Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Then tell me why Dave Landrey and Chuck Kroegel games were so good? Why am I drawn to games they made like "War of the Lance" and "Battles of Napoleon"? For games to not have the ability or impossible to create an AI that can challenge a player/veteran these were two of the greatest. As much as I tried to exploit these two games I couldn't. It was indeed almost like playing another human player.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Then tell me why Dave Landrey and Chuck Kroegel games were so good? Why am I drawn to games they made like "War of the Lance" and "Battles of Napoleon"? For games to not have the ability or impossible to create an AI that can challenge a player/veteran these were two of the greatest. As much as I tried to exploit these two games I couldn't. It was indeed almost like playing another human player.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen


I searched YouTube for vids about those games. Didn't find any.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

I'd love for you to play a scenario or two a CMx2 game and then post a screenshot of the end of game AAR o prove how easy you find the AI in that game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

I think it's lack of programming time put into AI's. I feel the game should be built around the AI not the other way around.

Take for instant Battlefront's AI in the Combat Mission series. It's more or less just a charge in your face AI that doesn't take into consideration flanks and feints. Two simple tactics that they couldn't take the time to program a counter or defense for.

quote:

came out in 1989... came out 1988...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tesuji

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Then tell me why Dave Landrey and Chuck Kroegel games were so good? Why am I drawn to games they made like "War of the Lance" and "Battles of Napoleon"? For games to not have the ability or impossible to create an AI that can challenge a player/veteran these were two of the greatest. As much as I tried to exploit these two games I couldn't. It was indeed almost like playing another human player.

Errr, in the case of WotL, I could. 2nd playthrough, I found a guaranteed and not too complicated way to win and lost interest, even though I liked the game itself.

I am now in a moral double bind, though, because I don´t want to spoil your fun by telling you the shortcut strategy to defeat Evil.

BN is an excellent example, though, it´s one of the (very) few complicated Wargames with a great AI.

The AI covers its flanks, keeps its units in line, goes aggressively for the objectives and uses formations well. (It also cheats like there is no tomorrow, but nobody is perfect. )

I managed to totally destroy the French at Quatre-Bras. (I was playing the French.) My appreciation of Marshal Ney has increased thanks to BN.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Then tell me why Dave Landrey and Chuck Kroegel games were so good? Why am I drawn to games they made like "War of the Lance" and "Battles of Napoleon"? For games to not have the ability or impossible to create an AI that can challenge a player/veteran these were two of the greatest. As much as I tried to exploit these two games I couldn't. It was indeed almost like playing another human player.

I searched YouTube for vids about those games. Didn't find any.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

came out in 1989... came out 1988...

And yet, so little improvement since then. If any. In fact, some backwards progress.

Most games are played solitaire. Get with it developers - stop making lame-ass lazy excuses or crying about how difficult it is to program units to move around a grid. Stop favoring the elitist minority Human vs. Human players.

RISE UP SOLITAIRE PLAYERS AND BE HEARD !!

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore
There's just no getting to the Highlord keep that fast.

Plus, all the diplomacy involved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wings7

Alot of complaints, let's hear some AI programming solutions...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tesuji

quote:

ORIGINAL: wings7

Alot of complaints, let's hear some AI programming solutions...

Better playtesters.

I can understand designers overlooking AI problems; but how come the playtesters don´t find exploits that the players find within 3 days after release?

Answer: Not enough time given for testers after AI completion, or wrong playtester activity focus, or the wrong playtesters.

Either nobody is listening to the testers, or the testers are fans who marvel at the graphics or the chrome or whatever gimmick of the day instead of single-mindedly trying to do this to the AI:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tesuji

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore
There's just no getting to the Highlord keep that fast.

Plus, all the diplomacy involved.

You are not seeing the wood because the trees are in the way.

1. Capital taken => Sudden Death
2. Highlord Capital = Undefended
3. DWARVES!!! => have direct access to Highlord backyard
4. Diplomacy = all important
5. Focus on Diplo-Annexing Dwarves => Highlord finished

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

The programming solution can only follow a project management change, that values AI development more highly than at present. That in turn needs customers to change their behaviour. Only buy games with recognised strong AI, post in forums (like this) about why good AI counts when choosing whether to buy and perhaps AI development will become better resourced\more justifiable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wings7
Alot of complaints, let's hear some AI programming solutions...

quote:

Alot of complaints, let's hear some AI programming solutions...

quote:

Strategic Command series has an outstanding generic fuzzy logic AI plus text editable event and AI scripting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

I'd like to ask a question, which I don't expect to get answered.

Why do war games HAVE to have an AI?

In the great before time (prior to machine driven games), a war game was still playable even if you lived in the middle of nowhere and were something of an anti social hermit. you could still play the game even if the designer intended for you to play another human.

So it's not like the advent of efforts to make AIs was ever actually required. Because you CAN make a PC war game ever bit identical to a board game war game, and just as playable and just as potentially enjoyable played without the presumed human opponent.

If they had never made a single PC war game with any form of AI, we'd have still bought them in the same numbers we were buying the board game war games. And the designers would make about the same amount of money off of them that they do when they make them with AIs.

In the commercial world, just because you make something, doesn't necessarily mean the market needed it or wanted it. And if you get a small pool of fans demanding it, it doesn't automatically mean there is enough demand to justify the effort.

I think AI development is the greatest and the dumbest waste of game development time and resources. But that is just my opinion.

If I were to develop war games for a machine, the only thing I would be interested in doing, is eliminating all of the nuisances that bedevil board game war games. Dust collecting, catapocalypses, set up time loss, and only one copy limitations to name 4 easy examples. I would not create an AI, and would flat out refuse to make an AI and that would be a firm no regardless of temper tantrums by the usual crowd that freak out over "all the money I'm going to lose from doing so".

I know nothing of AI design, and I plan to keep it that way actually. I know plenty about board game war game design. But I am not a programmer so it is unlikely I'd ever create a PC version (I'd need someone to translate a board game into a program meant to clone the physical environment).

And if you must ask, "why am I on a thread about war game AIs sucking?", well it's a discussion, and there is no rule saying I can't participate.

I wish war game makers would stop wasting so much effort trying to make war game AIs better than the morons they currently are. They could be making so many more war games successfully without them. AIs are a waste of effort. They're costing the hobby game development time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zakblood

i only play solo, won't play online, PBEM has no interest to me what so ever, or hotseat for that matter, it's AI or it doesn't get bought, maybe another reason i gave up on board games, as i wanted to play when no one else was around, while some could do it, most couldn't and wasn't that much fun either

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer
And if you must ask, "why am I on a thread about war game AIs sucking?", well it's a discussion, and there is no rule saying I can't participate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

We can speak of sales figures till we are all expired. We don't have those sales figures so it's pointless conjecture.

Would a war gamer buy a no AI PC war game if there were no PC war games with AIs?

Good question. And neither you nor I have that answer.

But I do know that even the greatest of the great board game war games have never reached sales that permitted the makers to live life comfortably sans real day job.

I simply don't accept that war gamers would refuse to buy sans AI PC war games if they had no alternative.

I think it is interesting that the war gamers who state they will not buy sans AI war games, consistently buy game after game with AIs that are simply inadequate as a challenge. And no, I don't think I'm a brilliant war gamer. But the AIs are no challenge for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore
Was that "hard mode"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05
I have several games, perhaps a lot more I don't know about, that have game ending exploits. I just don't use them, and have great fun playing the games.

I will give you that playtesting is much more about checking WAD then about trying to find exploits in the AI.