RE: Does it always go like this?? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 5:04:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale



We have the AI we want and deserve, and ultimately, that's as much our fault as the developers.


What are you talking about? What a bunch of nonsense. I've yet to find an AI which is the least bit interesting, let alone challenging. Generally, they suck donkeys. AI is a misnomer. But why do we deserve this? We can bitch all we want but we have no say as to whether developers attempt better AI or eye candy. The money is just not there I suspect to warrant R&D dollars for wargame AI, when all the sales are in RTS and FPSs.

You must be another of those people who say "if ya don't vote, ya can't bitch." Even if ya vote you can't make a difference. EG You got Kerry or Bush...whoohoo, democracy is grand. Ahole, anus, sphincter, different name, same s--t. What a joke. Open the eyes man. Look around.



fbastos -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 5:08:16 AM)

quote:

CIV III AI cheats, and the complexity of CIV III is much less then WitP.

Much much less than WitP.


WiTP AI also cheats...

While I agree that WiTP has more variables than CiV III, the map on WiTP is fixed, so a lot of stuff is known in advance (like "go for SRA").

I do believe that the major difference is the amount of resources one can put on tuning the AI before release, and perhaps more important, the number of test runs one can do before release.

In both aspects WiTP is at severe disadvantage, because at one hand there's no way to compete with the resources of a major publisher that can spend $20M on a game, and on the other hand one tester on CiV III can perhaps play 10 games on a day, while on WiTP one would have to try a game for 10 days before coming to any conclusion...

But then again, after spending enough time on tuning the AI, it should be much better, even on WiTP.

F.



denisonh -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 5:10:54 AM)

Hhhhmm, do I detect a little cynicsm?

I gues it would be pointless to ask if you are a registered voter.[:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale



We have the AI we want and deserve, and ultimately, that's as much our fault as the developers.


What are you talking about? What a bunch of nonsense. I've yet to find an AI which is the least bit interesting, let alone challenging. Generally, they suck donkeys. AI is a misnomer. But why do we deserve this? We can bitch all we want but we have no say as to whether developers attempt better AI or eye candy. The money is just not there I suspect to warrant R&D dollars for wargame AI, when all the sales are in RTS and FPSs.

You must be another of those people who say "if ya don't vote, ya can't bitch." Even if ya vote you can't make a difference. EG You got Kerry or Bush...whoohoo, democracy is grand. Ahole, anus, sphincter, different name, same s--t. What a joke. Open the eyes man. Look around.



denisonh -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 5:14:01 AM)

One other important point is that sequential turn resolution allows for more certainty that simulataneous turn resolution.

That causes serious issues with trying to project outcomes and effects.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos

quote:

CIV III AI cheats, and the complexity of CIV III is much less then WitP.

Much much less than WitP.


WiTP AI also cheats...

While I agree that WiTP has more variables than CiV III, the map on WiTP is fixed, so a lot of stuff is known in advance (like "go for SRA").

I do believe that the major difference is the amount of resources one can put on tuning the AI before release, and perhaps more important, the number of test runs one can do before release.

In both aspects WiTP is at severe disadvantage, because at one hand there's no way to compete with the resources of a major publisher that can spend $20M on a game, and on the other hand one tester on CiV III can perhaps play 10 games on a day, while on WiTP one would have to try a game for 10 days before coming to any conclusion...

But then again, after spending enough time on tuning the AI, it should be much better, even on WiTP.

F.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 5:15:41 AM)

I actually voted for the first time since 88 because it was getting so bad I voted to make sure our civil service heavy population did not vote in a Liberal majority again. We got a Liberal minority gov't. Not saying that my vote counted, really I'm saying I had to vote for s--t to keep other s--t from getting a majority. Be nice if whe "actually" had some choice.



rlc27 -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 5:16:33 AM)

Where's the love, guys? [:(]



fbastos -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 5:17:46 AM)

quote:

I actually voted for the first time since 88 because it was getting so bad I voted to make sure our civil service heavy population did not vote in a Liberal majority again. We got a Liberal minority gov't. Not saying that my vote counted, really I'm saying I had to vote for s--t to keep other s--t from getting a majority. Be nice if whe "actually" had some choice.


Oh, didn't know you could vote for Bush in Canada... :-o

F.



denisonh -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 5:21:33 AM)

Ron,

I have plent of choices when I visit a public house.[:D]

But I usually ask for a pint of Guinness despite all my "choices".[:)]
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I actually voted for the first time since 88 because it was getting so bad I voted to make sure our civil service heavy population did not vote in a Liberal majority again. We got a Liberal minority gov't. Not saying that my vote counted, really I'm saying I had to vote for s--t to keep other s--t from getting a majority. Be nice if whe "actually" had some choice.



denisonh -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 5:24:12 AM)

Wrong forum. You must be looking for "Love in the Pacific".[:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: rlc27

Where's the love, guys? [:(]



pompack -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 5:26:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

Do you think it's been easy to bring each new generation of graphics breakthroughs? Even before getting to software, do you think it's been easy moulding this generation of hardware?

Easy isn't relevant, if it were then there would only be "simple" discoveries. The problem isn't the difficulty, it's the lack of resources spent in R&D.




precisely but....

The problem is that real AI still requires a LOT of research, and not just applied research. A few years ago I was cognizant of (but no I did NOT do any of the real work) a number of large and well funded research projects into AI applications.

There are any number of extremely important tasks that require the judgment of highly trained human beings. Some of these tasks are also repetitive. Some of the tasks are also stressful. (just for example, although it was not one of the tasks, consider an air traffic controller.) The difficulty of finding highly intelligent people who are willing to be trained to do repetitive work that requires critical judgment is extreme. Since such people are also expensive to train and have a tendency to quit. This makes it even more difficult. The task of developing AI software to do some of this class of job was recognized to require some fundamental research and a LOT of expensive applications work. However the payoff was deemed to be worth it and this was the government, so several were funded (and funded into the tens of millions).

Not one of those projects ran to completion. The issue was that if you have a task important enough to warrant spending that much money to automate, it has to be RELIABLE. And it wasn’t. Things would work well for a while and then some utterly irrational result would pop up. Some fundamental theoretical breakthroughs were required, and the funding agencies were just not interesting in an open-ended research project. Instead any further work that took place was aimed at providing tools for the human to increase his productivity.

The point is that AI has been one of those great concepts that has just not gone anywhere very fast. If your task is relatively forgiving like producing a game opponent, it’s not worth spending the money it would take to develop it. If the task is to automate some critical human-judgment function, it’s not reliable without some basic research breakthroughs that can’t get major funding. Such research is taking place, in academia, but at a very slow pace.

If any of those big projects panned out, the fallout would surely have made game AI more practical. Conversely if anyone just sat down and spent the money to produce a true AI for a forgiving environment, they might go bankrupt but the rest of us would certainly benefit from it.



denisonh -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 5:31:34 AM)

Well said.

Where is Frisco?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

Do you think it's been easy to bring each new generation of graphics breakthroughs? Even before getting to software, do you think it's been easy moulding this generation of hardware?

Easy isn't relevant, if it were then there would only be "simple" discoveries. The problem isn't the difficulty, it's the lack of resources spent in R&D.




precisely but....

The problem is that real AI still requires a LOT of research, and not just applied research. A few years ago I was cognizant of (but no I did NOT do any of the real work) a number of large and well funded research projects into AI applications.

There are any number of extremely important tasks that require the judgment of highly trained human beings. Some of these tasks are also repetitive. Some of the tasks are also stressful. (just for example, although it was not one of the tasks, consider an air traffic controller.) The difficulty of finding highly intelligent people who are willing to be trained to do repetitive work that requires critical judgment is extreme. Since such people are also expensive to train and have a tendency to quit. This makes it even more difficult. The task of developing AI software to do some of this class of job was recognized to require some fundamental research and a LOT of expensive applications work. However the payoff was deemed to be worth it and this was the government, so several were funded (and funded into the tens of millions).

Not one of those projects ran to completion. The issue was that if you have a task important enough to warrant spending that much money to automate, it has to be RELIABLE. And it wasn’t. Things would work well for a while and then some utterly irrational result would pop up. Some fundamental theoretical breakthroughs were required, and the funding agencies were just not interesting in an open-ended research project. Instead any further work that took place was aimed at providing tools for the human to increase his productivity.

The point is that AI has been one of those great concepts that has just not gone anywhere very fast. If your task is relatively forgiving like producing a game opponent, it’s not worth spending the money it would take to develop it. If the task is to automate some critical human-judgment function, it’s not reliable without some basic research breakthroughs that can’t get major funding. Such research is taking place, in academia, but at a very slow pace.

If any of those big projects panned out, the fallout would surely have made game AI more practical. Conversely if anyone just sat down and spent the money to produce a true AI for a forgiving environment, they might go bankrupt but the rest of us would certainly benefit from it.



pompack -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 5:33:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

Well said.

Where is Frisco?



Frisco is about 30 miles north of Dallas



denisonh -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 5:35:49 AM)

Thanks,

Originally from Austin. Just curious.
quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

Well said.

Where is Frisco?



Frisco is about 30 miles north of Dallas



dinsdale -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 6:26:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
What are you talking about? What a bunch of nonsense.

Why respond if it's nonsense? Why not simply roll out another cliche instead?

quote:

I've yet to find an AI which is the least bit interesting, let alone challenging. Generally, they suck donkeys. AI is a misnomer. But why do we deserve this? We can bitch all we want but we have no say as to whether developers attempt better AI or eye candy. The money is just not there I suspect to warrant R&D dollars for wargame AI, when all the sales are in RTS and FPSs.

Obviously you fail to understand. Perhaps if people did not buy, or rant and rave about how terrific mediocrity is then it would change. If you enjoy being stuck in 1994, why should development houses bother to improve?

quote:

You must be another of those people who say "if ya don't vote, ya can't bitch." Even if ya vote you can't make a difference. EG You got Kerry or Bush...whoohoo, democracy is grand. Ahole, anus, sphincter, different name, same s--t. What a joke. Open the eyes man. Look around.

Absolutely bizzare analagy. I suppose the stress of the election campaign has overcome you.



dinsdale -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 6:29:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

Comparing Graphics and AI is like comparing is like painting a house is to designing a house.


No, it's comparing two different branches of programming. There have been a different set of challenges involved in overcoming graphics obstacles over the years, but those challenges are not trivial simply because you may not understand them.

quote:

I prefer PBEM play at any rate, so you can keep your patronizing comments.

Oh I thought you monopolized that with your "are you a programmer" line.

Sorry, I forgot that to post here one must carry pom-poms. Expecting improvements and evolution is too much to ask.



BartM -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 7:05:09 AM)

quote:

WiTP AI also cheats...

While I agree that WiTP has more variables than CiV III, the map on WiTP is fixed, so a lot of stuff is known in advance (like "go for SRA").

I do believe that the major difference is the amount of resources one can put on tuning the AI before release, and perhaps more important, the number of test runs one can do before release.

In both aspects WiTP is at severe disadvantage, because at one hand there's no way to compete with the resources of a major publisher that can spend $20M on a game, and on the other hand one tester on CiV III can perhaps play 10 games on a day, while on WiTP one would have to try a game for 10 days before coming to any conclusion...

But then again, after spending enough time on tuning the AI, it should be much better, even on WiTP.


One thing I have always noticed about here... there is always an excuse... we're a small company, we planned months in advance to be away, the list goes on....

The game was released at an astronomical price, with obvious major flaws and very little testing on the basic fundimentals of the game which to this day has not been patched.

I believe the poster has a very valid question... is this how the game is suppose to work ?

telling the poster to play it PBM is not an answer to this question, but yet another excuse for the obvious flaws this game has. I have been patient now for months waiting to play the very basic scenerios as well as the large game, but when I see Nimitz dissapear, or Mitchel turn up on a Japaneese cruiser or many many of the other outrageous flaws this game has, only to be told "well play it pbm" I just sit there going "huh ?" how is playing this POS with another person fixing any of the problems that this game has ?

To answer the poster... yes, this is how the game will work every single time. You against the computer, you will win every time... doesn't matter which side you play. The computer will send in suicide ships on a daily basis, and god help you if you place any of your sides areas under computer control.

As to the quote I used up there... so we are suppose to sit back and be quiet and accept this game because it doesn't have the recources to make it right ?

My apologies, but I have been buying and playing games from Gary for years, and frankly I do not see him anymore a GOD then any other dev/programmer in the industry, but this is nothing more then a colored PAC with all the same flaws. Personally he should be ashamed to release this game as it was. At least the people now who download it will not have to CTD just by trying to start the game...

get the patch out... get it right... make the fixes... acknowledge the problems for future patches and inform the consumer... please don't let the fanboys speak for you...it only belittles this company even more.

Time to be harsh... I've waited since July to actually get this game to work to "SOME" degree as what the programer intended..



fbastos -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 7:34:49 AM)

quote:

Time to be harsh... I've waited since July to actually get this game to work to "SOME" degree as what the programer intended..


Don't lose your hope, Mr. Bart. When Twelve O'Clock High: Bombing the Reich was released, it was also very very easy to fool the AI into sending the fighters after some very obvious diversion groups. I would routinely send my main bomber missions without any escorts at all. After several patches, the AI got much better and the initial tricks didn't work any more.

It took several patches, though...

F.



dpstafford -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 11:11:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thayne
Just for starters . . .

(1) Because many PBEM opponents enjoy finding loopholes in the rules to exploit in order to gain a nonhistorical advantage. Computer AIs are designed not to do this.

(2) Because a PBEM opponent is not always available when I want to play. The Computer AI is always there.

(3) Because a PBEM opponent might either seriously outclass or seriously underclass my abilities. I can adjust a computer's skill level.

(4) Because the computer does not mind if I decide that I am simply not interested in playing any more and quit . . . or that I want to start over.

(5) Because I can write a DAR about my campaign and post it above without worry that my opponent is going to learn my strategy and use the information against me.

Consider,

(1) There are no loopholes to speak of in WITP. And if there were I would prefer that he support crew spend their time erasing them rather than working on a hopeless AI.

(2) PBEM. By e-mail. Your mail will wait until you have the inclination to open it.

(3) Even if your human opponent isn't up to your skill level, he is still better than the AI. And in the far more likely case, that you aren't up to his, well, you will learn alot in your defeat.

(4) You got me there. Quitter!

(5) Nobody really cares about your DAR's, especially if they are against the AI.

I can almost guarantee that once you play your first couple of PBEM turns, you will never want to play the AI ever again.



steveh11Matrix -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 11:38:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
You have internet access, try PBEM. The only way to fly. Totally different experience.

I can't understand why anybody would waste their time playing against the AI. Even if the AI were good. (Which I don't think it can ever be in a game this complex).

And various other, similar, posts.

There exists a class of customer, of which I too am one, which is NOT INTERESTED IN PLAYING PBEM. I have played games, both two player, multi-player and massively-multi-player over the net before, by email or real time, and I can honestly say that in general I dislike the experience. It just doesn't suit my style. I play the games to say "What if", to have fun, and not normally to play in such a competitive way.

(When I do play two-player it tends to be as much a social thing as a game, so it's normally face-to-face.)

So for me a reasonably aggressive and challenging AI is a prime requirement. Apologies, and "Well, PBEM is the way to go" and similar posts do not help.

Note that I'm not suggesting that the AI has to be the equal of even a poor human player. Just something that will thrust and counter occasionally. Poor moves are fine - Hey, just look at the Halsey thread, they're realistic - as long as it takes some action.

WitP's AI is not that great, but if there was no AI at all I wouldn't even have considered buying it. If I do something really stupid, it's capable of spanking me, so that "What if I send a battlefleet to intercept that invasion" results, as often as not, in "Oh. Where's that battleship gone?". I don't believe that the AI in WitP is as bad as you're all saying, from my point of view. Of course you can beat it. So what?

Steve, very frustratedly.



Banquet -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 12:46:46 PM)

I would echo what Steve says.

Personally I've played online and pbem a lot in the past. Although I've had plenty of fun I've kinda burned out on it now and, these days, prefer to play against the AI when it suits me.

It may not be a great indicator but the majority of the people I know who play games also play AI and rarely, if ever, play online/pbem.

WitP is obviously one of the biggest, most complex wargames ever created and this makes the AI especially hard to program. No one's asking for miracles but I'd like to see the AI improved over the coming patches with equal priority as anything else and I worry that the amount of people who post that they only play pbem will tend to make the devs think they can let AI fixes take a back seat. Most people who want a pbem match will tend to gravitate to the forum to arrange the games, but how many AI players will post or even visit the forums?

HoI is an example of a game of similar scope (map size, unit numbers, etc) and although the AI was woeful at first release I find it very challenging now in most cases (especially with the user made mods such as CORE) HttR is much smaller scale, but has excellent AI. This gives me hope that improvements can be made to WiTP to improve the AI and it is reassuring to see a couple of AI improvements forthcoming in 1.3.

Having said all that I haven't found any gamebreaking problems in the course of my own games, it's just reading about some problems reported on the forum that worries me.



Halsey -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 1:02:15 PM)

Playing against others that have similar views is extremely rewarding. It's just a matter of hooking up with the right ones. The people I play against are level headed and smart.

There has been more than a few times when either side has screwed up royally. So we have gone back a few turns to replay or started over. We've decided that it's not really important who wins. Playing the game to have fun is what's important. Let's face it, nobody will probably finish this game to the very end anyway.

Our solution would be, let's try this again. Maybe I can do better.
(Thank you Tony and Roger for giving me some really great games. It's been a blast all these years!)

AI games can be fun too, but rarely will you be surprised by anything. If you do manage to be surprised, most people replay the turn to get a better result. Then they complain how weak the AI is.[:D]

To each his own![;)]

I guess most people who play PBEM are old cardboard and paper map players. The AI in those games was horrific![:D]



steveh11Matrix -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 1:15:15 PM)

Well, you play your way and I (and Banquet) will play mine (ours). No-one said we had to all play the same way. [:)] Just so long as all views are represented and given due weight.

Steve.



wild_Willie2 -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 2:03:12 PM)

In reply to Thayne's question, I have been bombing the jap bases from 10K to 13K altitude (to avoid most of the flak). I mentioned destroying 1300 zero's (1000 on the ground) in my mail, but that where ONLY A6M2's. I also destoyed some 400 A6M3 (350 on the GROUND!).

yesterday something very typicall happened. As I was resuplying kendary with a 30 + AK fleet, the last of the 4 KB carriers showed up near Kendary, bombing the hell out of my supply convoy (no problems with that, should have provided them with more LRCAP fighters), but the AI then steamed south towards Darwin, Where I had stationed some 100 B-17's, 62 B-26's and 50 something B-25's ......... The result was predictable.

The AI is only good to play against if you only have 1/10 of the strenght of the AI, if you have a better ratio, the AI is as easy to defeat as Ashlee Simpson in a live song contest...[;)]

The reasons that I do not wan't to play this game PBEM, are already stated in previous postings.... The main reason being: IT TAKES FOREVER TO PLAY EVEN A FEW TURNS.
I think I will leave the game be for the next YEAR or so, untill patch 2.x or so arrives (the estimate of one year is made without taking in hidious disasters, like EARTQUAKES, CONVENTIONS or even BUSH RE-ELECTED... ) so I do not have to feel like a BETA tester anymore, when playing this "potentially" great game.

I Have to go now, need to check the results of my PCR reaction........(YES, I AM MAILING IN MY BOSS's TIME [;)] )



steveh11Matrix -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 2:07:07 PM)

I think you're over-reacting. If you don't like th eposition you've got into, and feel it's now an auto-victory...restart. [:)]

If you want a challenge start a 1944 campaign, or even a 1942 one, as the Japanese! [;)]

(Disclaimer: I've yet to do either...)
Steve.



Buck Beach -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 2:36:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
You have internet access, try PBEM. The only way to fly. Totally different experience.

I can't understand why anybody would waste their time playing against the AI. Even if the AI were good. (Which I don't think it can ever be in a game this complex).


Fun is in the eye of the beholder as is wasting time. I know many people who think grown men really waste their time by sitting in front of a computer all day/night or whenever playing games when there is so many more important/productive things to do. My computer playing is my choice of entertainment as opposed to sitting in front of the TV. I'm glad you enjoy your game your way and I do enjoy playing my games my way. After all I spent my money on the game not yours.



tsimmonds -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 2:36:37 PM)

quote:

(Thank you Tony and Roger for giving me some really great games. It's been a blast all these years!)


Yeah it has. Here's to thirty-five more!



Halsey -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 2:43:15 PM)

I still owe you for those two defeats in Wellington's Victory, don't think I haven't forgot![:D][:D][;)]

SPI Highway to the Reich anyone?[8D]

Tank Graveyard at Minsk and a split decision at Borodino, Wacht am Rhein. A few others I'm sure.[;)]



tsimmonds -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 3:06:19 PM)

It always comes down to the chateaux.

But I would have thought your 50 straight victories in EF surely would have dulled your pain (come to think of it, have I ever won a PBEM?[:(])....not to mention Atlantic Wall (twice), WIE, Vietnam, however many times we gamed Borodino (one day I'll learn), HTTR, CNA (the first time)....oh and Minelayer Tycoon I mean UV.

But the most fun of all were the ones on the same team: WITP Richmond 85, and HTTR as the allies.[8D]



carlos -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 4:17:30 PM)

Maybe I'm an exception, but I care quite a lot for the AAR that Thaynes posted. I think it's the best written and most interesting AAR up to now, although it's against the AI.

I love this game and spend lots of time on it, but I have to agree that the AI needs a tweeking. I'm not talking about a million dollar developement of a real AI, but I expect that, after a few patches at least, the AI should not sail it's carriers into harms way on purpose. In my first game the AI sailed KB against PM four days in a row, spend most of its launch points, and then went against cairns and cooktown which were stocked with planes. The AI had reconed the places several times. the result was no surprise, KB lost 3 carriers, I lost 50 fighters + 50 bombers. In my second game the AI managed to loose all carriers except 1 CVL by april 1942, again by sailing against huge numbers of LBA.

I really hope they will fix these issues.

Still, no other game in the last few years has given me so many hours of fun for the money

Greetings

Carlos



Nikademus -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 6:10:36 PM)

I'm a beta tester and i prefer AI play so i feel for the guys who complain about the AI's issues. You wont ever hear me simply say "Just play PBEM" PBEM is nice but as others have already stated, PBEM has it's own sets of limitations...the biggest for me is that i like to sit down and do dedicated WitP sessions....and dont like having to wait for a turn to be sent to me.
However having been involved in the patch work, i can tell you that Gary has worked very hard on improving the AI, a task which i akin to trying to roll a boulder uphill. I know some will view this as "just another excuse" but thats the simple truth of it. WitP is a massively complicated game with thousands of lines of code devoted to the AI alone. I dont expect the AI to be einstein but its also not unreasonable to expect it to not sail unguarded convoys past massive enemy airbases.

So keep the faith. We are working to improve the worst of the AI's fobiles



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1