carnifex
Posts: 1295
Joined: 7/1/2002 From: Latitude 40° 48' 43N Longtitude 74° 7' 29W Status: offline
|
I hope I didn't buy the wrong game. Because reading the marketing text that promises me "up to 6 AI players each with 3 different difficulty levels", I would think I bought the right game, except that it was defective. Of course I am using a common-sense definition of "AI players", where I regard such as simulations of what a human being might do, possibly, even if improbably. However, it strikes me that no human ever, except one in the most severe grip of an ether binge, would fail to take Portugal by...not moving into it. Or to land a Spanish corps in Greece and leave it there, forever. Or charge one French corps into Charles' full stack every land phase, without respite, until the entire French army is gone. Oh sure, I understand, programming the AI is tough. This whole thread is crawling with people who understand just how tough it is, and keep explaining to others that well, people are smarter. I keep trying to empathize, but then I load up Ageod's ACW, where the AI is giving me a nice run for my money by cutting my supply whenever I try to make a thrust towards Atlanta, and this is from a much more complex game (The developer of ACW/BoA actually named his AI, a measure of how sure he was people weren't just going to laugh at it.) I can load up any of the Decisive Battles games I have. Very complex, lots of units, big maps, and...a challenge from the AI. How about World at War? Or Strategic Command? More big games, lots of strategy, and the AI? Hardly brilliant, but I don't see entire countries just sitting there, doing nothing. How about apples to apples, and check on Crown of Glory? Can AI Russia take Sweden? Check! EiA? No, sorry. Do I need to list EVERY single strategy game I have? Because they all have better AI than EiA. If the AI in EiA did absolutely nothing but build troops and place them on their capitals it would do 150% better than it does now, with it's retarded thrusts and fits. That's how bad the AI is. Now me, I'm one of the fortunate ones to be able to play EiA against humans. So personally it really won't matter to me if EiA's AI continues to suck eggs. The graphics are OK and the functional bugs will get worked out, so it will be playable for me. But I feel for the people who would like to see a programmed opponent in action, because they won't get that here, in spite of the marketing text. Claiming that the AI in EiA is for "training" is sophistry. And reminding everyone to wait for patches so that features promised actually become features delivered strikes me as the worst kind of consumer complacency - one that ultimately produces a series of declining quality products that are then defended (for some unexplainable fanboish reason) by those who consume them, in a vicious spiral.
< Message edited by carnifex -- 1/4/2008 2:28:11 AM >
|