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: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck?

 
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: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/16/2016 5:10:27 PM   
sIg3b


Posts: 200
Joined: 4/25/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Then tell me why Dave Landrey and Chuck Kroegel games were so good? Why am I drawn to games they made like "War of the Lance" and "Battles of Napoleon"? For games to not have the ability or impossible to create an AI that can challenge a player/veteran these were two of the greatest. As much as I tried to exploit these two games I couldn't. It was indeed almost like playing another human player.


Errr, in the case of WotL, I could. 2nd playthrough, I found a guaranteed and not too complicated way to win and lost interest, even though I liked the game itself.

I am now in a moral double bind, though, because I donīt want to spoil your fun by telling you the shortcut strategy to defeat Evil.

BN is an excellent example, though, itīs one of the (very) few complicated Wargames with a great AI.

The AI covers its flanks, keeps its units in line, goes aggressively for the objectives and uses formations well. (It also cheats like there is no tomorrow, but nobody is perfect. )

I managed to totally destroy the French at Quatre-Bras. (I was playing the French.) My appreciation of Marshal Ney has increased thanks to BN.

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)
Post #: 91
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/16/2016 7:36:59 PM   
Kuokkanen

 

Posts: 3307
Joined: 4/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Then tell me why Dave Landrey and Chuck Kroegel games were so good? Why am I drawn to games they made like "War of the Lance" and "Battles of Napoleon"? For games to not have the ability or impossible to create an AI that can challenge a player/veteran these were two of the greatest. As much as I tried to exploit these two games I couldn't. It was indeed almost like playing another human player.

I searched YouTube for vids about those games. Didn't find any.

_____________________________

You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

MekWars

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)
Post #: 92
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/16/2016 9:26:22 PM   
wings7


Posts: 4608
Joined: 8/11/2003
From: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen


I searched YouTube for vids about those games. Didn't find any.


"War of the Lance" came out in 1989...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Lance_(video_game)
"Battles of Napoleon" came out 1988...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Napoleon

I'm not surprised there is nothing on YouTube.


_____________________________

Please come and join and befriend me at the great Steam portal! There are quite a few Matrix/Slitherine players on Steam! My member page: http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197988402427

(in reply to Kuokkanen)
Post #: 93
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/17/2016 3:44:27 AM   
bairdlander


Posts: 2212
Joined: 3/28/2009
From: Toronto Ontario but living in Edmonton,Alberta
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

I'd love for you to play a scenario or two a CMx2 game and then post a screenshot of the end of game AAR o prove how easy you find the AI in that game.
quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

I think it's lack of programming time put into AI's. I feel the game should be built around the AI not the other way around.

Take for instant Battlefront's AI in the Combat Mission series. It's more or less just a charge in your face AI that doesn't take into consideration flanks and feints. Two simple tactics that they couldn't take the time to program a counter or defense for.



I would like to see that also and a screen shot of Brazil taking Berlin and Moscow in HOI3,which he claims he did in another thread

< Message edited by bairdlander -- 6/17/2016 3:47:15 AM >

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 94
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/17/2016 3:46:22 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9236
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

came out in 1989... came out 1988...


And yet, so little improvement since then. If any. In fact, some backwards progress.

Most games are played solitaire. Get with it developers - stop making lame-ass lazy excuses or crying about how difficult it is to program units to move around a grid. Stop favoring the elitist minority Human vs. Human players.

RISE UP SOLITAIRE PLAYERS AND BE HEARD !!

(in reply to wings7)
Post #: 95
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/17/2016 4:53:40 AM   
aaatoysandmore

 

Posts: 2854
Joined: 9/11/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tesuji

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Then tell me why Dave Landrey and Chuck Kroegel games were so good? Why am I drawn to games they made like "War of the Lance" and "Battles of Napoleon"? For games to not have the ability or impossible to create an AI that can challenge a player/veteran these were two of the greatest. As much as I tried to exploit these two games I couldn't. It was indeed almost like playing another human player.


Errr, in the case of WotL, I could. 2nd playthrough, I found a guaranteed and not too complicated way to win and lost interest, even though I liked the game itself.

I am now in a moral double bind, though, because I donīt want to spoil your fun by telling you the shortcut strategy to defeat Evil.

BN is an excellent example, though, itīs one of the (very) few complicated Wargames with a great AI.

The AI covers its flanks, keeps its units in line, goes aggressively for the objectives and uses formations well. (It also cheats like there is no tomorrow, but nobody is perfect. )

I managed to totally destroy the French at Quatre-Bras. (I was playing the French.) My appreciation of Marshal Ney has increased thanks to BN.



You did this on hard mode? I've played many a game and never found or seen an exploit in it. I do not see a fast way to defeat it. There's just no getting to the Highlord keep that fast.

Plus, all the diplomacy involved.

Also, I never said I couldn't defeat it. More that it's a very challenging AI to begin with.

Plus, I don't really look for exploits like some do. Even when I played Brazil in HOI I wasn't looking to take Berlin or Moscow, but, I did.


< Message edited by aaatoysandmore -- 6/17/2016 5:05:24 AM >

(in reply to sIg3b)
Post #: 96
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/17/2016 4:55:59 AM   
aaatoysandmore

 

Posts: 2854
Joined: 9/11/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Then tell me why Dave Landrey and Chuck Kroegel games were so good? Why am I drawn to games they made like "War of the Lance" and "Battles of Napoleon"? For games to not have the ability or impossible to create an AI that can challenge a player/veteran these were two of the greatest. As much as I tried to exploit these two games I couldn't. It was indeed almost like playing another human player.

I searched YouTube for vids about those games. Didn't find any.


Yeah, you probably won't since they were made in the 80's. Very few vids of 80's great games.

(in reply to Kuokkanen)
Post #: 97
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/17/2016 4:58:34 AM   
aaatoysandmore

 

Posts: 2854
Joined: 9/11/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

came out in 1989... came out 1988...


And yet, so little improvement since then. If any. In fact, some backwards progress.

Most games are played solitaire. Get with it developers - stop making lame-ass lazy excuses or crying about how difficult it is to program units to move around a grid. Stop favoring the elitist minority Human vs. Human players.

RISE UP SOLITAIRE PLAYERS AND BE HEARD !!


Amen to that. When others have stood up and said there are "fun" ai's and "challenging" ai's and most developers go for the "fun" ones because they are easier to program and don't take much effort or work. All they really have to do is function going from point a to point b and many of them aren't even good at that.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 98
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/17/2016 1:50:22 PM   
wings7


Posts: 4608
Joined: 8/11/2003
From: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: offline
Alot of complaints, let's hear some AI programming solutions...

_____________________________

Please come and join and befriend me at the great Steam portal! There are quite a few Matrix/Slitherine players on Steam! My member page: http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197988402427

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)
Post #: 99
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/17/2016 1:58:17 PM   
MrsWargamer


Posts: 1242
Joined: 6/18/2014
Status: offline
It presupposes there is either A. a solution, or B. sufficient desire to generate the solution.

I guess I am with the camp that says I never asked for AIs.

_____________________________

Wargame, 05% of the time.
Play with Barbies 05% of the time.
Play with Legos 10% of the time.
Build models 20% of the time
Shopping 60% of the time.
Exlains why I buy em more than I play em.

(in reply to wings7)
Post #: 100
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/17/2016 5:34:47 PM   
sIg3b


Posts: 200
Joined: 4/25/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore
There's just no getting to the Highlord keep that fast.

Plus, all the diplomacy involved.


You are not seeing the wood because the trees are in the way.

1. Capital taken => Sudden Death
2. Highlord Capital = Undefended
3. DWARVES!!! => have direct access to Highlord backyard
4. Diplomacy = all important
5. Focus on Diplo-Annexing Dwarves => Highlord finished

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)
Post #: 101
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/17/2016 5:51:03 PM   
sIg3b


Posts: 200
Joined: 4/25/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wings7

Alot of complaints, let's hear some AI programming solutions...


Better playtesters.

I can understand designers overlooking AI problems; but how come the playtesters donīt find exploits that the players find within 3 days after release?

Answer: Not enough time given for testers after AI completion, or wrong playtester activity focus, or the wrong playtesters.

Either nobody is listening to the testers, or the testers are fans who marvel at the graphics or the chrome or whatever gimmick of the day instead of single-mindedly trying to do this to the AI:

(in reply to wings7)
Post #: 102
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/17/2016 6:21:31 PM   
wings7


Posts: 4608
Joined: 8/11/2003
From: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tesuji

quote:

ORIGINAL: wings7

Alot of complaints, let's hear some AI programming solutions...


Better playtesters.

I can understand designers overlooking AI problems; but how come the playtesters donīt find exploits that the players find within 3 days after release?

Answer: Not enough time given for testers after AI completion, or wrong playtester activity focus, or the wrong playtesters.

Either nobody is listening to the testers, or the testers are fans who marvel at the graphics or the chrome or whatever gimmick of the day instead of single-mindedly trying to do this to the AI:



Excellent point and solution ...I know there are more good ideas and solutions from our members here...

_____________________________

Please come and join and befriend me at the great Steam portal! There are quite a few Matrix/Slitherine players on Steam! My member page: http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197988402427

(in reply to sIg3b)
Post #: 103
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/18/2016 12:37:47 AM   
aaatoysandmore

 

Posts: 2854
Joined: 9/11/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tesuji

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore
There's just no getting to the Highlord keep that fast.

Plus, all the diplomacy involved.


You are not seeing the wood because the trees are in the way.

1. Capital taken => Sudden Death
2. Highlord Capital = Undefended
3. DWARVES!!! => have direct access to Highlord backyard
4. Diplomacy = all important
5. Focus on Diplo-Annexing Dwarves => Highlord finished



Was that "hard mode"? When I play hard mode the Highlord has always kept a defending force near his capital. If you played more than once or twice you would also see the Highlord player doesn't play the same start every game either. He might go for the elves, or the kinder or the humans to the north first. He always gets those ogres next to the dwarves and I've seen them countless times take out the dwarves after I get them.

Not to forget the Highlord has Dragons that can move nearly across the board to defend or attack something. Even the griffons of the dwarves have a hard time against them in the early game before the lances and the orbs.

You must have just had a lucky game of it. I've never seen those dwarves join the alliance so early in the game. I think the Highlord tries to get them from me.

< Message edited by aaatoysandmore -- 6/18/2016 12:42:08 AM >

(in reply to sIg3b)
Post #: 104
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/18/2016 12:47:27 AM   
Mobeer


Posts: 614
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline
The programming solution can only follow a project management change, that values AI development more highly than at present. That in turn needs customers to change their behaviour. Only buy games with recognised strong AI, post in forums (like this) about why good AI counts when choosing whether to buy and perhaps AI development will become better resourced\more justifiable.

(in reply to wings7)
Post #: 105
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/18/2016 12:52:08 AM   
aaatoysandmore

 

Posts: 2854
Joined: 9/11/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

The programming solution can only follow a project management change, that values AI development more highly than at present. That in turn needs customers to change their behaviour. Only buy games with recognised strong AI, post in forums (like this) about why good AI counts when choosing whether to buy and perhaps AI development will become better resourced\more justifiable.


That's a good idea but many buy on impulse and graphics and of course the few multiplayers. But, if that practice stopped I believe you are right, developers would have to make a better ai or go out of business and get a daytime job.

(in reply to Mobeer)
Post #: 106
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/18/2016 1:49:15 AM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 2892
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wings7
Alot of complaints, let's hear some AI programming solutions...


Strategic Command series has an outstanding generic fuzzy logic AI plus text editable event and AI scripting. It takes a lot of time to understand the generic AI strengths and weaknesses, and then add more specific scripting. It is an iterative process. Again, it takes a lot of time to do it well and keep up with bug fixes and enhancements and players using gamey tactics. Unfortunately, game development usually ends before sufficient AI development is complete, and developers need to move on.

Empires in Arms fell into that trap and languished for a few years. I'm hoping to implement a few bug fixes and AI programming solutions to pump some new life into an otherwise outstanding grand strategy Napoleonic Wars wargame. At the end of the day, I too want a challenging AI for my SC3 Advanced Third Reich mod, Empires in Arms, and other wargames.

< Message edited by pzgndr -- 6/18/2016 1:52:17 AM >


_____________________________

Bill
Empires in Arms Development Team

(in reply to wings7)
Post #: 107
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/18/2016 5:06:50 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9236
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

Alot of complaints, let's hear some AI programming solutions...


Program the basics, let the modding community do the rest. As one example:

quote:

Strategic Command series has an outstanding generic fuzzy logic AI plus text editable event and AI scripting.


TOAW is another example where the basic [ok, its not basic at all, but you know what I mean] programming for the computer opponent is in the code, while the user can program the actual forces for each side.

I'm sure none of us really expects a challenging computer opponent until an actual AI is developed. What we do expect, and have expected since games made the move to computers, is that the computer opponent shows up to play, and never quits like our silly human opponents do. We don't expect the developers to spend 17 billion on a competent computer opponent, just give us something respectable.

Currently I am personally only interested in TOAW and SC3. Both of those are certainly respectable.


(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 108
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/18/2016 11:05:25 AM   
altipueri

 

Posts: 688
Joined: 11/14/2009
Status: offline
Just look how much money and effort it took Google to develop a winning AI in Go where there are only about 361 pieces and they don't even move once placed. Yet there are moaners on this forum who expect little wargame companies to come up with a challenging AI on games where there can be hundreds of pieces that do move and enter diplomatic negotiations and handle supply, trade, recruitment.

Most people who moan about the AI probably couldn't code a kettle to turn on. In fact perhaps it should be a pre-requisite before moaning about AI to show that you can script an event or decision.


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 109
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/18/2016 11:39:51 AM   
MrsWargamer


Posts: 1242
Joined: 6/18/2014
Status: offline
I'd like to ask a question, which I don't expect to get answered.

Why do war games HAVE to have an AI?

In the great before time (prior to machine driven games), a war game was still playable even if you lived in the middle of nowhere and were something of an anti social hermit. you could still play the game even if the designer intended for you to play another human.

So it's not like the advent of efforts to make AIs was ever actually required. Because you CAN make a PC war game ever bit identical to a board game war game, and just as playable and just as potentially enjoyable played without the presumed human opponent.

If they had never made a single PC war game with any form of AI, we'd have still bought them in the same numbers we were buying the board game war games. And the designers would make about the same amount of money off of them that they do when they make them with AIs.

In the commercial world, just because you make something, doesn't necessarily mean the market needed it or wanted it. And if you get a small pool of fans demanding it, it doesn't automatically mean there is enough demand to justify the effort.

I think AI development is the greatest and the dumbest waste of game development time and resources. But that is just my opinion.

If I were to develop war games for a machine, the only thing I would be interested in doing, is eliminating all of the nuisances that bedevil board game war games. Dust collecting, catapocalypses, set up time loss, and only one copy limitations to name 4 easy examples. I would not create an AI, and would flat out refuse to make an AI and that would be a firm no regardless of temper tantrums by the usual crowd that freak out over "all the money I'm going to lose from doing so".

I know nothing of AI design, and I plan to keep it that way actually. I know plenty about board game war game design. But I am not a programmer so it is unlikely I'd ever create a PC version (I'd need someone to translate a board game into a program meant to clone the physical environment).

And if you must ask, "why am I on a thread about war game AIs sucking?", well it's a discussion, and there is no rule saying I can't participate.

I wish war game makers would stop wasting so much effort trying to make war game AIs better than the morons they currently are. They could be making so many more war games successfully without them. AIs are a waste of effort. They're costing the hobby game development time.



_____________________________

Wargame, 05% of the time.
Play with Barbies 05% of the time.
Play with Legos 10% of the time.
Build models 20% of the time
Shopping 60% of the time.
Exlains why I buy em more than I play em.

(in reply to altipueri)
Post #: 110
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/18/2016 11:46:58 AM   
Grim.Reaper


Posts: 1342
Joined: 12/31/2009
Status: offline
Completely disagree that AI is a waste of time....without them, most games would not sale as well since not everyone has playing partners available to play whenever they want or they don't enjoy playing solitaire mode against themselves. I guess I am just one of the lucky people who don't always find AI bad or easy to beat so typically have little issue with my opponent. If no AI was included, I would no longer purchase any of these games since I have no desire to play against myself and really no desire to play a game that meets multiple people's schedules and time commitments.....I want to play when I want to play.

_____________________________


(in reply to MrsWargamer)
Post #: 111
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/18/2016 11:53:51 AM   
zakblood


Posts: 22471
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: online
i only play solo, won't play online, PBEM has no interest to me what so ever, or hotseat for that matter, it's AI or it doesn't get bought, maybe another reason i gave up on board games, as i wanted to play when no one else was around, while some could do it, most couldn't and wasn't that much fun either

(in reply to Grim.Reaper)
Post #: 112
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/18/2016 11:59:10 AM   
aaatoysandmore

 

Posts: 2854
Joined: 9/11/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

I'd like to ask a question, which I don't expect to get answered.

Why do war games HAVE to have an AI?

In the great before time (prior to machine driven games), a war game was still playable even if you lived in the middle of nowhere and were something of an anti social hermit. you could still play the game even if the designer intended for you to play another human.

So it's not like the advent of efforts to make AIs was ever actually required. Because you CAN make a PC war game ever bit identical to a board game war game, and just as playable and just as potentially enjoyable played without the presumed human opponent.

If they had never made a single PC war game with any form of AI, we'd have still bought them in the same numbers we were buying the board game war games. And the designers would make about the same amount of money off of them that they do when they make them with AIs.

In the commercial world, just because you make something, doesn't necessarily mean the market needed it or wanted it. And if you get a small pool of fans demanding it, it doesn't automatically mean there is enough demand to justify the effort.

I think AI development is the greatest and the dumbest waste of game development time and resources. But that is just my opinion.

If I were to develop war games for a machine, the only thing I would be interested in doing, is eliminating all of the nuisances that bedevil board game war games. Dust collecting, catapocalypses, set up time loss, and only one copy limitations to name 4 easy examples. I would not create an AI, and would flat out refuse to make an AI and that would be a firm no regardless of temper tantrums by the usual crowd that freak out over "all the money I'm going to lose from doing so".

I know nothing of AI design, and I plan to keep it that way actually. I know plenty about board game war game design. But I am not a programmer so it is unlikely I'd ever create a PC version (I'd need someone to translate a board game into a program meant to clone the physical environment).

And if you must ask, "why am I on a thread about war game AIs sucking?", well it's a discussion, and there is no rule saying I can't participate.

I wish war game makers would stop wasting so much effort trying to make war game AIs better than the morons they currently are. They could be making so many more war games successfully without them. AIs are a waste of effort. They're costing the hobby game development time.




I'd say there are fewer people/players like you than there are players that want an artificial opponent. I'd say the sales say so.

It's fine to make a game so that one can play "both" ways though but at least make the AI way challenging and not just a by the numbers type game.

Norbsoft does it well in his civilwar and napoleonic wargames where he does teach the ai to flank and surprise you. That's all I'm asking from most tactical games. But, when you have them that just frontal assault all the time you get pretty used to it and tired of it.

I still say make the AI in the games more open to scripting new patterns and paths of building and movement and priorities and certain things like stay put if winning. First they gotta tell the AI to WIN like they did in Spartan. It was one of the more easy games for me to mod and make the AI very challenging "for me". That's all I'm really asking. Open it up a little more.

< Message edited by aaatoysandmore -- 6/18/2016 12:02:11 PM >

(in reply to MrsWargamer)
Post #: 113
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/18/2016 12:53:58 PM   
altipueri

 

Posts: 688
Joined: 11/14/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zakblood

i only play solo, won't play online, PBEM has no interest to me what so ever, or hotseat for that matter, it's AI or it doesn't get bought, maybe another reason i gave up on board games, as i wanted to play when no one else was around, while some could do it, most couldn't and wasn't that much fun either


This for me too.

Lots of different games and a regular change of game keeps all AI opponents fresh enough for me.

(in reply to zakblood)
Post #: 114
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/18/2016 1:04:46 PM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1520
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
" Better playtesters.

I can understand designers overlooking AI problems; but how come the playtesters donīt find exploits that the players find within 3 days after release?

Answer: Not enough time given for testers after AI completion, or wrong playtester activity focus, or the wrong playtesters.

Either nobody is listening to the testers, or the testers are fans who marvel at the graphics or the chrome or whatever gimmick of the day instead of single-mindedly trying to do this to the AI:"

I am a bit confused over this attitude. If you bought a game that you were interested in why would you look for exploits in it, and if you accidently found one what would that mean?

Would you uninstall the game and never play it again?

I have several games, perhaps a lot more I don't know about, that have game ending exploits. I just don't use them, and have great fun playing the games.

I will give you that playtesting is much more about checking WAD then about trying to find exploits in the AI.

My confusion comes because of this. Say I buy a truck, and I find out on the web or by myself that if I am in drive I can physically move the gear into reverse and strip the gears in the transmission.

Yes, it is a problem and should be rectified, but I don't park the truck and never drive it until it is fixed. I just don't put it into reverse while driving.

I have played against myself, as Mrs wargamer writes about, with board wargames for decades.

Of course, I could have always done stupid moves or nothing if I was on one side of the table. But, why would I do that?

To illustrate my point, I found out by accident how to beat a tough monster in witcher 3. I was reading about it and someone posted an exploit without putting it in a spoiler.

Okay, so now I knew. It really didn't matter, I didn't use it. It took me about ten tries but I beat it without it.

< Message edited by sulla05 -- 6/18/2016 2:41:04 PM >


_____________________________

Windows 7 home premium 64
Intel quad core I7
16 gig
AMD R9 200 series

Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)
Post #: 115
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/18/2016 4:19:00 PM   
MrsWargamer


Posts: 1242
Joined: 6/18/2014
Status: offline
We can speak of sales figures till we are all expired. We don't have those sales figures so it's pointless conjecture.

Would a war gamer buy a no AI PC war game if there were no PC war games with AIs?

Good question. And neither you nor I have that answer.

But I do know that even the greatest of the great board game war games have never reached sales that permitted the makers to live life comfortably sans real day job.

I simply don't accept that war gamers would refuse to buy sans AI PC war games if they had no alternative.

I think it is interesting that the war gamers who state they will not buy sans AI war games, consistently buy game after game with AIs that are simply inadequate as a challenge. And no, I don't think I'm a brilliant war gamer. But the AIs are no challenge for me.

_____________________________

Wargame, 05% of the time.
Play with Barbies 05% of the time.
Play with Legos 10% of the time.
Build models 20% of the time
Shopping 60% of the time.
Exlains why I buy em more than I play em.

(in reply to sullafelix)
Post #: 116
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/18/2016 4:37:21 PM   
sIg3b


Posts: 200
Joined: 4/25/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer
And if you must ask, "why am I on a thread about war game AIs sucking?", well it's a discussion, and there is no rule saying I can't participate.


As the thread starter I hereby declare that I am perfectly happy with you participating.

I would like to point out though that many classic -and even commercially successful- computer strategy games could never have existed without an AI: Empire, Civilization, Master of Orion, Master of Magic,...

At least 4X games are usually too unwieldy for multiplayer and would be absolutely boring solitaire.

(in reply to MrsWargamer)
Post #: 117
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/18/2016 4:40:22 PM   
Grim.Reaper


Posts: 1342
Joined: 12/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

We can speak of sales figures till we are all expired. We don't have those sales figures so it's pointless conjecture.

Would a war gamer buy a no AI PC war game if there were no PC war games with AIs?

Good question. And neither you nor I have that answer.

But I do know that even the greatest of the great board game war games have never reached sales that permitted the makers to live life comfortably sans real day job.

I simply don't accept that war gamers would refuse to buy sans AI PC war games if they had no alternative.

I think it is interesting that the war gamers who state they will not buy sans AI war games, consistently buy game after game with AIs that are simply inadequate as a challenge. And no, I don't think I'm a brilliant war gamer. But the AIs are no challenge for me.


Can only speak for myself....

- No, I would not buy a PC wargame (or any PC game) that did not have an AI. You don't have to accept it, but it is very true.

- I find most AI challenging and enjoyable based on my own skill level..again, you don't have to accept it, but it is true for me.

_____________________________


(in reply to MrsWargamer)
Post #: 118
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/18/2016 4:45:20 PM   
sIg3b


Posts: 200
Joined: 4/25/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore
Was that "hard mode"?


Honestly, I donīt remember. But as you insist it is as good as BN, I will see if I find the game somewhere and give it another try.

What exactly do you mean by hard mode? Any specific setting I should put up to 5?

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)
Post #: 119
RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? - 6/18/2016 5:30:31 PM   
sIg3b


Posts: 200
Joined: 4/25/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05
I have several games, perhaps a lot more I don't know about, that have game ending exploits. I just don't use them, and have great fun playing the games.

I will give you that playtesting is much more about checking WAD then about trying to find exploits in the AI.


The problem for me is when a perfectly natural strategy becomes an exploit because the AI canīt cope with it.

Example: Steel Panthers AI suicidal tanks on the advance outrunning the infantry and throwing themselves onto Mines, into ambushes etc.

How am I supposed to *not* exploit this? Not using Mines, no ambushes?

The annoyance where the AI has a big weakness is that sound tactics become an exploit because they work too well...

(in reply to sullafelix)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Are Wargame AIs Fated to Suck? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.173