsdale)

Post #: 55

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/17/2007 9:43:12 PM

JonBrave

Posts: 120
Joined: 8/6/2006
Status: offline

I would have thought/guessed that there is absolutely no connection between an AI for chess and an AI for a wargame like this (as of present at least). As in, I can barely think of any technique (that would be coded) that AIs for these would share.

Which raises the question of whether there is any point at all comparing them.

(in reply to zman1974)

Post #: 56

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/17/2007 10:49:55 PM

Vypuero

Posts: 232
Joined: 4/7/2007
From: Philadelphia, PA USA
Status: offline

I have yet to meet one I could not beat pretty easily (excluding cheats). The AI in Galactic Civ II is supposed to be excellent, but it does not seem as good as it was made out to be in the reviews.

(in reply to JonBrave)

Post #: 57

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/18/2007 5:30:03 AM

geozero

Posts: 1886
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Southern California, U.S.A.
Status: offline

These comparisons to chess AI are ridiculous... first off 99.99% of chess players will have a tough time beating any $19 chess game out there. How many of you are grand masters...NONE... I thought so.

Secondly, CEAW while having a lot more "hexes" over 90% are likely to be empty MOST of the time. It doesn't take much of a programming routine to check if a hex is empty and then ignore it.

Why are the DEVs so bent on disregarding the lame AI? People here and other posts are trying to be very helpful and bring up suggestions. Don't scoff at them. They are paying customers who only want to see the game better.

_____________________________

JUST SAY NO... To Hideous Graphics.

(in reply to Vypuero)

Post #: 58

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/18/2007 5:40:01 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Nonetheless many of those empty hexes represent possible destionations for unit movement, and there are a lot more units in play in most games than there are pieces in chess.

Plus you get to move all units (usually, or nearly all) every turn in wargames, viz 1/turn in chess.

AI is an area of high investment for limited returns IMO. there is only so much you can get AI to do, and once you've got it up to a reasonable level even vast investments in developer time are not goign to help much.

Hence hte dev's don't want to waste their time on somethign they can't actually improve very much at all.

(in reply to geozero)

Post #: 59

RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! - 7/18/2007 5:47:20 AM

geozero

Posts: 1886
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Southern California, U.S.A.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Nonetheless many of those empty hexes represent possible destionations for unit movement, and there are a lot more units in play in most games than there are pieces in chess.

Plus you get to move all units (usually, or nearly all) every turn in wargames, viz 1/turn in chess.

AI is an area of high investment for limited returns IMO.� there is only so much you can get AI to do, and once you've got it up to a reasonable level even vast investments in developer time are not goign to help much.

Hence hte dev's don't want to waste their time on somethign they can't actually� improve very much at all.

Waste time? Excuse me for asking that a DEV actually make a game playable. You may as well have made the game in ADC2.

Then it should be a $29 game not $70 with the hard copy.

Your AI argument holds no water...

_____________________________

JUST SAY NO... To Hideous Graphics.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 60