|
cpdeyoung -> RE: AI still sucks! (12/12/2008 2:35:26 AM)
|
Interesting points.
Play balance in a simulation of the European theater in the Second World War is quite a subject.
Regarding Barbarossa, the German military was not enthuastic about the campaign, and with very good reason. The swift fall of Poland and France left the Axis facing England. They were at a loss how to solve the dilemma of a campaign in which the Royal Navy dominated, and the RAF very much held its own. Hitler decided to turn East, and what a huge task he presented his commanders. Both sides in this struggle made mistakes. The Axis got a late start because of Balkan entanglements, and the Soviets suffered from the Stalin purges. In our game when playing as the Axis we choose our moment to enter battle, without having distractions, and when playing the Soviets our generalship, from strategic to tactical level is our own, purge or no. I feel the complaint against the AI is that the Soviets are defeated too easily. With 1.3 I think they do a much better job of holding their own. I find the Axis offense is the weak point. When I play the Soviets, and the Axis finishes their Jugoslav adventure, they find the Soviet borders lined with strong infantry forces, behind which powerful tank and mech forces patrol. In the far south the Axis forces see active Soviet campaigning in an offensive. No greed tricked my Soviets into intimidating the Baltic countries, and it is not long before the Soviets are on the offensive. If I have been playing the British and French they may be both still campaigning, yes, my French are often around when the Germans declare war on the Soviet Union. Is this because of a poor AI? Not really, it is because I have the huge advantage of knowing the way the real war went, and perhaps more important I have played this game many times.
So how do you simulate a campaign where the actual forces made mistakes, and the players of the game do not? Do we want to have VP conditions set to force the Germans into sacrificing their navy in Norway, force your Italians to invade Greece, and so on? I do not want the game to go this route. I prefer to have the multiple start points provided by the scenarios for those who want a Barbarossa start which reflects the situation in late June 1941.
For me, I want to campaign "my way", and I will save games at interesting points, and come back and switch sides. These are my "scenarios", points at which I say to myself "I want to try and defend against that attack".
That being said there is one improvement which I think could be quickly implemented, and which would help the AI challenge me, and that is to make the AI satisfy the condition that any city within 20 hexes of the last known enemy position be garrisoned with a level 2 infantry division at the least. Call me greedy, but I cannot resist pushing a unit into an empty city. I would have to play a much different game if each such city had to be reduced, rather than only occupied.
Another AI improvement mentioned is to have the AI check carefully for possible entrapment by denial of supplies. I think this is trickier, but perhaps it could be improved. The developers of the game are incrementally improving the "tactical" level play of the AI, and iteration by iteration it will improve.
Pour on the suggestions and our joint opponent will become a better gamer!
Chuck
|
|
|
|
