|
Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (12/9/2002 8:10:47 PM)
|
Nice enough example, but a real wargamer knows to defend his vitals.
That would never happen to me, because I know the game exists at more than just the front line.
I am not one iota convinced that AI design has progressed at all.
AI's don't make bad choices by mistake, nor do they bluff, they don't let you look down the top of their girl friend's dress to distract you, nor offer you beer to cloud your brain.
AI's don't learn from their errors, and they don't learn from ours. They don't use my cool move, and they don't develope theirs.
A computer is only a tool for rapid computing, and all an AI is doing is calculating all the possible moves and picking based on a mathematical model.
It doesn't think, "what's best here the 3 to 1 odds I can rely on, or go for the 3 1 to 1 odds and hope one works?"
The AI won't pick to play the underdog nation just to see if it can actually win with it. It will always pick something with an unthinking choice.
I have scorned the AI in my beloved Steel Panthers, so the fact that I openly call the AI in HoI worthless enough to render the game a waste of time even if the game was free, is not uncalled for bias.
I get challenged in Civilization 3 primarily due to the game having a modifiable difficulty setting. I play it because it is fun, I like it for being turn based, and the fact it is not pretending to be real history, means I am not going to fault it on that level.
If I win to often I up the ante. The AI doesn't get smarter, I am just slanting the odds in its favour now. My units get more expensive, more powerful computer units win more often. And I get less slack for my own poor choices.
But people telling me that an AI in a game is "smarter" are just wasting there time telling me this.
|
|
|
|
