Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

How is the AI?

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> How is the AI? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
How is the AI? - 11/18/2016 1:57:51 PM   
borsook79


Posts: 477
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline
I really enjoyed the concept and multiplayer of the original but the AI was just terrible... is it better this time around?

_____________________________

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - G.B. Shaw
Post #: 1
RE: How is the AI? - 11/18/2016 2:15:38 PM   
xwormwood


Posts: 1149
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: Bremen, Germany
Status: offline
The original would be Strategic Command 1? In this case you can't compare the old AI with the new one, the new one is far, far, farfarfar better than anything what was in SC1.

The AI is sometimes even pretty evil, too, just now it lured my german navy out of the Baltic, only to smash it once it had entered the North Sea.
It is able to do a successful D-Day invasion followed too (successful as in freed all of France). And you can fine tune how strong the AI should be, with several difficulty levels and options how much extra income or experience the AI should get, or how far it should be allowed to look into the Fog of War.

< Message edited by Xwormwood -- 11/18/2016 2:16:55 PM >


_____________________________

"You will be dead, so long as you refuse to die" (George MacDonald)

(in reply to borsook79)
Post #: 2
RE: How is the AI? - 11/18/2016 3:41:22 PM   
borsook79


Posts: 477
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xwormwood

The original would be Strategic Command 1? In this case you can't compare the old AI with the new one, the new one is far, far, farfarfar better than anything what was in SC1.

The AI is sometimes even pretty evil, too, just now it lured my german navy out of the Baltic, only to smash it once it had entered the North Sea.
It is able to do a successful D-Day invasion followed too (successful as in freed all of France). And you can fine tune how strong the AI should be, with several difficulty levels and options how much extra income or experience the AI should get, or how far it should be allowed to look into the Fog of War.

Thanks a lot! Yes, I did mean SC1. It does look promising from your description.

_____________________________

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - G.B. Shaw

(in reply to xwormwood)
Post #: 3
RE: How is the AI? - 11/18/2016 3:42:08 PM   
Omnius


Posts: 832
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline
The Artificial Ignorance in the first edition was pure garbage, one of the worst ever seen. Clueless Soviet AI sent hundreds of units into Finland to try to take Narvik but were always stranded in the middle of nowhere. Another couple of hundred just milled about between Lake Ilmen and Riga.

(in reply to xwormwood)
Post #: 4
RE: How is the AI? - 11/18/2016 4:26:24 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 4890
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
Hi Omnius,

Sorry to hear you feel that way but in all fairness your reference is to a game that is now 14 years old (our original release of SC) and this new version of SC has had nearly 15 years of AI refinement. That's nearly a generation ago and when Netscape Navigator was still a popular browser

A lot has changed and I think you'd be pleasantly surprised at how much not only the AI has improved but also the game and mechanics as well.

Happy gaming
Hubert

(in reply to Omnius)
Post #: 5
RE: How is the AI? - 11/18/2016 4:35:06 PM   
IainMcNeil


Posts: 2788
Joined: 10/26/2004
From: London
Status: offline
I'd recommend looking at this blog post to get more info on the AI
http://www.matrixgames.com/SC/Blog_2.asp

I've never seen an AI capable of making the decisions the AI does in this game. Look at how it manages D-Day in a way a good player would. The planning, research, construction, logistics that went in to organizing these attacks is really impressive. You'll have to look long and hard to find a better AI than this in a Strategic game. I'm not aware of any.

_____________________________

Iain McNeil
Director
Matrix Games

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 6
RE: How is the AI? - 11/18/2016 4:52:49 PM   
jpinard

 

Posts: 500
Joined: 4/19/2004
Status: offline
The AI is incredible.

(in reply to IainMcNeil)
Post #: 7
RE: How is the AI? - 11/18/2016 4:57:42 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 3015
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Omnius
The Artificial Ignorance in the first edition was pure garbage, one of the worst ever seen.


I disagree. It certainly had some weaknesses as all AI does, but the first game also had some other weaknesses as all first games do in that it needed some more features. The sequels did add more, as well as more capability with the AI and event scripting to improve the overall game. This latest sequel builds upon all that.

One thing about even the first AI that attracted me was Hubert's use of "fuzzy logic" to add uncertainty to the game and enhance its replayability. I never saw really stupid behavior like sending "hundreds of units into Finland" (really?) but certainly there were some reckless behaviors that players could compensate for by playing at higher difficulty levels.

In summary, the combination of generic AI and its "fuzzy logic", AI scripting and event scripting (all with their own variability) results in a very challenging computer opponent. And the scripting is all editable if you want to improve upon it. Enjoy.


_____________________________

Bill
Empires in Arms Development Team

(in reply to Omnius)
Post #: 8
RE: How is the AI? - 11/18/2016 5:37:46 PM   
IslandInland


Posts: 812
Joined: 12/8/2014
From: YORKSHIRE
Status: offline
I thought the AI was pretty good in the first SC. I took me quite a while to get to a level where I could beat it easily.


_____________________________

War In The East 2 Beta Tester and
War In The West Operation Torch Beta Tester

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 9
RE: How is the AI? - 11/18/2016 5:45:46 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 9395
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
For one opinion and a quick reference, on a scale of 1-10 :

Commander Europe at War - 1
Three Sixty's High Command - 2
Avalon Hill's Third Reich - 5
Operational Art of War - 7
Strategic Command 3 - 9

To be fair to CEaW, they started a Computer Opponent [CO] but never finished it, so they advertise this title as Multi-Player only.

HC and 3R are very old titles but two that I have played extensively [and still do from time to time].

In OPART each scenario has an individual CO so results vary, but in many instances it can be challenging.

SC3 is a CO joy right from the start, and as it is still in development, CO situations can be reported to the developers for their scrutiny. [OPART also still works on overall CO improvements].

As you can see I don't have an extensive game library, but hopefully this small sample gives some indication as to CO levels of challenge.

(in reply to borsook79)
Post #: 10
RE: How is the AI? - 11/18/2016 9:46:01 PM   
Templer_12


Posts: 1692
Joined: 1/5/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Omnius

The Artificial Ignorance in the first edition was pure garbage, one of the worst ever seen. Clueless Soviet AI sent hundreds of units into Finland to try to take Narvik but were always stranded in the middle of nowhere. Another couple of hundred just milled about between Lake Ilmen and Riga.


I read a post from you in which you call almost everything on/with the SC series garbage:

Byers Beware
The first perversion of strategic command was one of the worst games I ever wasted my money and time on. Utter garbage and I bet this sequel is just more of the same.

The first perversion had one of the worst AI's of all time. It stupidly sent Soviet units by the hundreds across the top of the map to try to take Narvik only to be stuck out of supply. Also hundreds would group up between Lake Ilmen and Riga doing absolutely nothing of value.

Be careful before buying or you could end up regretting wasting money and time on this oblivious turkey!


What's the problem with you?

< Message edited by Templer -- 11/18/2016 9:48:29 PM >

(in reply to Omnius)
Post #: 11
RE: How is the AI? - 11/19/2016 5:20:16 AM   
EdwinP


Posts: 179
Joined: 2/20/2004
Status: offline
The Tactical AI in SC3 is quite good. It tactically deploys land and air units quite well and give you; whether the Axis or Allied, a solid challenge in the Eastern Front.

It is weak at the strategic layer when it comes to land areas not connected to Europe (UK and North Africa) and non-reactive. And not at all devious in the Diplomacy area.

Example: AI will never consider invading other ports in the UK, besides London. (the invasion sites are scripted)
Example: Allies forces in Egypt need reinforcements, but AI will not send any units there unless it is scripted.
Example: Axis really needs a few more air units in NA to drive back the British, but AI will not send additional units there.
Example: Axis AI will never focus on a Battle for the Atlantic. Its main focus is always on the Eastern front.

Note: I modded the standard campaign to add research scripts that give the AI a 20% (GV1(1,20)); 1 in 5 games, to make a major effort in researching advanced subs. If GV1(1,20) is triggered, woe to the Allied player that did not research anti-submarine warfare.

AI is not reactive.

Example: If Axis reaches Advanced Subs 4, Allied AI does not increase research in Anti-Submarine warfare.
Example: If Allied AI is advancing in Advanced Fighters, Axis AI does not respond.
Example: If Allied Human players send extra air units to Egypt, the Axis AI will never counter this.
Example: AI will never attempt to counter enemy diplomatic successes. See example below.

In the diplomacy area while an Axis player may attempt to reduce US or USSR war readiness, the Axis AI will never do so. Likewise, while a human Allied player may invest in diplomacy to increase US or USSR war readiness, the AI will never do so.

Tip: If you are considering an Axis Sea Lion use Diplomacy to reduce Soviet war readiness.

Having said that, for the combat in Continental Europe - the invasion of France and the war in the USSR - the AI is quite good and will give a human player a challenge.

I would like to see the designer look at improving the AI so that it can (1 in 5 games) launch a successful Sea Lion or make a stronger push in North Africa (1 in 5 games).

< Message edited by EdwinP -- 11/19/2016 5:30:42 AM >

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 12
RE: How is the AI? - 11/19/2016 11:01:33 AM   
Solaristics


Posts: 161
Joined: 2/20/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdwinP

The Tactical AI in SC3 is quite good. It tactically deploys land and air units quite well and give you; whether the Axis or Allied, a solid challenge in the Eastern Front.

It is weak at the strategic layer when it comes to land areas not connected to Europe (UK and North Africa) and non-reactive. And not at all devious in the Diplomacy area.

Example: AI will never consider invading other ports in the UK, besides London. (the invasion sites are scripted)
Example: Allies forces in Egypt need reinforcements, but AI will not send any units there unless it is scripted.
Example: Axis really needs a few more air units in NA to drive back the British, but AI will not send additional units there.
Example: Axis AI will never focus on a Battle for the Atlantic. Its main focus is always on the Eastern front.

Note: I modded the standard campaign to add research scripts that give the AI a 20% (GV1(1,20)); 1 in 5 games, to make a major effort in researching advanced subs. If GV1(1,20) is triggered, woe to the Allied player that did not research anti-submarine warfare.

AI is not reactive.

Example: If Axis reaches Advanced Subs 4, Allied AI does not increase research in Anti-Submarine warfare.
Example: If Allied AI is advancing in Advanced Fighters, Axis AI does not respond.
Example: If Allied Human players send extra air units to Egypt, the Axis AI will never counter this.
Example: AI will never attempt to counter enemy diplomatic successes. See example below.

In the diplomacy area while an Axis player may attempt to reduce US or USSR war readiness, the Axis AI will never do so. Likewise, while a human Allied player may invest in diplomacy to increase US or USSR war readiness, the AI will never do so.

Tip: If you are considering an Axis Sea Lion use Diplomacy to reduce Soviet war readiness.

Having said that, for the combat in Continental Europe - the invasion of France and the war in the USSR - the AI is quite good and will give a human player a challenge.

I would like to see the designer look at improving the AI so that it can (1 in 5 games) launch a successful Sea Lion or make a stronger push in North Africa (1 in 5 games).


I'm interested in your comments. Are they based on several play throughs?

(in reply to EdwinP)
Post #: 13
RE: How is the AI? - 11/19/2016 12:25:08 PM   
EdwinP


Posts: 179
Joined: 2/20/2004
Status: offline
Yes and a look at the AI Scripts. Many of weaknesses that I mentioned can be addressed through additional AI Scripts.

The battle for the Atlantic is good, but after a few playthroughs predictable from the Allied perspective. It would be more challenging if the AI occasionally (1 in 5) games made a more concentrated effort in this area. Then the human allied player would face a dramatically stronger submarine menace.

(in reply to Solaristics)
Post #: 14
RE: How is the AI? - 11/19/2016 12:32:37 PM   
Solaristics


Posts: 161
Joined: 2/20/2002
From: UK
Status: offline
Are probabilistic scripts possible with the game engine?

(in reply to EdwinP)
Post #: 15
RE: How is the AI? - 11/19/2016 1:56:15 PM   
EdwinP


Posts: 179
Joined: 2/20/2004
Status: offline
Yes and they are quite powerful when compared to those in other war games.

Script options include:

% to execute (25% to execute)

Global Variables Example: If GV 1 has a value of 1 to 20 (values can be 1 to 100) then all scripts with GV1(1,20) as a criteria will trigger.

Links to Decision Events. You can link the execution of scripts to decision event choice. Example: IF Decision event 100 is True then execute this script.


(in reply to Solaristics)
Post #: 16
RE: How is the AI? - 11/19/2016 5:47:46 PM   
Bronze

 

Posts: 189
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline
I feel this is the best AI I have ever seen....... Hope that helps.

(in reply to EdwinP)
Post #: 17
RE: How is the AI? - 11/19/2016 6:58:36 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 4890
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: EdwinP

The Tactical AI in SC3 is quite good. It tactically deploys land and air units quite well and give you; whether the Axis or Allied, a solid challenge in the Eastern Front.

It is weak at the strategic layer when it comes to land areas not connected to Europe (UK and North Africa) and non-reactive. And not at all devious in the Diplomacy area.

Example: AI will never consider invading other ports in the UK, besides London. (the invasion sites are scripted)
Example: Allies forces in Egypt need reinforcements, but AI will not send any units there unless it is scripted.
Example: Axis really needs a few more air units in NA to drive back the British, but AI will not send additional units there.
Example: Axis AI will never focus on a Battle for the Atlantic. Its main focus is always on the Eastern front.

Note: I modded the standard campaign to add research scripts that give the AI a 20% (GV1(1,20)); 1 in 5 games, to make a major effort in researching advanced subs. If GV1(1,20) is triggered, woe to the Allied player that did not research anti-submarine warfare.

AI is not reactive.

Example: If Axis reaches Advanced Subs 4, Allied AI does not increase research in Anti-Submarine warfare.
Example: If Allied AI is advancing in Advanced Fighters, Axis AI does not respond.
Example: If Allied Human players send extra air units to Egypt, the Axis AI will never counter this.
Example: AI will never attempt to counter enemy diplomatic successes. See example below.

In the diplomacy area while an Axis player may attempt to reduce US or USSR war readiness, the Axis AI will never do so. Likewise, while a human Allied player may invest in diplomacy to increase US or USSR war readiness, the AI will never do so.

Tip: If you are considering an Axis Sea Lion use Diplomacy to reduce Soviet war readiness.

Having said that, for the combat in Continental Europe - the invasion of France and the war in the USSR - the AI is quite good and will give a human player a challenge.

I would like to see the designer look at improving the AI so that it can (1 in 5 games) launch a successful Sea Lion or make a stronger push in North Africa (1 in 5 games).


I'm interested in your comments. Are they based on several play throughs?


Hi Hondo,

Thanks for your interest and I'd have to suggest that I'm not really sure how valid Edwin's post really is for new players as his point of view is from having had access to the Beta development version for the last few months. Essentially I doubt any game could hold up to high standards of scrutiny for up to five months without finding some faults, and especially so if you tinker down and open up the root system to see exactly how and why the AI does some of what it does. Which is of course possible since the AI scripting system is available for all to see.

This is not to say the AI is perfect, or that things could not be adjusted and improved, but at the same time from a developers point of view I'd have to disagree with most of the assessments above, and at least for now which I'll explain further below.

Also, don't get me wrong, it would be great to have 2-3 more years to develop a purely reactive AI system and also the time to simply work only on AI code, but the realities of development require us to spread out our efforts (for our small niche market developmet team) on the entire game as a whole. Despite this, and despite not having an AI level compete at the competitive level of Google's Alpha Go, we still feel very strongly that you'll get a solid game experience regardless of any tradoffs we may have had to make.

For example, while the AI doesn't specifically react to singular items such as a German player strongly focusing his naval effort on Advanced Subs, the Allied AI is aware that Advanced Subs are a likelyhood and a distinct possibility, and therefore focuses on Anti-Sub Warfare by default. Perhaps not rapid counter investments, but it will focus on it throughout the course of the war so on average you'll see pretty good levels, and then counter levels throughout the war.

This is similar to the idea that Advanced Tanks will play a large role in the game and therefore the AI understands that this is a key research for both sides and plays, purchases and invests accordingly, and again by default.

It all boils down to having the right amount of time and where to best spend your efforts. Critically we felt that land and naval combat are the most important, so a lot of time and effort spent there, and there are certain areas that will give players the most bang for their buck.

For example, the AI will send its fleets out into the Atlantic, i.e. you will see Axis subs, the raiding of convoy lines and Allied counter sub Destroyer and Cruiser efforts and this should give most players a feel for the Battle of the Atlantic and so on.

What you generally won't see are very high risk strategies taken by the AI as past experience has told us that players can be very critical of any AI mistakes and so while the Axis AI will engage in a Battle of the Atlantic to an important degree, it tends not to put its eggs all into a high risk basket and will therefore spread out its efforts towards very key areas of the game, i.e. it will most definitely focus on the Eastern Front as a poor eastern invasion by the Axis AI will never be well received by the player community.

Similar reasons for why an Axis Sealion was given a lower development priority and why our efforts were more focused on what players will tend to see in every game which would be a D-Day, or Torch or Husky landings and so on.

I hope this helps,

Hubert






(in reply to Solaristics)
Post #: 18
RE: How is the AI? - 11/19/2016 7:32:36 PM   
Fintilgin

 

Posts: 196
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
I hope ai sealion gets a focus in future patches. Did it ever try this in SC2? I never remember seeing it. I'd really enjoy an allied game where I had to retake England as the US.

I wouldn't mind a "cheating ai" option you could turn on where the ai would be granted some free research cheats if it detected certain player strategies.

(in reply to Hubert Cater)
Post #: 19
RE: How is the AI? - 11/19/2016 7:49:35 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 4890
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
If we ever decide to do this, the idea I have in mind for items such as Sealion, or let's say an Axis invasion of Spain and so on, would be that these types of strategies/events would fall under an "Alternate History" and/or "Risky AI Strategies" set of options in game.

The only reason I mention/suggest this is simply that in the past, when these were a part of the default game, if the game play deviated too far from the historical norms, or if it didn't go well for the AI they were criticized and often harshly so.

For example, we had a few events where on the diplomacy side some countries swung wildly in one direction or the other, i.e. the Vichy countries would sometimes join the Axis right after the Fall of France (for variety) or we had the AI invade Yugoslavia in late 1940 instead of the Spring 1941 and neither were well received. I suspect only because they came as too much of a surprise and could not be sufficiently explained.

This way, if they are selectable options in game, then the surprises are to be expected, and the AI behavior can be more easily forgiven if things don't always work out as well as they should for the AI in an alternate history situation. Allowing certain levels of AI cheats, that are selectable at game start could also be an option and also better understood/accepted when they happen in game as well.

(in reply to Fintilgin)
Post #: 20
RE: How is the AI? - 11/19/2016 8:28:15 PM   
fatgreta1066

 

Posts: 452
Joined: 12/30/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

I'd recommend looking at this blog post to get more info on the AI
http://www.matrixgames.com/SC/Blog_2.asp

I've never seen an AI capable of making the decisions the AI does in this game. Look at how it manages D-Day in a way a good player would. The planning, research, construction, logistics that went in to organizing these attacks is really impressive. You'll have to look long and hard to find a better AI than this in a Strategic game. I'm not aware of any.


I read the blog post Iain gave here. I'd say if you want to know more detail about the AI it is a must read.

Fair warning: Prepare yourselves to be impressed.

(in reply to IainMcNeil)
Post #: 21
RE: How is the AI? - 11/19/2016 9:21:08 PM   
Fintilgin

 

Posts: 196
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
Definitely excited by the idea of arisky/alt history option. Unpredictabily adds so much to the game, particularly playing as the Allies.

Giving the ai a boost when going for risky strategies might help too.

(in reply to fatgreta1066)
Post #: 22
RE: How is the AI? - 11/19/2016 10:16:25 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5795
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
So far the AI is kicking my butt! I think it's great.

_____________________________


(in reply to Fintilgin)
Post #: 23
RE: How is the AI? - 11/20/2016 12:34:22 PM   
steelwarrior

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 8/23/2011
Status: offline
Sounds great so far ;-D

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 24
RE: How is the AI? - 11/22/2016 2:55:31 PM   
fatgreta1066

 

Posts: 452
Joined: 12/30/2012
Status: offline
I'm playing the 1939 Campaign as Allied. It took Germany until November 25 to conquer Poland. It seemed to me that the AI did a good job of cycling units in and out of position when making important attacks (I.e. against Warsaw). It seemed to not do a very good job in figuring out how to bring Poland down. By comparison, I played 5 times as Germany and conquered Poland in 2 turns 4 times, 3 turns once.

Germany was in good position to invade France by late March, 1940. I held on to France until early August. I thought the AI diffused it's initial strikes a bit too much, not creating a breakthrough when it might have. To be fair, I did a pretty gamey thing by placing the entire French navy (including its Med fleet) on raiding duty against the Norway convoys, as well as some RN units. That cost Germany a number of MPP. I also sent an extra British Corps to France, in addition to the BEF.

Now that Germany has French ports, we will see how the AI handles the Battle of the Atlantic, and the war in Africa.

(in reply to borsook79)
Post #: 25
RE: How is the AI? - 11/22/2016 4:00:03 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5795
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
Heh, your AI did better in France than I, a human, did as the Axis just now. I didn't take France until late October 1940, and this after a May 1940 launch! The AI did a fine job of blocking me at every turn. Plus I made mistakes, as I'm new at this: I didn't upgrade my tanks and aircraft in time for the start of the offensive, and I probably wasn't efficient with my movements and attacks.

_____________________________


(in reply to fatgreta1066)
Post #: 26
RE: How is the AI? - 11/22/2016 5:39:05 PM   
fatgreta1066

 

Posts: 452
Joined: 12/30/2012
Status: offline
I've always heard that AI in general is better as a defender than an attacker. I know very little about programming so I can't speak to that other than to say the thought seems to make sense to me.

I'm playing on the medium setting, so to speak. No advantages for the AI in production and such.

And also, I love this game, I certainly don't want any comment to appear critical of it. This is the most fun I've had with a PC game since the first Harpoon way back in the 90's, and High Command as mentioned in another thread.

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 27
RE: How is the AI? - 11/22/2016 5:45:26 PM   
mavraamides


Posts: 447
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fatgreta1066

I've always heard that AI in general is better as a defender than an attacker.



That's generally true because attacking tends to take more planning and creativity while defending tends to be more static and reactive.

(in reply to fatgreta1066)
Post #: 28
RE: How is the AI? - 11/22/2016 6:32:58 PM   
fatgreta1066

 

Posts: 452
Joined: 12/30/2012
Status: offline
Gordian, what game is your BB Iowa counter (your avatar) from?

(in reply to mavraamides)
Post #: 29
RE: How is the AI? - 11/22/2016 6:49:35 PM   
mavraamides


Posts: 447
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fatgreta1066

Gordian, what game is your BB Iowa counter (your avatar) from?


MWIF - Matrix World In Flames

(in reply to fatgreta1066)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> How is the AI? Page: [1] 2 3   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

0.305