Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prester John

And does anybody understand why Mr Parker says "That umpire is also known as Fog of War and FOW is best applied via an AI."

quote:

The one thing the computer is giving us, that board gamers have always craved for and I've said it before in this thread, is an umpire. That umpire is also known as Fog of War and FOW is best applied via an AI.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

quote:

The one thing the computer is giving us, that board gamers have always craved for and I've said it before in this thread, is an umpire. That umpire is also known as Fog of War and FOW is best applied via an AI.

What this means is:

Grognards (war gamers who trully love this hobby - there's another debate for ya!) come to realize that board games where you can see the opponent's set up and every move, isn't realistic in the realms of command. Otherwise, McClellan would not have attacked at Antietam piecemeal and Lee wouldn't have needed Stuart as scout. Therefore what these gamers really crave for is the "fog of war".

The main way to achieve full fog of war other than designs with completely hidden set-ups and movements ala "Stratego" or the 1970's Avalon Hill "Napoleon" is to employ an umpire who maintains a game board separate to the player with everything on it.

But thanks to today's advances in technology, a player can also game against an AI.

So umpires today, are also known as AI's.

NB: Neither my quote or this explanation mention more than 1 player though of course, they are equally attributable to more.

As a side note, it's interesting to see of course that those board games designed purely for solitaire play actually contain these umpires or AI's too. Even the great relatively new "Solitaire Advanced Squad Leader" Otherwise, they couldn't function.

Adam.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prester John

Okay, in case you haven't worked it out, I disagree...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prester John

Okay, in case you haven't worked it out, I disagree...

It's not for me to work out but I trust you now have peace of mind. Going by your answer though you'll need a few more cracks at reading the post and not in between its lines.

No more soup for you! Come back in one year.

Happy gaming.

quote:


The main way to achieve full fog of war other than designs with completely hidden set-ups and movements ala "Stratego" or the 1970's Avalon Hill "Napoleon" is to employ an umpire who maintains a game board separate to the player with everything on it.

quote:

But thanks to today's advances in technology, a player can also game against an AI.

quote:

So umpires today, are also known as AI's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prester John

quote:

So umpires today, are also known as AI's.

Complete rubbish! The role of an umpire has nothing to do with the role of an AI.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prester John

quote:

So umpires today, are also known as AI's.

Complete rubbish! The role of an umpire has nothing to do with the role of an AI.

Conversation of John hotseating against himself with full fog of war:

John: "You moved yet?"
Himself: "Moved what?"

Commercial break: "You've just witnessed John trying to play with himself in a solo umpired war game where only one side gets to move. Not much fun is it? You know the umpire can't make any moves. What you need is the new ACME AI! Umpire and opponent rolled into one".

John: "Thank you ACME. With my new ACME AI it's just like having a live opponent and umpire rolled into one!"
Kids rushing from the street to have a look: "Wow see that? There's full fog of war and the pieces are moving too!"
Kid Number 1: Should we tell Stuie? He's gonna reach puberty before he realizes pieces don't move by themselves when you can't see them."
Kid Number 2: "Unless you have a poltergeist!"
Kid Number 1: "You're weird Fat Herbert."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prester John

I think that with a suitably large sample of play testers you could put a percentage on it. I don't think one person could do this because each time they played the one scenario they would get better and better. Anyway I'm guessing that it would have to be on the order of one in ten, with the ability of the AI to punish mistakes that is important, to meet your requirements for a challenging AI. Otherwise you can goof off as much as you want and still win in the end, it just won't be a maximum points win. Now if one assumes that a win loss ratio of 5-10% is required for an average player to be satisfied by the quality of the AI, how many game AI's measure up to the mark? How much value for money are those games which don't scrape in one or two wins in twenty if the AI is so essential to a computer game?

And does anybody understand why Mr Parker says "That umpire is also known as Fog of War and FOW is best applied via an AI."

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

John the things that your missing here is ENJOYMENT & FUN. Its not all about winning or ratio's. If I buy a game and I ENJOY it and its FUN then Im happy. I'm not interetsed that if I beat the AI in your eyes it not a MAXIMUM point win. Who cares. I play a game, I either dont like it or I do. The thing is there are games out there that I really enjoy I have fun, EVEN against the AI. You make out that every game produced is a walk over and you will find many people who disagree. IF a game has an abyismal AI then no one would buy it or if the do it wouldnt be popular. Yet look at the Combat Mission series, it has loads of fans who not only play against another human but also play against the AI.

You only have to read a review by a site like Wargamer or Armchair General to know if the AI is good enough.

By the way I dont GOOF off.

Here is a comprimise. Release a game with no AI. The with either a patch or repackaged release the same game with. They did this with LAser Squad Nemisis I believe. Then were all happy.:)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prester John

...making stupid references... you take yourself and your pronouncements way too seriously... even the slowest on the uptake... your self imposed sillyness... immature puberty jokes (why am I not surprised at the level of your argumentary skills).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prester John

...making stupid references... you take yourself and your pronouncements way too seriously... even the slowest on the uptake... your self imposed sillyness... immature puberty jokes (why am I not surprised at the level of your argumentary skills).

Anyway, they've even got that commercial playing on cable now. "Thank you ACME. With my new ACME AI it's just like having a live opponent and umpire rolled into one!" Mmm. Maybe another hint needed here. "Don't feel the absolute, Luke".

How about getting this thread back O/T. Though its been great fun BiN offers something that is unique in wargame campaign play and this praise deserves to stand alone. A solid AI experience. Keep 'em coming SSG.

Happy trails in the general forum John.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prester John

BiN has a reasonably good AI regardless of whether you choose to have fog-of-war (hidden units) turned on or off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prester John

BiN has a reasonably good AI regardless of whether you choose to have fog-of-war (hidden units) turned on or off.

EXACTLY. It can be done see? Thankyou for aknowledging that fact. A decent AI is what I want in my games. Not one that you win everytime, that would be silly and very boring. Surely you must know thats not what I or anyone else wnats?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prester John

Of course the real question here is whether Parker has blown a fuse when he insists that if you play the AI you are also using fog-of-war, and in BiN fog-of-war (as Hidden Units) is clearly a separate option from choosing to play the AI (computer).

quote:

Page 1 Adam wrote:

You see, where a designer can make an AI work then leaving it out would be ridiculous. For the biggest strength of the PC other than reducing map space, organizing counters, doing the record keeping and allowing for some much more complex math is providing the fog of war. Head to head board gamers require an umpired set-up to achieve the same and only if the design so caters, at a much longer play session too.

quote:

Page 2 Adam wrote:

However, given the very adequate AI in Close Combat 5 Normandy, why would I now want that? The one thing the computer is giving us, that board gamers have always craved for and I've said it before in this thread, is an umpire. That umpire is also known as Fog of War and FOW is best applied via an AI. An AI-less game could at best, offer hidden opponent views via self-hotseat. Either way, you'll still know where the enemy (your alter ego) is planning his schwerepunkt and its impossible to apply the tactics of bluff which only true FOW can allow.

quote:

Page 1 John wrote:

Unfortunately there are no computer games that match the board games for detail (read as complexity if you will) and that also have a reasonable AI.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron

There seems to be a fair amount of confusion here, whether intentional or not. I would like to hear PresterJohn's opinion of what type of wargame he would like to see made for the computer, ie a quick design doc, or better yet how existing wargames have 'failed' in his opinion and what they failed to model/include.

I think part of the issue is there is a difference between 'AI' and a 'Programmable Opponent'. I agree the 'PO' in wargames, with a couple exceptions, is woefully inadequate after the player has learned the system. The PO in many other games can be quite challenging. A continous type wargame like HTTR needs an AI and perhaps in conjunction/necessity a PO. We-Go types wargames like the CM series needs an AI.

I disagree completely with PresterJohn's statement - "Unfortunately there are no computer games that match the board games for detail (read as complexity if you will) and that also have a reasonable AI." One only has to look at the aforementioned HTTR and CM games, the complexity is under the hood but it is there. The PO in CM can challenge and beat the player(if he doesn't cheat by reloading) occasionally, depending on the situation, and there are many custom scenarios made specifically for play against the PO that will do just that.

I doubt I would buy a wargame without at least a partial PO, even though I know after the initial phase I would rarely play against it. It is a learning tool to understand the intricacies of that particular wargame system.


Cheers,



Ron

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prester John

Of course the real question here is whether Parker has blown a fuse when he insists that if you play the AI you are also using fog-of-war, and in BiN fog-of-war (as Hidden Units) is clearly a separate option from choosing to play the AI (computer).

Again the latex gauntlet slaps Parker! I miss being "Mr". Sadly, you've failed to do the decent thing and start a debate in the proper forum. Anyway, I'm honored I've now become the "real question"!

Without sarcasm (for the most part), you will only find peace reading this thread from the start John because you've managed to jump all over the place, attack many people, lose every point you've made and now ended up with me. So here's some guidence.

quote:

Page 1 Adam wrote:

You see, where a designer can make an AI work then leaving it out would be ridiculous. For the biggest strength of the PC other than reducing map space, organizing counters, doing the record keeping and allowing for some much more complex math is providing the fog of war. Head to head board gamers require an umpired set-up to achieve the same and only if the design so caters, at a much longer play session too.

John, you then continued contradicting yourself, making points up, tripping over your feet, insulting people. In reply to your failure to understand my thoughts above and in response to your desire to port the whole ASL system to PC without an AI, Adam then repeated:

quote:

Page 2 Adam wrote:

However, given the very adequate AI in Close Combat 5 Normandy, why would I now want that? The one thing the computer is giving us, that board gamers have always craved for and I've said it before in this thread, is an umpire. That umpire is also known as Fog of War and FOW is best applied via an AI. An AI-less game could at best, offer hidden opponent views via self-hotseat. Either way, you'll still know where the enemy (your alter ego) is planning his schwerepunkt and its impossible to apply the tactics of bluff which only true FOW can allow.

Be sure to read the sentence following the bold print.

So John I'll try one more time to make my statement clear. Yes you can play a wargame such as BiN without hidden units and an AI. However, that doesn't give the player fog of war. You can then play BiN with hidden units and no AI solitaire, however again you will of course lose fog of war as soon as you take control of side 2 - hence my "advert" analogy and Stuie reaching puberty without realizing same, the poor dude.

So I will now repeat my main claim in support of AI's remaining part of PC designs: "The one thing the computer is giving us, that board gamers have always craved for and I've said it before in this thread, is an umpire." Can you now grasp the claim in view of the context? Play a PC game solitaire with hidden units and no AI and you will lose the umpire - the fog of war. From above: "That umpire is also known as Fog of War".

Now as you've been so rude, I can't resist this final jibe, so well deserved at you.

quote:

Page 1 John wrote:

Unfortunately there are no computer games that match the board games for detail (read as complexity if you will) and that also have a reasonable AI.

Nice to see you've again contradicted yourself with your grudging approval of BiN and its AI. Afterall, that what this thread is about - BiN and its superb AI performance.

Parker.

quote:

That umpire is also known as Fog of War and FOW is best applied via an AI.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prester John

I don't care how you choose to play solitare.. Now you insist on also bringing up solitare play (of which I have said I don't have much of an interest when AI's are so hopeless)...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

Finally John I think you're getting it. The others posting on this thread, the one's discussing the merits of AI do.

Now two points of forum ettiquette:

1. You're posting off topic.

2. You have a habit of quoting in full unnecessarily, without preparedness to edit to relevant points, wasting both time and space on this thread.

Both of these are not polite to the forum hosts nor its patrons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prester John

quote:

But thanks to today's advances in technology, a player can also game against an AI.

Yes, once again I accept this completely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Also please post the reasons why Combat Mission BB, HTTR and BIN have a useless AI. One that offers no challenge and no fun?

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prester John

quote:

But thanks to today's advances in technology, a player can also game against an AI.

Yes, once again I accept this completely.

Hmm so why where you disagreeing with me on this point?
SO you see now, why saying I want a game with no AI, on the presumption the game will be better, is unfair to those at last can play wargames instead oof just dreaming about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

But you havent mentioned who isnt making these games because they havent the money to do the AI. So your argument is unfounded. Also its you in the minority.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prester John

Well, another post from you which does not address why you think you need an AI to have fog-of-war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prester John

I don't care how you choose to play solitare, I've always been talking about playing other people... Now you insist on also bringing up solitare play...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
No John! I have only ever been talking about solitaire play! Player vs computer and player vs himself. You unfortunately have always lost that context my friend.

"The one thing the computer is giving us, that board gamers have always craved for and I've said it before in this thread, is an umpire. That umpire is also known as Fog of War and FOW is best applied via an AI." In the context of all preceding posts to that original quote being - in solitaire play.

I genuinely look forward to really debating something juicy with you, tactics, strategy, actual campaign design. You're a good guy John and early on you'll note I was in your corner. I still am. Two player games will always have a market but the computer can now give a solitaire player something that 2 player gamers can only dream of, an AI opponent also being an umpire called Fog of War.

To heart-feltly sum up: To play a solitaire game of BiN with hidden units and without an AI defeats full fog of war. Once the human takes over side 2, he sees all side 2 forces and knows where he is sending them. Only an AI in a solitaire setting can provide the full services of a human umpire presiding over a 2-person game.

Of course I totally expect you'll agree with this because unfortunately you've been thinking all along I've been debating another point, when not the slightest.

Cheers fellow grognard,
Adam.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Your whole argument about me being selfish wanting an AI is unfounded and based on no facts whatsoever. So in effect it hasnt a leg to stand on.

No being in a minority isnt always wrong. However asking for games to be produced without an AI to satisfy your needs, which will mean many people will not be able to enjoy the said game isnt fair. When you can stii have the game with an AI which will mean EVERYONE can enjoy and play it.

You STILL havent said what was so bad about the AI in HTTR, BIN and Combat Mission that made the games to damn easy to make it all worthwhile. I would agree with you if all AI@s where useless as you say theu are but they arent.

quote:

I didn't say BiN has a useless AI but for the second time in a row I have played the OverLord game against the AI (purely for testing purposes of course) and both times I have driven the British from their beaches. The other two are not hex based games and one is not turn based.