RE: Spartan

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Spartan

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Spartan

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Spartan - 7/4/2004 11:15:14 PM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

UPDATE: Ok I think this thing is ready for "beta" test 1.01 hehe my very own beta test.

Volunteers? Ok no pushing, stop that, no telling people ahead of you Britney Spears is standing naked in the park! haha

Well I'm waiting (tapping foot impatiently!! ;)

"Impossible" really looks impossible now, the army makeups and the speed of research and development looks very near if not surpassing 1.013's Hard level makeup. I played a game as the Spartans and got my butt wiped by the Acadians, Cretians and Messerians.

I'm also starting to see them keep the large defensive armies back in their cities again, along with putting out 5 spot armies, although the 5 spot armies are not "extreme" as much like in 1.013, they are plentiful enough to give even the grogiest of grogs a run for their money. And if you backstab and ally, be prepared for the consequences. Having a bunch of "green" surrounding you isn't going to save you this time if you play the "backstabber". ;)

Also on "hard to impossible" difficulty you should see them start producing units on the map on turn (2) now.

I have made everything trickle down, so if you want to try a Normal or Easy difficulty game, be my guest, I believe these will be fairly simple and "Easy" difficulty should be a pushover like all of patch 1.017 was, but, with a little more difficulty than Easy was in 1.017.

Easy should give you a year (12) turns before the AI builds anything, Normal will give you (6) turns.

You will still see large armies for a time on Easy and Normal, but, you shouldn't see upgrades for quite sometime to them, like Hoplites, and the Elite units of any faction. But, in the Hard to Impossible difficulties you can expect upgrades within 4 years of play, if not sooner. If these upgrades are coming too fast or not fast enough I can adjust the research levels some more. But, you can well bet the impossible level of research is pretty fast for the AI. ;)

If you want a beta mod just email me at ravinhood@yahoo.com with your email address and I will upload it to you in a email and give you instructions on how to install it into your Spartan folder. This will not in anyway mess up the "official" version of the game once you follow my instructions.

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 31

RE: Spartan - 7/5/2004 7:33:05 AM

dinsdale

Posts: 384
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
I don't know how many years you have been computer gaming Dinsdale, but, I've been playing them for almost 25 years now. I really wish people would quit calling them "cheats" because this is exactly how the AI is IMPROVED for ANY game for the last 25 years. There's no new intelligence on difficulty levels, it's just more "advantages", it always has been for 25 years. (Except for the Chess games).

I don't care how long you've been playing games, a cheat is a cheat. There are games where the AI receives none of these cheats, if you're not familiar with them then remain firmly entrenched in 1985 and believe that there is no other way.

Aiding the AI in difficulty levels is one thing, having 1 city states outproducing states x10 their size simply destroys any suspension of disbelief, it's space invaders wrapped up in a strategy game.

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 32

RE: Spartan - 7/5/2004 9:27:24 AM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

Well, whether one calls it a cheat or a handicap adjustment I don't like the idea that the AI can produce units or obtain resources easier than I can. If the AI has been properly programmed it should be able to play the game by the same rules I use.

Giving the AI a boost at the start with a 'pot of gold' style resource bonus is one thing but a constant running advantage such as half-price units or double production rate is quite another. That isn't Artificial Intelligence, its just unbalanced game play and if thats what Spartan is doing then I'm with Dinsdale.

However, I'm not sure if thats what Lava is suggesting as he seems to be tinkering with the resource priorities rather than the production rate.

< Message edited by Didz -- 7/5/2004 9:34:00 AM >

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to dinsdale)

Post #: 33

RE: Spartan - 7/5/2004 2:06:23 PM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

The wording Artificial Intelligence has been over-used and abused for 25 years Didz. There is no Intelligence to a computer game. Not even chess really, it's in NUMBERS, everything created and built around a computer game is in the NUMBERS. It should have a title like Artificially Enhanced Numbers instead of Artificial Intelligence, I have no idea where some yoyo came up with the idea computers have intelligence.

Here is Websters Dictionary Definition of INTELLIGENCE: The ability to LEARN and UNDERSTAND (no computer game has this ability, except some of the chess programs and even they only learn and counter with numerical percentages and calculations of 100's of moves ahead in a short period of time, which only the most extreme chess players have a chance against, your normal chess player can only think ahead 5 moves)

Games on normal difficulty claim they don't have "cheats", and that's all fine and dandy, but, it's not the truth, but, what you guys are looking for doesn't exist yet, there is no intelligent computer opponent yet. Thus advantages, handicaps (cheats as Dinny likes to believe they are) must be included still for the time being, until code can be so compressed 200 or more gigabytes of information can be stored on 1 or 2 gigabytes of hard-drive space.

Chess is easier to create the socalled AI because there are only 64 squares of possibilities and six different combat pieces, pawn, rook, bishop, knight, Queen, & king. Since the mathematical equation of the combined doesn't have an "unlimited" amount of moves or projected moves, it's much easier to program an AI that is challenging and even has the ability to beat some of the best players.

But, on the otherhand, in the rest of the computer games, there are quite a lot more pieces, squares to the extreme of almost becoming unlimited, which then it becomes a scripted or routine and sub routine task to just create an AI that appears to be a challenge, until you figure out how it is programmed to play, then it is no longer a challenge. The computer games we play and their AI does not LEARN, it does NOT IMPROVE and it does not UNDERSTAND and it will not until someone someday really figures out how to give the AI a brain. It would probably take our WHOLE hard-drive or many hard-drives to create a real AI brain.

If you go inside an AI file you won't see a brain, you will see numbers and scripts and routines and sub routines, you also won't see any recordings of games played stored in it's memory, this is where all AI's are lacking, they do not store memories of who they play against, they will play the same game based on those routines and scripts every game, and the player just interject and create an out of the ordinary situation for the AI and thus these are called "exploits of the AI".

Spartans AI routines and scripts are actually not too bad, they allow enough movement in the NUMBERS to create a challenging game BY the NUMBERS, but, not by any increased intelligence.

As much as I would like a learning AI, one that actually IMPROVES and UNDERSTANDS as I improve, there's just no such thing. And if one believes there is, then those are the people living in the futuristic world of make believe that doesn't exist yet.

Therefore, there must be advantages and handicaps (cheats for Diny), that is the only challenge we have for now, overcoming overwhelming odds or advantages which give those odds. I can't think of a single computer strategy or wargame that is intelligent, that learns, that understands how I play and changes as I play. I only see them use the resources and scripts or routines and numerical values as they were programmed to use and nothing more.

One of the neater programmed abilities of the AI in Spartan is that dipomatic relationships script, so as not every game the same Nation will always make war with you, but, it will always be the surrounding nations, you will not see a nation from the east come pouncing on a far west nation, it's not scripted that way. There are "boundary" threat scripts, that only allow the AI to choose a faction to attack within those boundaries.

If I ask Dinny to tell me a game that doesn't cheat, I bet he would name an RTS game, heh, I'll tell you how the AI gets handicaps and advantages (cheats for Din Din) on normal difficulties in RTS games. The one advantage the AI does have is "speed" of calculation, and that's why I call RTS games a "click-fest", while you are clicking and clicking the AI, merely has to calculate and it can calculate millions of calculations within seconds, it also does not have to click and point in the same respect that a player does. If they didn't put time restrictions on builds in RTS games, the AI on it's easiest level would crush a human opponent, because they would churn out 100's of units to the humans 1.

But, in those RTS games on the higher difficulties guess what they do to "improve" the AI? They reduce the "build" times, thus the AI can produce buildings at a much increased rate of speed, thus overwhelming the human opponent, who then must seek out the "exploit of the AI" routine in his own brain to defeat, guess what?, the overwhelming odds and advantages. ;)

Really this same principle is used in turn based games as well, the power of the AI is built around time, the easier the difficulty the more time it takes the AI to build and respond, almost practially just sitting there for the player to destroy at the extreme easy levels of games. Higher difficulties give the computer AI the advantage and handicap of decreased time required to build and research. Thus, many players like Din Din hollar "cheat, cheat, cheat" lol, but, it's just how they are programmed, it's the Artificial Intelligence of computers to be programmed with advantages, and handicaps to create challenge. And the only challenge is "overwhelming odds with numbers" after the experienced player LEARNS & UNDERSTANDS how the computer AI plays. :)

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 34

RE: Spartan - 7/5/2004 4:35:44 PM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

And for Dinsdale, my fine friend, let me give you the definitions of Cheat, Advantage and Handicap by Webster himself.

CHEAT: Deceitful & Dishonest (clearly an AI cannot be any of those terms, it's clear that the games AI are given "advantages & handicaps" as the definitions that follow)

ADVANTAGE: Superiority, a "favorable" circumstance, to gain "benefits".

HANDICAP: A "competition" in which difficulties are imposed on or "advantages" given to the various contestants/competitors to "EQUALIZE THEIR CHANCES".

The AI does not "cheat", it merely gets advantages and Handicaps. But, if you'd like to "think" cheating means such, well continue to be opinionated. ;)

< Message edited by ravinhood -- 7/5/2004 1:27:37 PM >

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 35

RE: Spartan - 7/5/2004 7:21:02 PM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

The point I'm trying to make is that if the only way Spartan Computer Players can win is by churning out half-price units and buildings I don't think the designers have done a very good job in programming the AI. It ought to be possible to produce something which assesses opportunities and risks and determines resource requirements to acheive objectives rather than merely throwing more and more resources under the AI's feet in the hope it does something sensible.

For example in my Spartan Expansion campaign I am under almost constant attack by small armies of 80 men who commit suicide by attacking a city held by over 500. I could understand the AI making that mistake once but to repeat it over and over and over in an endless stream is just dumb.

In the same campaign I have just taken one of their ports only to find it almost fully developed with every type of advanced building you might wish for, suggesting that this player must have had resources and developemtn coming out of its ears and yet is still too stupid to use it sensibly. I mean it had a Heavy Infantry Barracks and yet I never saw a single unit of heavy infantry, not even defending it.

BTW: Version 1.05 Difficulty: Normal

< Message edited by Didz -- 7/5/2004 5:29:57 PM >

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 36

RE: Spartan - 7/5/2004 8:26:38 PM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

Actually there is a script for the AI on what you are talking about Ditz, it has to do with resources scarce to the AI and who has them closest to them. Built around threat and opportunity, threat strength vs local strength. This threat strength is what I think needed more adjusements, so as to create stronger armies vs the superior tactics of the human player on the battlefield.

The AI has two scripts to look at as far as who and where to attack, the first being faction threats and opportunities both for offensive and defensive purposes and the seconded being resources opportunities with threat strength and local strength factors in deciding which city to attack. Much of this is based on what the computer can see, outside threat, whereas the player may stack a 16 man army inside the city, I do not believe the AI uses any diplomacy to "seek movement" of the human player, if it did, it would change it's threat and opportunity factors and go for something else, instead of beating it's head against the wall of the humans army.

So, it does have what you are looking for in the code, but, it doesn't have the code to actually build the correct units to go after their objective. What I have done in my mod is give them that coding. I have reordered their priorities of army builds and reordered their priorities of defense, while still going on assault missions to gain valuable resources they require and faction cities.

What I cannot seem to do or find is the ability to script the tactics of the AI on the battlefield other than the basics of random choices of hold, advance, charge, long hold, seek out or hold fire. The human players seemingly biggest advantage is using "long hold" thus getting the best terrain advantage, so, by employing the same tactic into the computer AI, this should balance out where about 50% of the time the AI will have equal if not better tactical terrain advantages. I'm still working on this file, so it's not really ready for beta testing yet. I want to calculate and see if I can get a least a 50/50 equality out of using this "long hold" tactic. Also when long holding, and if the player charges or advances, I'll need to adjust the area of reaction, so as not to allow the player to exploit the long hold against the AI as well either. It will certainly at least force the player to work with terrain in front of them instead of at the back edge of the map and long holding for the AI and force them into disadvantageous terrain.

I really wish they had added one more feature to the tactics, hold position, and added a time limit to the battles. This would give the AI a little more advantage on (defense) in the tactical portion, getting the best terrain advantage and holding position, either forcing the human player to attack at disadvantaged terrain or disengaging from the battle altogether. It's really sad to see when the AI is on defense it has to move out of favored terrain to meet the human player sitting over there with "long hold", heh so a hold position feature would have been welcome for the defensive choices.

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 37

RE: Spartan - 7/5/2004 8:36:22 PM

dinsdale

Posts: 384
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

The wording Artificial Intelligence has been over-used and abused for 25 years Didz. There is no Intelligence to a computer game. Not even chess really, it's in NUMBERS, everything created and built around a computer game is in the NUMBERS. It should have a title like Artificially Enhanced Numbers instead of Artificial Intelligence, I have no idea where some yoyo came up with the idea computers have intelligence.

The term AI is overused, but it no longer has the same meaning as the dictionary meaning of intelligence. AI in games means simulated intelligence, the ability of a programmed opponent to mimic what a player would do during a game.

quote:

Games on normal difficulty claim they don't have "cheats", and that's all fine and dandy, but, it's not the truth, but, what you guys are looking for doesn't exist yet, there is no intelligent computer opponent yet. Thus advantages, handicaps (cheats as Dinny likes to believe they are) must be included still for the time being, until code can be so compressed 200 or more gigabytes of information can be stored on 1 or 2 gigabytes of hard-drive space.

Try HTTR, no cheats on normal. If you get bored then try KP, same lack of cheats.

AI is not dependent on huge PC resources, it is dependent on skilled and specialist programmers. Technology is not the current boundary to AI performance, but time and budget.

quote:

Chess is easier to create the socalled AI because there are only 64 squares of possibilities and six different combat pieces, pawn, rook, bishop, knight, Queen, & king. Since the mathematical equation of the combined doesn't have an "unlimited" amount of moves or projected moves, it's much easier to program an AI that is challenging and even has the ability to beat some of the best players.

Chess is easier to program an AI for because it's been analysed for centuries and the "right" moves are known for any given situation. The same is not true for a PC game which is develped over a course of months. Many times the developers themselves are not aware of what "good" moves are in the games they create.

quote:

But, on the otherhand, in the rest of the computer games, there are quite a lot more pieces, squares to the extreme of almost becoming unlimited, which then it becomes a scripted or routine and sub routine task to just create an AI that appears to be a challenge, until you figure out how it is programmed to play, then it is no longer a challenge.

Ahh but Spartan is ideal for an AI to solve. It's a resource management game (read it's about math) and PC's are excellent at processing vast quantities of mathmatical formulae to arrive at a decision. While I wouldn't expect the AI to have strategic genius, I would expect it to be more efficient than me in it's use of resources and planning accordingly. Look at the trouble you've gone to in order to make the AI build the "right" units. Shouldn't that have come as part of the game?

Funny thing is, I remember you lambasting HOI for requiring mods to make the AI work.........

quote:

The computer games we play and their AI does not LEARN, it does NOT IMPROVE and it does not UNDERSTAND and it will not until someone someday really figures out how to give the AI a brain. It would probably take our WHOLE hard-drive or many hard-drives to create a real AI brain.

There's no need for an AI to learn, or mimic the human brain in order to be effective in a PC game.

quote:

Spartans AI routines and scripts are actually not too bad, they allow enough movement in the NUMBERS to create a challenging game BY the NUMBERS, but, not by any increased intelligence.

Only apparently when the AI has such huge resources that it can outbuild a human 10x it's size. That's hardly what I'd call "not too bad"

quote:

If I ask Dinny to tell me a game that doesn't cheat, I bet he would name an RTS game, heh

No, I've already mentioned 2 strategy games from last year, do you really need more?

As you don't want a discussion and simply want to act like a condescending **** then go ahead with your din-din **** and other remarks. It's easier for you to do that than face reality.

Spartan's AI is weak. Weaker than most games of it's kind and now that the AI props have been taken away you can see exactly how bad it is.

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 38

RE: Spartan - 7/5/2004 8:36:37 PM

NefariousKoel

Posts: 2930
Joined: 7/23/2002
From: Murderous Missouri Scum
Status: offline

Uhhh..

Doesn't it have multiplayer too?

I've been jackin' around.. was calling Gamestop every other day for awhile, then somewhere in between I kinda gave up. I guess I better go get it while I can. Great period. I skipped the 2nd one but I'll grab this one, especially with the bells and whistles. Legion will seem tame I'm thinking (and hoping).

< Message edited by NefariousKoel -- 7/5/2004 12:38:02 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 39

RE: Spartan - 7/6/2004 12:37:08 AM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

quote:

Funny thing is, I remember you lambasting HOI for requiring mods to make the AI work.........

Actually no, I lambasted HOI and all other PARADOX games for being "crap" out of the box, CTD's, bugs galore, an the worst AI I ever saw. Spartan clearly surpassed HOI's opening moves and HOI uses the same principles as Sparan when it comes to AI programming. It's just not as visible to many because they do not have an "open" source code like Spartan has, therefore the AI cannot be modified by just anyone other than presenting "events" as C.O.R.E. did for the game, but, C.O.R.E. did not enhance the AI or make it more intelligent by any means, it merely opened a few more doors for it to maneuver. Stoney road on the other hand merely played with the AI's stats, giving it MORE statistics, not giving it any more intelligence.

Neither mod made HOI's AI more intelligent, that is the point and the whole point about all computer games of this ilk.

Until the AI LEARNS and UNDERSTANDS it has no intelligence at all. I can almost guarantee you that HTTR and KP have scripted or routine and sub routine AI's, but, they do not have "learning" or understanding of what the player is doing. They are reacting to a programmed situation and a player can easily find an "exploit" to any given situation and the AI will never adjust for it. That shows the AI doesn't learn, therefore has no intelligence.

Also I never said SPARTANS AI was more intelligent, I stated and will continue to state it's patch 1.013 AI was the "most challenging" AI, now whether you can or want to handle the fact it's built around resource "advantages" and handicaps is quite your choice, but, your so called HOI, Victoria, HTTR, KP and any other computer games of this ilk use the same principles, higher difficulites equate to higher advantages and handicaps, not increased intelligence.

The one thing I will agree with you on, is developers taking the time to script a challenging AI, while seemingly balanced without visible advantages or handicaps. There I can give Matrix games their due, they are highly complicated to "figure out", but, not impossible and if I recall there aren't any difficulty settings, they come in one flavor I was told "hard". No easy, no harder, no hardest, no impossibles, just plain ole hard. A player "learns" them and beats them and then they are no longer challenging, whereas a game with many difficulty levels has other levels of "learning" for the players and if programmed with increased advantages and handicaps, the games have longevity, akin to the Civilization series, which has one of the most advantageous and handicapped AI's next to Spartan I've seen in awhile. GalCiv also has levels of difficulty which present the same basic structure of advantages and handicaps, more equates to more challenge. Overcoming the Odds.

I don't know why a game that has the difficulty of "overcoming the odds" is so terrible to you in your mind. I see nothing entirely wrong with that system. It's not like the whole game is built around that feature, because there are normal and lower difficulties as well, which players sure don't seem to mind the easier or easiest settings which give the players the advantages and handicaps.

But, basically we are at those crossroads where I just agree to disagree with you, we each have our visions of what an AI IS and what an AI should be, and it's more like politics and religion, you aren't going to change my views and I'm not going to change yours. It's best we just leave it at that and move on to the next best and greatest game soon to come out.....ROME TOTAL WAR! (heh I know you'll disagree with that too) ;)

(in reply to dinsdale)

Post #: 40

RE: Spartan - 7/6/2004 12:53:56 AM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

quote:

I skipped the 2nd one but I'll grab this one, especially with the bells and whistles. Legion will seem tame I'm thinking (and hoping).

If you're looking for "intelligent AI' you won't find it in Spartan, (but, then again you won't find it in any game of this ilk), if your looking for a "challenging AI" you will find it in Spartan and it's retail version 1.013 patch.

Those are your choices over Legion. It's got a great challenging AI if you don't mind defeating the numbers. It has an average intelligence that can be modified and improved as I and other players have been doing since patch 1.017 which rather dumbed down the AI even more.

It has a "huge" map and very colorful unit banners and a market system that flucuates with supply and demand, something you rarely find in computer games these days. It has a diplomatic feature that gives you in the range of 50 choices as you research higher into diplomacy under the gold research option. It also no longer has that do or die combat system, you now have the option to "retreat" immediately or anytime during the battle, while your units will still take some damage, not all of them will be destroyed any longer.

It's well worth the $29.95 (Amazon.com was selling it also with free shipping) with the retail version coming with patch 1.013. If you like the challenge of overcoming the odds, then I wouldn't update to patch 1.017 unless you plan on adding some player made mods for added difficulty and challenge. We can modify it to improve it's performance, but, we can't modify it to make it more intelligent, but, we can modify it to appear more reactive than in patch 1.017. Having an open source to the code and scripts of the AI is a wonderful feature about this game. You won't find many games that will give you this edit feature.

(in reply to NefariousKoel)

Post #: 41

RE: Spartan - 7/6/2004 2:02:41 AM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
The AI has two scripts to look at as far as who and where to attack, the first being faction threats and opportunities both for offensive and defensive purposes and the seconded being resources opportunities with threat strength and local strength factors in deciding which city to attack. Much of this is based on what the computer can see, outside threat, whereas the player may stack a 16 man army inside the city, I do not believe the AI uses any diplomacy to "seek movement" of the human player, if it did, it would change it's threat and opportunity factors and go for something else, instead of beating it's head against the wall of the humans army.

But surely when it has just sacrificed an 1 dot army to discover that I have a 5 dot garisson in a city it ought to have the sense to stop sending in 1 dot armies to their deaths.

And anyway why doesn't it use diplomacy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

I really wish they had added one more feature to the tactics, hold position, and added a time limit to the battles. This would give the AI a little more advantage on (defense) in the tactical portion, getting the best terrain advantage and holding position, either forcing the human player to attack at disadvantaged terrain or disengaging from the battle altogether. It's really sad to see when the AI is on defense it has to move out of favored terrain to meet the human player sitting over there with "long hold", heh so a hold position feature would have been welcome for the defensive choices.

Personally, I wish they had dumped the real time battles completely and produced something more like the turn based system used in 'The Great Battles' series. Even somethng like Heroes III would be better than the current arrangement.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 42

RE: Spartan - 7/6/2004 1:37:08 PM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

quote:

And anyway why doesn't it use diplomacy.

The only diplomacy AI code I can find is when to send a diplomat to your country, when to take it out and when to kill or eject your diplomat from their country. Other than to give you 50 silver per turn there was no value to them being in your embassy, (so I have modded in that each turn they sit in your embassy they add 1pt to your diplomatic relationship with them every so many turns) Now, if they don't like you and their relationship is falling anyway, this 1pt won't matter the rate of decline is higher than the rate of improvement, unless you spend some silver on trying to keep it above war levels .

I have yet to find any code that allows for the AI to use the diplomacy features. I would have coded it to at least peek into your movements if they had a diplomat setting in your embassy.

And why they continue to pound at the same city walls after seeing what you have "inside" it is also beyond me, there is no coding for "internal" strength of a city, just outside strength and boundary strength and local strength.

They know what that city has for main resources, and they project the opportunity value for the surrounding cities that they need resources from and then project the opportunity threat level of units "surrounding" those cities and compare it to their "local" strength and then off they go to the one they "think" is the most opportune one to take.

Now, what they will do eventually I have found after they have seen your troup strength in a city (on the higher difficulties of my mod anyways) is they will build up "two" or "three" stacks of 5 dot units and march on that city at the same time. At least this is a little salvation for them and a "fear factor" for me, for now I have to defend against 2 or 3 armies in a row instead of them just beating their heads against my walls with 1 stack over and over.

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 43

RE: Spartan - 7/6/2004 7:16:38 PM

dinsdale

Posts: 384
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Actually no, I lambasted HOI and all other PARADOX games for being "crap" out of the box, CTD's, bugs galore, an the worst AI I ever saw.

You've made several posts about how a game which relied on a fan's mod to make the AI work was unacceptable. Yet here you are toiling away on Spartan.

Paradox games are crap out of the box, and crap for a while afterwards, but that's hardly relevant.

quote:

Spartan clearly surpassed HOI's opening moves and HOI uses the same principles as Sparan when it comes to AI programming. It's just not as visible to many because they do not have an "open" source code like Spartan has, therefore the AI cannot be modified by just anyone other than presenting "events" as C.O.R.E. did for the game, but, C.O.R.E. did not enhance the AI or make it more intelligent by any means, it merely opened a few more doors for it to maneuver. Stoney road on the other hand merely played with the AI's stats, giving it MORE statistics, not giving it any more intelligence.

The AI is completely exposed in HOI, everything from build priorities to front depth and capital defense. Stick to general bashing, you're better at it and the numerous factual inaccuracies are less exposed that way.

quote:

Neither mod made HOI's AI more intelligent, that is the point and the whole point about all computer games of this ilk.

Obtuseness again. No AI is "intelligent" but it can be made to look intelligent. The AI mods to Paradox games do just that.

quote:

Also I never said SPARTANS AI was more intelligent, I stated and will continue to state it's patch 1.013 AI was the "most challenging"

So what do the words "dumbing down" that you used mean then? Perhap you should choose better terms, rather than dumbing down, cheats less outrageously would be more accurate.

quote:

HTTR, KP and any other computer games of this ilk use the same principles, higher difficulites equate to higher advantages and handicaps, not increased intelligence.

Here's a clue. Try reading my post. What I actualy said, rather than what you wish I'd said. HTTR and KP have non-cheating AI's which are challenging to the player. It's both possible and practical to do so.

quote:

The one thing I will agree with you on, is developers taking the time to script a challenging AI, while seemingly balanced without visible advantages or handicaps. There I can give Matrix games their due, they are highly complicated to "figure out", but, not impossible and if I recall there aren't any difficulty settings, they come in one flavor I was told "hard". No easy, no harder, no hardest, no impossibles, just plain ole hard.

Some of their games have difficulties, and some of them most definately use resources, or improved random chance for the AI in those difficulty levels. I know of no game which has difficulty levels based on the AI acting more competently without cheats. It's one thing to add cheats to make a game with a higher difficulty setting, it's another to base the entire AI around stacked rolls and resources.

quote:

I don't know why a game that has the difficulty of "overcoming the odds" is so terrible to you in your mind. I see nothing entirely wrong with that system.

Neither do I when it's hidden from the player. When it is absolutely obvious though it destroys my suspension of belief. Generally, when I play a game which relies on cheats, the AI "acts" more dumb.

quote:

But, basically we are at those crossroads where I just agree to disagree with you, we each have our visions of what an AI IS and what an AI should be, and it's more like politics and religion, you aren't going to change my views and I'm not going to change yours. It's best we just leave it at that and move on to the next best and greatest game soon to come out.....ROME TOTAL WAR! (heh I know you'll disagree with that too) ;)

Lol, yes while I like the Total War series, I see them as light games, but fun for a while. They also have some of the most blatant AI cheats in existence: AI move last and react to human player would be the most obvious :D

I don't dislike Spartan, in fact I think it's a good game, and one that has very few bugs in it, but the biggest weakness of the game, and something which will eventually consign it to the shelf is that it's not particularly challenging in the right way.

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 44

RE: Spartan - 7/6/2004 8:32:49 PM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

I just see SPARTAN as a "WARLORDS" type game with 100 different factions. I wasn't really looking for a history lesson or value other than a challenging test of overcoming the numbers. Patch 1.013 definitely gives that in spades. 1.017 took it all away in a download. lol

The real test of the game for me is trying to conquer the whole map on the GC level. The missions are easy enough to accomplish, I took the very hardest one Arcanians and beat that one on the "hard" level of 1.013 and after seeing the nothingness of the AI in 1.017, it's hardly worth even playing the missions, just conquer the map. More fun, more challenge. Especially with my mod. ;)

quote:

cheats less outrageously would be more accurate, [unquote]
It doesn't cheat, it just gets advantages and handicaps outrageously would be more accurate. ;)

< Message edited by ravinhood -- 7/6/2004 1:35:29 PM >

(in reply to dinsdale)

Post #: 45

RE: Spartan - 7/9/2004 2:21:43 AM

NefariousKoel

Posts: 2930
Joined: 7/23/2002
From: Murderous Missouri Scum
Status: offline

Well, I just returned with it. Got the last copy at the closest shop.

I'll give the original build a try since they made it easier with the patch. I take it too many noobs were gettin' their butts kicked.. Dey Tuk R Joobs! Has anyone actually had sufficient time for multiplayer games? I suspect they'd take a little time.

I'm off to get my feet wet.

_____________________________

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 46