Good Review -- Web Grognard (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> FlashPoint Germany



Message

JustinL -> Good Review -- Web Grognard (3/2/2005 3:53:38 AM)

http://grognard.com/reviews1/flashpoint.txt

From the review link: [8D]
THINGS I THINK ARE COOL.

(1) The game keeps a running log of *everything* that happens, which
you can print out at the end of the game. AAR aficionados should be
positively overjoyed at this "why-doesn't-everyone-do-this" feature.
Chrome of the brightest kind, this.

(2) There's a command delay built into the fabric of the game. Want to
carry out a prepared assault? The units won't even move out for 30
minutes - if you're NATO. Warsaw Pact units can take longer.

(3) You can play with command limits in place, such that a player can
only dole out X orders per turn. Or you can turn this off.

(4) The game keeps track of how many orders you're giving, in the form
of "radio traffic" bars on the status line. Get too Byzantine in your
orders - or forget to keep your headquarters units moving - and you'll
soon find that those big Russian guns off to the east will give you a
personal hotfoot.

(5) There's a scenario editor, to include a scenario generating
feature. Haven't played with this, but it's nice to see it included.

(6) Digital download product, so no copy protection (license code
only...) and no having a #&^%ing CD to drag about to play. Thanks,
Matrix; some people (IE, me) think this is worth real money.

(7) The TacAI programming that moves my own units hasn't made me rip
big wads of my hair out, and I'm quite honestly a pathological pisser
and moaner on this topic. Does this mean the TacAI is as good as in
HTTR? The jury's still out, but I have played enough to think that it
must be *pretty* good, just on the basis of the gruntin' and groanin'
I'm *not* doing while I watch the TacAI move and fight my units during
the WEGO phase.

(8) This game seems amazingly free of troubles, quirks, issues, and
other hassels. For a v1.0 product - even for a v3.0 product! - it's
refreshingly clean and problem-free.



Crimguy -> RE: Good Review -- Web Grognard (3/2/2005 3:56:59 PM)

I agree. Pretty spot on review. The man who wrote it, Giftzwerg, is a regular on the newsgroups. He's a real PITA, but I could never argue with his intelligence or knowledge. He particularly hates anything HPS, but has a valid reason for it.



sterckxe -> RE: Good Review -- Web Grognard (3/2/2005 4:59:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crimguy
I agree. Pretty spot on review. The man who wrote it, Giftzwerg, is a regular on the newsgroups.


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crimguy
He's a real PITA, but I could never argue with his intelligence or knowledge.


I do :) - but I get proven wrong a lot

Below is maybe the finest AAR he ever wrote - enjoy

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

----------------

HIGHWAY TO THE REICH - PANTHER GAMES

Got into a pretty wild little game the other night. In the "Deelen"
scenario, my friend Bob took the Germans, and me the English, setting
additional reinforcements for the Germans.

So. Down come my parachutes and gliders, and I march cheerfully into
Arnhem. Not a German in sight. Nowhere. Nothing but British boots
clattering on the cobblestones, and Dutch girls blowing kisses.

The 52nd Division lands. Still no contact. I'm holding all the relevant
objectives, Arnhem, bridges, objectives ... and sending out patrols to
pretty fair distances, but still no Germans. Oh, I glimpse a few here and
there, exchange a little long-range fire with my scouts, but nothing. The
only Germans I've really had any contact with are the few immobile
garrison-guys stuck in town and quickly wiped out. So I hunker down in a
big pocket around all the objectives, dig in deep, and wait for Bob to send
some attacks my way.

Ha-ha. Who's better than me? Toppa the world, Ma!

Except. Days go by. I'm thinking, "What the **** is he up to? Am I going
to see, like, a huge wooden horse trundling up to my frontlines?"

On Day 5 (!), as I'm swilling a martini (literally) and knitting a banner to
welcome XXX Corps (figuratively) ... my picket line picks up some Germans
directly north of Arnhem.

<blinks> More than a few Germans, actually.

<frowning> Really a goodly number of them.

<nervous laughter> In fact, rather an alarming gaggle of Germans.

<panicky> Can that be two whole divisions of 'em?

[I'm imagining a scene were a runner dashes up to General Urquart and
Urquart asks, "Germans, you say? How many of them?" and the messenger
blurts: "Looks like *all of them*, sir!"]

As I try to arrange The Mother Of All Hasty Redeployments, this huge wedge
of Germans - Bob had actually gathered up every single last German unit that
could walk, roll, or crawl - crashes into the two brigades of the 52nd
holding the northern flank. The little brown "speed bumps" held briefly ...
then disappeared under a roiling ball of explosion graphics and black/grey
squares.

Both systems are chugging like crazy and the minute counter is updating
sloooooowly; I'm imagining the casualty meter spinning like an odometer gone
mad. There had to be ... I dunno ... 20,000 Germans packed into a space of
two kilometers square, running for the Rhine.

Well, anyhow, so much for the entire 52nd Lowland Division; they're a grease
spot with a hobnailed bootprint on it. <skirling of bagpipes>

The other four brigades (counting the intrepid glider pilots...) have now
gotten themselves sorted out - turned around, actually, since the headlong
German advance bounces off the Lower Rhine and is now firmly fixed between
two neat red rows - and are starting to pound the Germans mercilessly. My
"brilliant" contribution to the affair is to give them all "attack" tasks
inwards, onto the German mass which is now pretty much surrounded ... but
still blazing away with everything they've got.

Whoa, Mohammed.

At this point, the two PCs have gone bananas, what with all the little
"blings" and pages of scrolling text as the game systems record units
routing, units surrendering, and units disappearing forever. My laptop's
fan is making a sort of strained groaning sound, and heavy graphics load has
got the hot air coming out feeling like the defroster on an F450 truck up
full.

[Bob goes, "Uh, we outta save this off, dude, in case one ... or both ... of
your PCs goes tits-up on us..."]

There are so many Germans packed into a tiny little space next to the
bridge, and so many Paras surrounding them, that the graphic on the screen
looks like a child's drawing of a demented, twitching 8-ball soaked in
blood.

It's like, 10:00 AM. Only.

There's really no semblance of command (where are we gonna go?), just
hundreds of units set at Fastest/Quickest/Max/Rapid/Max" blasting the
****-all out of each other. Neither side dares to try and turn away, since
that would invite complete disaster...

...so, uh, it pretty much ends up in "complete disaster" for both sides. As
dusk falls, the smoking, radioactive embers of each force disengage. And
there ain't many of 'em left. I've got a battalion of Poles, pretty much
undamaged, holding the railroad bridge, and Bob has a big flock of
artillerymen up north. So I send the poles to stand on the mountain of
souvenirs that used to be about four divisions of troops.

Ha. I "win."

I go, "Well, that turned out to be the stupidest friggin' game we ever
played."

Bob sniffs, "Well, next time I'll make my Klingon Attack-Wedge wide enough
to squash your *whole* force. Important Safety Tip."

Cool. Let's go again!



Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: Good Review -- Web Grognard (3/2/2005 5:52:37 PM)

Nice review! Thanks for sharing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crimguy
He particularly hates anything HPS, but has a valid reason for it.

You have just awakened my curiosity. Why?



sterckxe -> RE: Good Review -- Web Grognard (3/2/2005 7:36:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chelco
You have just awakened my curiosity. Why?


Nuance - he doesn't hate HPS, he's pretty much indifferent to them issuing scenario pack after scenario pack for what is essentially the BattleGround engine of 15 years back.

But Point of Attack 2 got creamed by him for essentially taking out the fun parts of what could have been a good game and for being a beta that got rushed out of the door.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx



Adam Parker -> RE: Good Review -- Web Grognard (3/3/2005 12:03:53 AM)

But as Web Grognards points out (not), Giftzy a few days later after some further play, subsequently wrote on the same newsgroup to his credit:

"...I'm finding that the AI which directs a side when you're playing
against the computer is bone-stupid. In fact, the StratAI in FPG just
did the single stupidest thing I have *ever* seen a programmed opponent do in any wargame I've ever played: It ran over its own minefields! "

Now, he was good enough to accept Erik's explanation re patch 1.01 but his point 8 in this thread imo remains is a little too optimistic. I'm surprised that he's never seen the AI lead with its HQ's, for example. Maybe with the passage of time he now has? I did in this very scenario "Clash of Titans" vs my human NATO the other day.

With Web Grognards, we'd just never know. Web trawling of the public domain is fine for the gathering of useful info - but a credible site, if based on simply posting verbatim the words of the public, is one that trawls for all sides of a story.

The extract quoted here from Giftzy's review also gives a nice FPG mini AAR regarding "Clash of the Titans" and some negatives based only on scenario/map spread and number. I think the number of scens already provided is more than adequate.

I was a little surprised to hear in another thread here though, that it will now take till patch 1.03 to address the AI. But then again, is this really surprising? Just as this title's AI leads with its HQ's, others have lead with their arty, some don't lead at all. Hell, these design flaws go back to board gaming with Panzerblitz and its truck-scouts!

But for prospective buyers, I really think that point 8 imho, is way over the top.

I do like Giftzy's optimism in that Matrix will release a map maker for the game enabling the public to create their own titles with his phrase akin "unlike HPS"! I kinda don't think so. With all the work Rob is putting into this game he deserves a few years of revenue from a series.

Unlike some though, should he do so, I'd never be one to view any such title as a "scenario pack" [:-]

Adam.



ravinhood -> RE: Good Review -- Web Grognard (3/3/2005 12:11:00 AM)

quote:

He particularly hates anything HPS, but has a valid reason for it.


And why is that praytell?



JustinL -> RE: Good Review -- Web Grognard (3/3/2005 1:21:28 AM)

http://www.gilgameshcontrite.com/Computer_AI/pages/page_47.html

I've selected some quotes to ponder from this article. Read the link for the full context:
I think any more would be outside the scope of this post.

"In my research I did not encounter any program that had made substantial progress towards Human-Level AI as described in the chapter “The Problem” at the top of this paper. That was not surprising. What was surprising was that I could not find any research group even attempting to create AI of that caliber."

"At the same time, the wargames created for the military (WARSIM, JWARS, TACOPS) do not have any strategic AI whatsoever (recall the comment from my friend who works on WARSIM, “We don't really use AI, since the enemy is played by Humans…”). While creating Human-Level strategic AI is a daunting task, the failure to do so can be extraordinarily dangerous (recall V Corps commander Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace’s recent comments from Iraq, “The enemy we're fighting is a bit different from the one we wargamed against."). The enemy they had wargamed against was controlled by U. S. officers following U. S. military doctrine. What they needed was to wargame against an enemy controlled by a Human-Level AI that could think outside the box so that problems were encountered during simulations and not on the battlefield.

John Laird of the University of Michigan admits that there is not much of a technology transfer from academia to the commercial gaming industry, either (“When game developers look at AI research, they find little work on the problems that interest them, such as nontrivial pathfinding, simple resource management and strategic decision-making…” - Bridging the Gap Between Developers & Researchers)."



Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: Good Review -- Web Grognard (3/3/2005 1:28:03 AM)

Ey GamerGuy!
That's from Ezra Sidran's webpage, the guy who designed "The War College".
I e-mailed the guy a time ago regarding some considerations in his webpage. He was kind enough to answer on my observations.
Getting a PhD with such a subject! I'm envious!



Crimguy -> RE: Good Review -- Web Grognard (3/3/2005 3:03:47 AM)

It's not HPS per se, just their rehashing of the same game, different locale over, and over, and over again. And they never lower their price. Mostly referring to the Pz Campaigns, but the same system is used in about 15 titles right now.

I find it a bit of a rip too, but like the games, so I'm not complaining too much ;-D

I should really mod my comment above. In fact, I think I will . . . should read:

"Hates the fact that HPS keeps vomiting up the same product instead of including a map+scenario+OOB editor. I think that's a valid complaint."

Sicily '43 was one of the greatest turn-based games I've encountered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chelco

Nice review! Thanks for sharing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crimguy
He particularly hates anything HPS, but has a valid reason for it.

You have just awakened my curiosity. Why?



JustinL -> RE: Good Review -- Web Grognard (3/3/2005 6:20:09 AM)

I just thought it might be worth highlighting that even the classified versions of some of these other games don't have good strategic AI. Sidran speaks to this better than I can, but you probably know more about it than I do.

So, that does leave the question of what is a good basic AI for the purpose of learning to play a human opponent? That will bounce up against these CS limitations that Sidran talks about.



Adam Parker -> RE: Good Review -- Web Grognard (3/3/2005 11:32:54 AM)

Thing is Gamer, with respect you're assuming people just want the AI to teach them. Tutorials do that.

People buy AI's for solitaire play.



Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: Good Review -- Web Grognard (3/3/2005 4:30:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sterckxe
Nuance - he doesn't hate HPS, he's pretty much indifferent to them issuing scenario pack after scenario pack for what is essentially the BattleGround engine of 15 years back.
But Point of Attack 2 got creamed by him for essentially taking out the fun parts of what could have been a good game and for being a beta that got rushed out of the door.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crimguy
It's not HPS per se, just their rehashing of the same game, different locale over, and over, and over again. And they never lower their price. Mostly referring to the Pz Campaigns, but the same system is used in about 15 titles right now.
I find it a bit of a rip too, but like the games, so I'm not complaining too much ;-D
I should really mod my comment above. In fact, I think I will . . . should read:
"Hates the fact that HPS keeps vomiting up the same product instead of including a map+scenario+OOB editor. I think that's a valid complaint."



Thank you guys for the answer.



Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: Good Review -- Web Grognard (3/3/2005 4:48:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GamerGuy
I just thought it might be worth highlighting that even the classified versions of some of these other games don't have good strategic AI.

And many times no AI at all so the OPFOR has to be played by humans.

quote:

So, that does leave the question of what is a good basic AI for the purpose of learning to play a human opponent?

If you are talking about game mechanics, almost anything that moves the oponent against you would work. If you are seeking training against what a human player can do to you (ruses, ambushes, feints, etc), I just don't know.



JustinL -> RE: Good Review -- Web Grognard (3/4/2005 10:05:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

Thing is Gamer, with respect you're assuming people just want the AI to teach them. Tutorials do that.

People buy AI's for solitaire play.


True. To refer back again to Sidran:
http://www.gilgameshcontrite.com/Computer_AI/pages/page_47.html

The question is to what extent is the AI you want (and most of us want) possible. Realistically AI may only be training for PBEM, and while we may hope for AI that is better, technically it may not be possible with current CS coding.



Adam Parker -> Totally untrue summation of AI potential (3/4/2005 11:18:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GamerGuy

Realistically AI may only be training for PBEM, and while we may hope for AI that is better, technically it may not be possible with current CS coding.


What absolute bogus.

The AI's in Close Combat 5, Battles In Normandy, Panzer Campaigns Market Garden/Sicily/Kursk, Modern Campaigns Korea 85/Fulda, Squad Battles Vietnam/Eagles Strike, Tin Soldiers Alexander, Medievil Total War, the Age of Empires franchise, Sid Meier's Gettyburg, Alpha Centauri... hell, Tropico! (in no particular order) as some immediate examples, offer some superlative solitiare play.

Whether a game offers a sound AI is dependant squarely on the genius of the designer and talent of the scenario developer to make use of what is given - pure and simple.

Appreciate that the above post is your opinion but the industry does not back you up. Nor does the desire of the military for competitive solitaire applications which are being worked on as we speak by designers whose names we know, with an eye to the retail shelf.



Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: Totally untrue summation of AI potential (3/4/2005 11:24:46 PM)

Ey Adam!
What's so great in CC5's AI? I don't have that one, but I swear that in any other CC game I've played (including CC Marines) the enemy's just advances in a straight path towards the objective.
Cheers,



JustinL -> RE: Totally untrue summation of AI potential (3/4/2005 11:32:46 PM)

I think I'll agree to disagree at this point.



Paul Vebber -> RE: Totally untrue summation of AI potential (3/4/2005 11:55:55 PM)

The fundamental problem of creating "human caliber AI" is defining and creating a process to "conceive and evaluate a reative risk". Humans understand humnas and the nature of "risk" and "bluffing" and "suckering". The requirements to set up a sequence of events aimed at what is in effect a "con" is something that requires a degree of INTELLIGENCE (not the artifical kind - but 'absolute kind') that we have no clue about and are a long long way from understanding.



Marc von Martial -> RE: Totally untrue summation of AI potential (3/5/2005 3:50:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chelco

Ey Adam!
What's so great in CC5's AI? I don't have that one, but I swear that in any other CC game I've played (including CC Marines) the enemy's just advances in a straight path towards the objective.
Cheers,


I´m what you would call a CC slut.

I played and still play all of the titles. I collect various box versions, did some maps, scenarios and mods for it. And I did run one of the most visited community sites for it. Som I`m what you would call a "fanboy". But honestly I never thought the AI was too bright [;)], in fact I think that FPGs AI gives you a harder time. The AI of the CC series was never up for any surprises at all.

The only thing what makes it "harder" is the fact that CC is realtime and you don´t have much time to think and make decissions.

It was and still is a heck of a game series though.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Totally untrue summation of AI potential (3/5/2005 4:04:37 AM)

Adam,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
What absolute bogus.

The AI's in Close Combat 5, Battles In Normandy, Panzer Campaigns Market Garden/Sicily/Kursk, Modern Campaigns Korea 85/Fulda, Squad Battles Vietnam/Eagles Strike, Tin Soldiers Alexander, Medievil Total War, the Age of Empires franchise, Sid Meier's Gettyburg, Alpha Centauri... hell, Tropico! (in no particular order) as some immediate examples, offer some superlative solitiare play.

Whether a game offers a sound AI is dependant squarely on the genius of the designer and talent of the scenario developer to make use of what is given - pure and simple.

Appreciate that the above post is your opinion but the industry does not back you up. Nor does the desire of the military for competitive solitaire applications which are being worked on as we speak by designers whose names we know, with an eye to the retail shelf.


Leaving the ongoing FPG AI improvements out of it, I have to say that a few of the games you mentioned, in my experience, had many AI issues that made the AI suitable only for practice use.

With that said, I've also found that AI experience tends to vary from player to player. Each person has a certain style of play and certain strengths and weaknesses. For some, no AI actually rises to the level of "good" while for others it is "impossible".

Regards,

- Erik



themattcurtis -> RE: Good Review -- Web Grognard (3/5/2005 12:29:54 PM)

I tried to make a similar point -- that there are some highly acclaimed (and rightfully so) titles out there where the AI was at least originally lacking, and still are if the scenario designer doesn't do his homework.

The AI complaints linked to this game (I have some minor ones myself) have been made, and are just now being driven into the ground. No one can claim the developers haven't heard. I've seen the replies.

And yet, when word comes that a pair of patches are in the works to help satisfy their customer base, critics start dropping the "rolling eyes" smilies at the bottom of their posts. Every bit of praise apparently has to be meant with caveats and counter-arguments and comments. Which I just don't get. It's like rooting for someone else's efforts to fail.

Despite the need for some tweaking, I enjoy this game. I think it's Fun. I think it's a good game that could really, really become something. And I think there's a point where constructive criticism becomes plain old bashing.



Adam Parker -> RE: Totally untrue summation of AI potential (3/5/2005 2:14:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chelco

Ey Adam!
What's so great in CC5's AI? I don't have that one, but I swear that in any other CC game I've played (including CC Marines) the enemy's just advances in a straight path towards the objective.
Cheers,


Hey Chelco. CC5 Normandy was a game I delayed buying until only this year when a designer pointed out its attributes to me. In it I've found the most diverse and challenging of the CC series and as Mark may concur, the least prone to clickfesting of the lot. Its AI can't attack en masse but it can force itself locally and defend competitively. So much so that beating it for the solitaire player becomes a privilege and a frustration when things go awry. An example of design achievement.

Panzer Campaigns Sicily/Market Garden and Kursk are examples of a scenario designer taking the tools given and crafting competitive solitaire play. When I was given Sicily as an Alpha build to evaluate I recommended it just be made a scenario pack if ever the series went Italian. How could the nature of its fighting be competitive solitaire-wise on its own? The scenario designer had other ideas. Some scenarios across all titles indeed play better than others (as I've many times reported on various fora) but imo he's created some brilliant solitaire play in the three mentioned games as a result. In MG particularly, I once played the best solitaire war game scenario of my life. An example of scenario crafting achievement.

Squad Battles Vietnam and Eagles Strike perform superbly in solitaire play owing to the close-in nature of the bulk of their fighting - jungle/bocage-village. I'm on record for berating the series' AI performance in the more open terrain types but in the jungles of Vietnam for example, the AI is pure genius. "Pure genius". If you've ever wanted an AI to close assault you, see what SBV is capable of executing and its timing in doing so. The Wargamer's "World At War" site once had 2 AAR's of mine as illustration. Where they are now, who knows? [:)] An example of design achievement.

Sid Meier's once dual stable of Gettysburg and Alpha Centauri are imo beautiful applications of the AI art. They will win and often. An example of design achievement. To this, throw in Tropico, Whilst of course not a war title - one whose AI provides imo a competitive industry building challenge and therefore far improves on the efforts by the same design house in the Railroad Tycoon franchise - whose AI was and still remains in Title 3, virtually non-existant.

The Age of Empires franchise is more akin to Mark's analysis of CC. Clickfest mayhem but due to this design approach, the AI simply clicks better than many humans. A design winner for those who love this solitaire genre.

Let's not then forget Matrix's own gems - Battles in Normandy and Tin Soldiers Alexander. Both examples of two different design houses thinking outside the square. BiN working with players needing to manage continuous lines with limited forces. Alexander taking wego and initiative based movement as its added layer to the norm, in giving its AI a chance. Both achieve in creating highly aggressive artificial opponents and therefore, a degree of fun and trepidation capable of immersing a human player. FPG as I've posted shows sinilar aggressive traits boding well for its possible future.

The point of all this of course is that these examples of designer and scenario crafter experise are not purely as GamerGuy stated, merely and only to train players for the face-face arena. Far from it. This is not the "only hope" for AI gaming. These AI's exist to provide fun AI play, for those gamers wishing for nothing else but to play solitaire.

Adam.



Marc von Martial -> RE: Totally untrue summation of AI potential (3/5/2005 4:22:49 PM)

quote:

Hey Chelco. CC5 Normandy was a game I delayed buying until only this year when a designer pointed out its attributes to me. In it I've found the most diverse and challenging of the CC series and as Mark may concur, the least prone to clickfesting of the lot. Its AI can't attack en masse but it can force itself locally and defend competitively. So much so that beating it for the solitaire player becomes a privilege and a frustration when things go awry. An example of design achievement.


You must have a different version of CC5 then me. Care to sell it to a collector [;)] ?

The AI in CC5 can only defend competitively (again) because the game was back what it was originally coded and planned for, and where it shines, close quarters fights in dense terrains. Play the more open maps in CC5 and it´s an AI massacre.



Marc von Martial -> RE: Totally untrue summation of AI potential (3/5/2005 4:28:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chelco

Ey Adam!
What's so great in CC5's AI? I don't have that one, but I swear that in any other CC game I've played (including CC Marines) the enemy's just advances in a straight path towards the objective.
Cheers,


Hey Chelco. CC5 Normandy was a game I delayed buying until only this year when a designer pointed out its attributes to me. In it I've found the most diverse and challenging of the CC series and as Mark may concur, the least prone to clickfesting of the lot. Its AI can't attack en masse but it can force itself locally and defend competitively. So much so that beating it for the solitaire player becomes a privilege and a frustration when things go awry. An example of design achievement.

Panzer Campaigns Sicily/Market Garden and Kursk are examples of a scenario designer taking the tools given and crafting competitive solitaire play. When I was given Sicily as an Alpha build to evaluate I recommended it just be made a scenario pack if ever the series went Italian. How could the nature of its fighting be competitive solitaire-wise on its own? The scenario designer had other ideas. Some scenarios across all titles indeed play better than others (as I've many times reported on various fora) but imo he's created some brilliant solitaire play in the three mentioned games as a result. In MG particularly, I once played the best solitaire war game scenario of my life. An example of scenario crafting achievement.

Squad Battles Vietnam and Eagles Strike perform superbly in solitaire play owing to the close-in nature of the bulk of their fighting - jungle/bocage-village. I'm on record for berating the series' AI performance in the more open terrain types but in the jungles of Vietnam for example, the AI is pure genius. "Pure genius". If you've ever wanted an AI to close assault you, see what SBV is capable of executing and its timing in doing so. The Wargamer's "World At War" site once had 2 AAR's of mine as illustration. Where they are now, who knows? [:)] An example of design achievement.

Sid Meier's once dual stable of Gettysburg and Alpha Centauri are imo beautiful applications of the AI art. They will win and often. An example of design achievement. To this, throw in Tropico, Whilst of course not a war title - one whose AI provides imo a competitive industry building challenge and therefore far improves on the efforts by the same design house in the Railroad Tycoon franchise - whose AI was and still remains in Title 3, virtually non-existant.

The Age of Empires franchise is more akin to Mark's analysis of CC. Clickfest mayhem but due to this design approach, the AI simply clicks better than many humans. A design winner for those who love this solitaire genre.

Let's not then forget Matrix's own gems - Battles in Normandy and Tin Soldiers Alexander. Both examples of two different design houses thinking outside the square. BiN working with players needing to manage continuous lines with limited forces. Alexander taking wego and initiative based movement as its added layer to the norm, in giving its AI a chance. Both achieve in creating highly aggressive artificial opponents and therefore, a degree of fun and trepidation capable of immersing a human player. FPG as I've posted shows sinilar aggressive traits boding well for its possible future.

The point of all this of course is that these examples of designer and scenario crafter experise are not purely as GamerGuy stated, merely and only to train players for the face-face arena. Far from it. This is not the "only hope" for AI gaming. These AI's exist to provide fun AI play, for those gamers wishing for nothing else but to play solitaire.

Adam.


You know, I think it´s allways in the eye of the beholder. We have customers stating that the AI in the "Decisive Battles" series, and especially BIN, is dumb as a nut. Then we have people here that say the same about FPG and other that say the AI give´s them a hard enough time to enjoy the game, included me.

I pesonally think it´s allways more of a problem of what type of gamer you are. Just as some rock at deathmatches and others say it´s impossibly to score a single frag [;)] (exegeration intended).

However there are some issues in FPG and we´re more the happy to adress them with the upcoming patch(es).



Crimguy -> RE: AI (3/5/2005 8:44:02 PM)

I shelved my CC purchases after CC3. Back then, all the AI could do was defend. Attacks were mushy, and never had a schwerpunkt, many units choosing to not attack at all.

Never had Squad Battles, but never heard a good thing about it.

Agree on MG and Sicily. Can't comment on Kursk because of its' sheer size.

I think the AI in Korsun Pocket was pretty good, but nothing earth shattering. I did appreciate its' attempts to exploit holes in my lines.

I give a big AI Hoo-Aaa to Highway to the Reich. Never ceases to challenge me - but a lot of that goes to the good job the scenario designers did in giving a limited amount of time to complete missions. Awesome game, and can't wait for more titles to come out.



TheHellPatrol -> RE: AI (3/5/2005 10:32:28 PM)

Ahhhhh, Alpha Centauri[:)], that was one of the most compelling game experiences of my life. I wish they would re-release it for todays modern pc's and still keep it turn based[8|].
Tropico, another great experience and excellent ai, you guys have some great points. In my experience i think it is worth mentioning the old Warlords series, up to and including Warlords 3, some great gameplay outside of the wargaming genre. HPS' Market Garden is my all time favorite and i also agree that it's the best (imo) ai wise. I may be biased as that also happens to be my absolute top operation/campaign for wargaming so HTTR's quality is much appreciated as well.
Battles in Normandy is the only game that i really had to "work" at to achieve victory, even now i am still honing my skills while making a few careless mistakes that i rationalize away to "in-the-trenches parenting" and "blitzkrieg aging"[;)]. Another winner as of late is Mad Minutes Bull Run,a truly remarkable experience IMHO. Flashpoint Germany, sure it's ai makes some questionable decisions, not many, but we know it will be improved as it was just released (virtually bug free). The thing that stands out the most about FPG is that it is a blast to play and seeing an occasional HQ leading an assault only serves to make me grin. After all, their arty is pounding your HQ with impunity...payback[8D]. If a game isn't fun then it doesn't matter how good the ai is and FPG has many ingredients that weren't available until now.



Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: AI (3/7/2005 5:13:14 PM)

Thank you all for the info on CC5. For some reason or another I never bought it. Maybe it's time to do it now.

Coming back to the topic (the review and AI in FPG), I think that the AI in FPG is very good. Heck! It chooses avenues of approaches and uses them coordinating entire battallions. It even shifts battalions from one avenue of approach to another! The fact that the AI ran over it's own minefield, or it didn't use arty, helos or that it used HQ units in forward stances doesn't reduce my admiration. All the defects pointed before are (or have been) fixed.
It appears to me that many people will prematurely conclude that FPG's AI is bad because of the low challenge they have while playing as NATO in at least the first scenarios of the V Corps. I am under the impression that the lack of challenge while playing NATO in those scenarios is that the M1 tank effectiveness is around 1.5 tank kills per firing event and that the T-72's tank effectiveness is around 0.23 tank kills per firing event. So, it looks like you need more than 6 WP tanks per each NATO tank unless you use human-level crafted tactics.
Cheers,



CommC -> RE: AI (3/8/2005 6:53:28 AM)

Regarding the FPG AI, I have finally created a scenario where the AI beats me soundly, regularly. The AI's choice of routes, flanking, and concentration of force were all excellent. It even used arty when it had good spotting. It did not lead with HQ units. Most of the problems people have seen with the AI are not necessarily due to the AI, but it is scenario design... simply put the AI needs more forces when playing as WP. The AI does best when attacking as WP, and there is only one simple objective in the center of the map.

I will post this scenario, and I challenge anyone to beat the AI... I'll be surprised if they do.



themattcurtis -> RE: AI (3/8/2005 4:16:37 PM)

I'd love to try it. And if what you say turns out to be true, I'll be one happy gamer. I've said for a while I thought a number of problems might stem more from scenario design than anything else. Please advise as to when it's posted, or email it if you'd like.

Matt



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.75