RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! (Full Version)

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



Message

zman1974 -> RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! (7/18/2007 6:01:56 AM)

My main point was not that there are tons of grandmasters running around; only that it takes a supercomputer to compete with one.  The chess comparison put forth by Rich at HPS was only to contrast it's ease of design and play with something as complex as a computer wargame.  I believe he has a point, and no doubt adds to the difficulty of implementing a competitive AI.  As I said before, once you master a complex UI the computer loses it's one big advantage.  In a game like Commander, with an elegant and generally simple UI, the computer has no advantage here, and the player can simply focus his energies on implementing his strategy to best effect.  At that point, I don't think the computer, unless it's using cheats or other advantages, has much of a chance in providing long term satisfaction, and one will be forced to find a human opponenent to quench his thirst.     



typhoon -> RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! (7/18/2007 9:56:35 AM)

When I first bought this game it had enough of Panzer General about it for me to think great game and it certainly had that got to play one more turn feel to it which is always a good thing. I played a game against the a.i and well that as a few have said before is just beating a system that cannot react the same as a human can a bit like solving a puzzle which again I thought was very much like PG.
  Soon after though I began PBEM only one game but here the game becomes something else much better. I thought maybe it's a beer and pretzles type of game too simple in the long run but fun to play. However now we are hitting June of 41 and I look back on the game and look ahead and I think wow this is doing a pretty good job of providing us with a real alternative war yes there are differncies France lasted longer Russia was invaded sooner no conquest of many of the minors that Germany picked off. No BOB and I never tried to invade Spain or anything like that but following all this you notice that everything has consequences and many of the choices you are forced to make seem  realistic enough to make you feel like you are sitting in the shoes of the big boss and trying to fight a World War. I must therefore say that even with a few faults the guys that come up with this game have done an excellent job of giving me the customer what I wanted when I bought this game. And I'm convinced that if it gets enough support from the paying public then the game will get the support it needs from the designers to improve it into something many of us have waited along time for.
Cheers for listening Kevin



Charles2222 -> RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! (7/18/2007 11:43:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JonBrave

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.

Yes, what kind of gamey tactics can the human exploit in chess? I would guess at least a third to half of the calls for an AI being shoddy are due to peopel using gamey tactics and then blaming the AI for not adapting to such lameness.



IainMcNeil -> RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! (7/18/2007 12:57:12 PM)

We will be working to improve the AI, as its working well in some areas but in longer games its running out of steam. One of the problems is that as versions change so regularly by nature the early game is tested a lot more than the late game until you get to final release.



Joe D. -> RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! (7/18/2007 9:34:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil
Casual gamers dont even go in to stores - we're talking about more casual than hardcore wargamers ...

... This is where the comparisons to Panzer General kick in - you could just pick it up and play it and it was fun. No manual required though it was there if you wanted to know how thins worked under the hood ...

... We aim to reverse that with approachable strategy games that are fun, interesting and hopefully sell to a wider audience!


If casual gamers don't go into stores, where do they get their games? Ebay?
I get most of my games from stores, where I can comparison shop. You'd be surprised the difference in price for the same game from store to store.

What was the selling point of PG? Easy to play, but hard to master.

The wider the target audience, the less satisfied the indvidual customer/gamer.
However, judging by the sheer number of posts for this game, I am reminded of a quote from Oscar Wilde; something to the effect that it's "better to be talked about, than not talked about," even if they're complaining about you/your game.



JonBrave -> RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! (7/18/2007 10:07:37 PM)

When I was talking about 0% similarity between chess AI & computer wargame AI techniques, I was musing, if only to myself.

I think the points some people raise here with which I do not agree are where terms like "supercomputer" are mentioned.

A chess AI is likely to spend an awful, awful lot of time on "if I move this and he moves that and I then move that ..." --- as, of course, does a human to large extent. Standard lookahead-type stuff. And for that, supercomputers are a huge help.

However, I should be astounded if the CEAW --- or similar --- AI does much of this (or achieves much even if it does). As a human, I do do that, to some extent; but then, I'm clever, and can do a great deal else. I'll bet my hat the AI does not.

As a consequence, I would suggest that the "supercomputer calculating" angle is irrelevant to wargame AIs, at least in practice. If I could run that AI on a Cray (I'm that old), I doubt it would make a jot of difference, whereas a chess AI really should benefit.

My conclusion: a wargame AI is probably good/bad/strong/weak from some generic principles which are either dreamt up and coded or not. Forget the processor/memory etc., it's down to "artistic design", and that probably would run on an 8086. And for the avoidance of doubt, I am well aware that it is an exceedingly difficult task....



Happycat -> RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! (7/18/2007 10:48:19 PM)

spcisco---never judge a game while it's still in beta (the fact that you paid for it doesn't mean anything---everything you buy these days is a beta. Perfection will come with patch version 8.2) [:D]



SMK-at-work -> RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! (7/19/2007 2:10:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geozero


quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
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.


The game is perfectly playable - it runs, you enter moves, results are generated.......how is it not playable?



quote:


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


Value judgements are always opinions.

quote:


Your AI argument holds no water...


Says you - and given the level of your arguments I can safely rate your opinion as drivel.



dinsdale -> RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! (7/19/2007 5:56:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: zman1974
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.

UI, scenario setup, rules and graphics are also far easier for chess than large wargames, but I only ever hear the Big Blue excuse for AI :D

quote:

SSG, for example, usually has an excellent computer opponent.

True, there are a few others too. The existence of those, however preciously few they are, render the line of bull trotted out to defend rubbish moot.

quote:

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.

When I discovered that myself, it instantly made the game worthless to play. I love complex games, and slowly learning WiTP seemed like a joy, until getting to the stage where I actually tried to play it. Haven't bought a Grigsby game since, though he's by no means the only purveyor of smoke and mirrors to disguise such a huge weakness in the game.

quote:

The computer opponent already has this huge edge on you, the player, from the outset.

This is a point which is rarely made, and a feature which isn't always capitalised on. Especially during the era of release-now-fix-later, it's often apparent that after a patch changing the rules, that the AI hasn't been updated to understand them. A game such as EU has some calculations which it's just not possible for a human to perform (unless you like spreadsheets :) ) but trivial for the PC. It should have been possible to create a functioning opponent simply because the AI could accurately forecast risk/reward from endeavours such as trade and colonization.

quote:

The assertion that poor AI and the incredible complexity of huge, ambitious wargames are interlinked components remains vaild.

True, though it doesn't have to made with a an irrelevant and misleading blurb about chess games.

quote:

ORIGINALLY Charles_22
Yes, what kind of gamey tactics can the human exploit in chess? I would guess at least a third to half of the calls for an AI being shoddy are due to peopel using gamey tactics and then blaming the AI for not adapting to such lameness.

What makes you guess that?



zman1974 -> RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! (7/19/2007 6:42:57 AM)

Fine, then, lets move on from the chess analogy, and stick with what we seem to agreee on.

I for one am glad to hear that the patch will address the AI issue to some extent; though, I doubt we will see significant improvement until later patches, but I will let the developer speak on that.  This game, as has been stated time and again, has tons of potential, and I think we are only seeing the tip of what could be a wonderful game engine that can span several releases.  When I read the words "Panzer General" mentioned by the developer during an interview with Armchair General it brought back memories of 24 hour+ game sessions in my youth:) 

Jim 



geozero -> RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! (7/19/2007 6:52:21 AM)

I understand that the patch will come with an editor. This I think is the best thing for the game, as I can see a lot of people are going to want to tweak it out. In my experience, the community usually bands together in these cases and puts together really good mods...

I really look forward to that patch. [:D]



Charles2222 -> RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! (7/19/2007 3:04:50 PM)

dinsdale:
quote:

ORIGINALLY Charles_22
Yes, what kind of gamey tactics can the human exploit in chess? I would guess at least a third to half of the calls for an AI being shoddy are due to peopel using gamey tactics and then blaming the AI for not adapting to such lameness.


What makes you guess that? 



Just from what I have seen on gaming forums. It's rather funny too, because they often think that the complaint that the AI is lame will blind you to what the strategy they employed, if they in fact state one. Actually I think it's more a matter of their not realizing that their tactics are gamey, rather than trying to blind anybody. IOW, they think most, or a lot of people, play as they do, so certainly any strategy employed is viable. Anybody with that train of thought pretty much disqualifies themselves from having anything resembling objectiveity concerning the AI.



Joe D. -> RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! (7/19/2007 3:12:49 PM)

If this proposed patch comes w/an editor like the one in UV, it will make a big difference in gameplay by forcing the AI to target certain areas, i.e., Normandy, etc.

A little "tweaking" can go a long way in a strategy game.




targul -> RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! (7/19/2007 7:08:42 PM)

Yes, what kind of gamey tactics can the human exploit in chess? I would guess at least a third to half of the calls for an AI being shoddy are due to peopel using gamey tactics and then blaming the AI for not adapting to such lameness.

You would lose that guess.  The AI is simply asleep in the Med and Africa.  I have played three games where the AI in those areas never moved a unit once as the Allies.  I have not tried that as the Allies so the Axis may move I do not know.

Also in those three games the Allies never attempted to land in France.  Not once did they even send a single unit.

Now when I play the AI I leave the starting Italian units in Italy and all Italian builds I send to Russia. 

BTW the Russian AI is pretty good and France is okay.



SteveD64 -> RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! (7/19/2007 9:02:39 PM)

Birth of America by AGEOD has a very competitive AI.  It proabably didn't start out that way but it's been improved with every patch, which is what I'm looking for in a game.  I'm glad it will be improved in this game as well.

In cases like the Tiller Civil War campaign games where you know going in the AI will (as far as I know) never be improved then you can judge for yourself if playing against the AI is important.



Charles2222 -> RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! (7/20/2007 10:05:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: targul

Yes, what kind of gamey tactics can the human exploit in chess? I would guess at least a third to half of the calls for an AI being shoddy are due to peopel using gamey tactics and then blaming the AI for not adapting to such lameness.

You would lose that guess.  The AI is simply asleep in the Med and Africa.  I have played three games where the AI in those areas never moved a unit once as the Allies.  I have not tried that as the Allies so the Axis may move I do not know.

Also in those three games the Allies never attempted to land in France.  Not once did they even send a single unit.

Now when I play the AI I leave the starting Italian units in Italy and all Italian builds I send to Russia. 

BTW the Russian AI is pretty good and France is okay.


I wasn't talking about a third to half of the calls for AI being lame in this game, but rather for wargaming as a whole.



Jeffrey H. -> RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! (7/20/2007 9:39:34 PM)


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


and that would be totally justified, IMHO.



targul -> RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! (7/20/2007 11:34:27 PM)

"I wasn't talking about a third to half of the calls for AI being lame in this game, but rather for wargaming as a whole"

I do not really compare this AI to others.  It is well below the standard of AI available at this time.  Hearts of Iron appear to have solved many of there original AI problems.  Landing take place and all areas work.  Here I am speaking of Stoney Road Mod since I have not played the basic HOI2 since Sroney Road came out.

SC2 AI is significantly better then HOI2.  The advancements in AI has been significant over the years.  Is it competive with Human play well that is a yes and no.  If players playing a WWII game follow the basic things that happen in WWII they seem very good but most people seem to want to trick the AI.  That is easy since once you play an AI you know what it expects and how it reacts. 

Therefore I say AI is good and many times better then Human play but that is only if you want to play within the perimeters of WWII.

Some complain but I play CivIII Conquests RAR and the AI in that game is excellant and it does not need any parameters such as WWII.  It seems to react to any actions on the map.  But then there is only one Sid Meiers.

I am told by the testers of the upcoming expansion to SC2 that its AI is extremely competitive.  These testers many of who play this game also find it excellant. Hubert is the best AI WWII writter I have seen so far so that maybe true.

We shall see how this game advances first patch helped a little in the Atlantic from what I see.  Med remains asleep in my one attempt so far but overall....  Russia not developed enough for comment but I will certainly give my opinion once I have one.



n0kn0k -> RE: Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!! (7/21/2007 1:07:10 AM)

The nice thing about SC2 WaW is that there is a split between the HvH and AI game.
Some scripts only activate during AI games.
Which are going to be used to add more polish and give the human player some more (I even dare to say historical) challenging gameplay.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.34375