Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: hawkeye_de

I'm considering to buy this game for the upcoming holiday season.

How is the AI...I mean is it at least somehow dynamic...so if you replay a scenario does it change its tactic etc?

Thanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF
The AI is poor, it cheats alot.
Better is to play a Human, more "realistic" AND more challanging.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF
The AI is poor, it cheats alot.
Better is to play a Human, more "realistic" AND more challanging.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

But you are right the once you have learned how to play, the AI is a poor substitute for a human opponent. It will never be able to think, scheme, plot, and "think outside the box" the way a human can.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan
I am not sure what your expectation are for an AI, but the WITP-AE AI exceeded my expectations for a computer based opponent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan
I am not sure what your expectation are for an AI, but the WITP-AE AI exceeded my expectations for a computer based opponent.

I suppose realistic expectations for an AI that has to "deal" with a problem of the extreme complexity such as of WiTP-AE is that it can and will make mistakes. In general, for any game, I would say there are two classes of AI mistakes: small ones, and game breakers. Small ones, like a few unnecessary air raids , stepping in player laid (CAP...) traps once in a while, or unnecessary bloody use of its LCU's are not seriously interfering with fun. Where I would draw the line is use of key assets (like CVs, BBs, CA/CL and failing with major amphib operations in case of WITP). If it keeps sending units in after having gotten beaten there badly already, the AI scripts ought to be canceled, or delayed until reinforced. Maybe it cheats too little and should be allowed to see more through FOW and use that recon info before calling such scripts -- like a human make the decision based on expected opposition, but have the real recon info rather than having it tracked. Suppose that would be one idea for WITP2, or a major addon/patch, if there would be one in the planning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan

Game breaker? Not for me. I've played PBEM against some human opponents who probably wouldn't do the repeat amphibious assault mistake, but made up for it with other questionable actions. :-)

Regards,
Feltan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
One turn a day would not be enough.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

Right, game breaker is too harsh in most cases. Edited. But I can understand people that switch to playing the weaker side, or the one that has to engage in offensive actions in many games. Anyway, if you think back to Japanese AI in PacWar, or other AIs like in TF1942 or Civilization, I think we ought to be quite satisfied with most games today...

quote:


If you are playing against the AI go with 3-day turns. It gives more of an advantage to the computer since it treats everything like a one-day turn. This means you need to be more prudent in your planning...

quote:


If you are playing against the AI go with 3-day turns. It gives more of an advantage to the computer since it treats everything like a one-day turn. This means you need to be more prudent in your planning...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hotschi
I disagree. I admit I haven't tried anything other than 1-day turns, but it's already difficult in a 1-day turn to co-ordinate large invasions (air cover, replenishment, support, bombardment, minesweeping, attacking, reinforcing, embarking/disembarking etc etc), how tough this would be in 3-day turns I don't even want to imagine)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drambuie




a human opponent wouldn't satisfy the way I/we play the game. I play a week or more of turns at a sitting, then sometimes don't play for 4-5 days.



Agree 100% with this - I like to play at my pace and can't possibly guarantee the interaction a human opponent may want regularly. Actually one of my slight 'issues' with PBEM is the whole point that it allows 'out of the box' thinking by a human opponent - this aspect to me makes the game less of a historic simulation and opens it up to exploits or approaches that are simply unrealistic. I prefer to play within reasonably historic parameters, not doing anything way off the wall or extreme - if you like putting myself in a role as a 'real' Pacific commander, weighing up costs benefits etc and not just doing the most bizarre thing I can to get a victory. Not that I don't enjoy reading the AARs every now and then.

Just my opinion - each to their own and all that

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
.... I still mess around against the AI, but that comes in fits and spurts. The PBEM is the game that matters and is far more enjoyable to me.

I am not saying that all AI players should jump out there and PBEM, but I am telling you, Drambuie, that your concerns can be met in a PBEM game. It has worked quite well for me. Maybe I am just lucky in that I found such a compatible opponent...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

"Sigh."

I looked over at my friend, who seemed boored and dispirited. I knew what was eating him, but I had to ask anyway.

"What's got you down, Billy?" I asked.

"My relationship with Phyllis," he replied. We're in a rut. To tell you the truth it isn't exciting, or challenging, or fulfilling any more. I look at you with Ingrid, and I see an deep, intense, passionate level of emotion we just haven't reached. To tell you the truth, I'm a bit envious."

I puzzled this over a moment before getting up the nerve to be totally candid with my friend.

"If you don't really love her, why are you still with her?"

"I can't leave her," Billy moaned as he twirled the decorative umbrella in his amaretta sour. "I know she's nothing to look at. She doesn't brush her teeth. She never combs her hair. She can't cook. She isn't affectionate. But at least she's faithful. I don't have to worry about other guys hitting on her when we go out. And when I get home from work, she's always there - faithful and true - even if she is dressed in a nasty, stained bathrobe, has curlers in her hair, and is smoking unfiltered Camels while she watches reruns of Dances with the Stars."

"Look, Billy," I said as I gave my friend an affectionate pat on the back. "Love can be so much more than that and you know it. I mean, faithfulness is important as far as it goes, but you can't build a rich relationship on that alone. You've got to at least like the woman."

That made Billy pause for a moment. He turned to me with moisure clouding his blue eyes and said, "Johnny, when I look at you and Ingrid, I feel something inside. She's gorgeous and kind and funny and smart. It's clear she cherishes you and would do anything for you. But if I were you I'd be afraid some other guy might come along and take her, leaving you in a lurch. You need to dump her and find somebody you can trust, like Phyllis. That's the way to true happiness."

I knew he really thought he meant that, because he'd said it so many times before.

"Billy," I said, "I understand your fear of rejection and being left. But sometimes you've got to take chances to experience the full richness of life. If you love Phyllis, stay with her. I wish you the best. But don't miss out on real love because you're afraid. Don't keep coming up with excuses month after month, and year after year, to stay with a woman who clearly hasn't and can't offer you the kind of love you crave."

With that, I paid our tab, patted Billy on the back, and walked out of the door into a misting autumn rain. I couldn't be positive, but as the door was closing, I thought I heard Billy utter under his breath: "Snob!"