AI- ??

[bcgames]

The AI is scripted to provide an historical experience--not Rommel every time/all the time. If you want a competitive, no-holds-barred-experience, then it is best to play head-to-head. But the tools are there in the engine (AI Tab) if you want to script an AI ass-whoopin'. Maybe the first patch can kick things up a notch...if the suits allow.

[Solaristics]

ORIGINAL: bcgames

The AI is scripted to provide an historical experience--not Rommel every time/all the time. If you want a competitive, no-holds-barred-experience, then it is best to play head-to-head. But the tools are there in the engine (AI Tab) if you want to script an AI ass-whoopin'. Maybe the first patch can kick things up a notch...if the suits allow.

It seems a surprising design decision not to create the most challenging (non-cheating) AI opponent possible if the game has that potential. Some players, me included, have no interest in head-to-head gaming and make purchases based on the single-player experience. I'll be holding off purchasing this game until its AI's potential has been demonstrated in practice.

[Saint Ruth]

Well, it's just that an AI will never match a good human, so PBEM will always be better than an AI.
However, we did try to make the best AI possible and we will continue to improve the AI as we get more feedback, thanks, Brian (I'm not Rommel either after all! [8D])

[daj]

First,I am sorry. I did not intend to be critical or complaining. I was just adding to the AI thread with my experience based on a single scenario.

Second, I appreciate historical accuracy and the difficulty a designer has in being accurate while creating a challenging game.

Third, I enjoyed the WEGO system which was novel for me and I agree with others that more games such as Battle of the Bulge would be great additions.

Fourth, back to "Into the Blue," not to be critical but for me to understand what happened or perhaps help with a patch. Although it is subtitled the battle for Sidi Barrani, in my scenario there was no battle with axis AI as all the units retreated. Sidi is the major source of points for the axis. They can't abandon it, nor can they allow Sofafi to be taken as it gives allies 15 points/turn.

Finally, I checked the editor but it appeared to be well beyond my abilities. Can your edit a specific scenario? I couldn't figure out how. If I were to edit into the blue, I would add some more experienced Italian units to Sidi and Sofafi and fix them until within enemy ZOC. One could also add fixed artillery a few hexes west of each for support, or make them forts.

[bcgames]

I did not explain my point sufficiently. The scenario is the Battle of Sidi Barrani. The AI is scripted to do what General Graziani did--sit or run away. That's what I mean by an historical experience. I originally scripted an aggressive Italian AI and the result was not historical--the British get swarmed by a thousand ants.

[spinecruncher]

"I did not explain my point sufficiently. The scenario is the Battle of Sidi Barrani. The AI is scripted to do what General Graziani did--sit or run away. That's what I mean by an historical experience. I originally scripted an aggressive Italian AI and the result was not historical--the British get swarmed by a thousand ants. "

Sounds like you got money waiting in the bank re a "What if" scenario: What if the Italian Commander was more aggressive? What if the ITalians really wanted to fight? Like I have written before, depending on the motivations of the designer, there is plenty of room going forward. We are at 1.0 here. 1.friggen 0. I hope the designer gets a solid enough community for addl material and improved AI, scripting etc. The truth is, the Italians moreover had little heart to fight their former allies, the British. El Duce was never really able to garner a lot of high morale in his troops. I bet the common Italian was thinking, "fight the Brits, they took over India no problem and we could barely take Abyssinia, I am outta here first chance I get."

[daj]

Frankly, I am not sure how to respond. Why do we play historical war games? We know what happened, who won, and who lost. If the computer AI is designed to follow the actual battle events, strategy, and tactics for historical accuracy, then what is the point of playing.

[Solaristics]

ORIGINAL: bcgames

The AI is scripted to do what General Graziani did--sit or run away.

While I applaud your attention to historical accuracy, I'd much rather be surprised by the AI doing something challenging and competent than slavishly following historical command decisions. Also, within the context of a wargame, which is always a "what if" situation, having the AI take alternative command decisions within what are otherwise the same historical constraints, does not undermine the historical nature of the scenario in my opinion.

[Nico165b165]

ORIGINAL: spinecruncher

"I did not explain my point sufficiently. The scenario is the Battle of Sidi Barrani. The AI is scripted to do what General Graziani did--sit or run away. That's what I mean by an historical experience. I originally scripted an aggressive Italian AI and the result was not historical--the British get swarmed by a thousand ants. "

Sounds like you got money waiting in the bank re a "What if" scenario: What if the Italian Commander was more aggressive? What if the ITalians really wanted to fight? Like I have written before, depending on the motivations of the designer, there is plenty of room going forward. We are at 1.0 here. 1.friggen 0. I hope the designer gets a solid enough community for addl material and improved AI, scripting etc. The truth is, the Italians moreover had little heart to fight their former allies, the British. El Duce was never really able to garner a lot of high morale in his troops. I bet the common Italian was thinking, "fight the Brits, they took over India no problem and we could barely take Abyssinia, I am outta here first chance I get."

This.

We could end up with something like, for every scenario, 3 options:

- Historical AI: the AI tries to simulate what their historical counter part did, right or wrong.
- Best AI: the AI tries to use the best options with the units it has to counter the player, hindsight included.
- Random AI: maybe the AI does the historical mistakes/good ideas, maybe it tries to do its best regardless of history. Surprise !

Could this be achieved within the same scenario ? Or does it needs different versions ?

[daj]

I am in complete agreement with you. In my opinion historical accuracy ends at setup. If my actions as commander don't follow historical events why should the computer?

If the scenario designer insists on historical outcome then at least we should know ahead of time and the advantage under the scenario synopsis should be edited to indicate computer will lose if historically accurate.

We want a challenge not historical outcome accuracy.

Here is a suggestion: If the historical outcome is that important, fine keep it. But offer us more options of each scenario by changing the AI only. These could be: Easy, hard, and insane if you like.

[Deathtreader]

ORIGINAL: Nico165b165

ORIGINAL: spinecruncher

"I did not explain my point sufficiently. The scenario is the Battle of Sidi Barrani. The AI is scripted to do what General Graziani did--sit or run away. That's what I mean by an historical experience. I originally scripted an aggressive Italian AI and the result was not historical--the British get swarmed by a thousand ants. "

Sounds like you got money waiting in the bank re a "What if" scenario: What if the Italian Commander was more aggressive? What if the ITalians really wanted to fight? Like I have written before, depending on the motivations of the designer, there is plenty of room going forward. We are at 1.0 here. 1.friggen 0. I hope the designer gets a solid enough community for addl material and improved AI, scripting etc. The truth is, the Italians moreover had little heart to fight their former allies, the British. El Duce was never really able to garner a lot of high morale in his troops. I bet the common Italian was thinking, "fight the Brits, they took over India no problem and we could barely take Abyssinia, I am outta here first chance I get."

This.

We could end up with something like, for every scenario, 3 options:

- Historical AI: the AI tries to simulate what their historical counter part did, right or wrong.
- Best AI: the AI tries to use the best options with the units it has to counter the player, hindsight included.
- Random AI: maybe the AI does the historical mistakes/good ideas, maybe it tries to do its best regardless of history. Surprise !

Could this be achieved within the same scenario ? Or does it needs different versions ?

I agree with you 100%!!!

This is a great game system and could only be improved by AI options. If taken this would not be the only war-game to have multiple versions of (all) scenarios. My current favourites being Flashpoint Campaigns and Command Ops both of which make considerable use multiple versions or tracks within the scenarios. Why not try it with this game?? And make no mistake, this is a great game!! [&o]

Rob.

[Rosseau]

As already stated, we need to drum up support for this game so it doesn't end up abandoned like Brother vs. Brother. I sincerely doubt that it will. Without reading anything, I am easily able to plop down some more Italian units to make things more difficult. But that is a rather coarse solution. Perhaps a patch with a non-historical scenario will be in the offing.

Look at what has been accomplished with The Operational Art of War IV in terms of custom scenarios and modding. IMO, that is a more difficult game to edit, but the game has (over the years) attracted some very skilled scenario designers. That would be our hope here. In the meantime, I will be creating some wildly ahistorical scenarios for my own pleasure, and if any are remotely publishable, I will do it.

[spinecruncher]

And since this is a game, after all, the historical accuracy ends when you click the play button, why not expand the Italian TOE to include some decent armor? Why did the Italians create such sucky armor? does anyone have an answer? The Czechs even created armor that was good enough for the Germans to use in their invasion of France and Barbarossa. So, I do not think the Italians will have a change without beefed-up TOE re-armor. The leadership is, of course, a big factor but this title is not about leadership. So yeah this game has super potential. for a 1.0 it is very good. I would presume if the designer put this much time and effort he would be inclined to continue with this gem.

[countrboy]

"....why not expand the Italian TOE to include some decent armor?...."

I wouldn't want to see that. Messing with the TOE is going too far. By all means have get the AI to be more aggressive (or less) if desired, but changing the TOE changes the whole nature of the game.

[Rosseau]

I understand what you are saying. But things are going to get boring relatively quickly playing the same canned "historical" scenarios. You may also disagree with the scenario designer on some decisions, and the editor allows you to tweak that. Personally, I would not have touched this game without an editor to create new or edited scenarios and give limitless life to the engine.

After 30 years of gaming the same battles, I pretty much live on "what-ifs." But yes, there should be a "historical" scenario that is not touched and always available to play, especially multiplayer.

[daj]

I agree with countrboy that the historical setup, number and strength of units should not be changed. But historical accuracy ends at setup. It is not followed in head-to-head, and should not be followed against the computer. As many have suggested give us versions of varying difficulty based on AI aggressiveness (for both sides).

We who play against the computer want a challenge not a walk in the park. It would sell more games.

[Rosseau]

Forgive me, I misunderstood.

Somehow we got on historical accuracy, instead of Daj's post #17 on AI programming and competence. Based on his personal experience with those two scenarios, there definitely seems to be some issues. It reminds me (God forbid) of the old HPS AI where the computer would just sit one hex from a VP and not take it. That is not acceptable.

There are a lot of rules in this game, and no "tactical" AI is going to be able to "understand" all of them. I think the 12-year-old SSG series was among the best in terms of tactical AI. In multiplayer, there should be few problems. But I bought the game for single player. This is usually not a problem for me, as I don't study the rules and feel the AI is giving me a "challenge" based on my ignorance. But some of the obvious stuff Daj mentioned needs to be addressed.

[Saint Ruth]

Sure, there's the tactical AI and the scripted strategic AI and we intend to put the work in to get them better.
And all this feedback is of great help.
Thanks, Brian [;)]

[Phoenix100]

I support 100% the idea of making the historical scenarios as historical as possible. It's not everyone who wants to play what-if scenarios. I only play against the AI and I really like to play scenarios where the moves reflect the actual moves, because I'm interested in the history, above all. I think many players of this type of game, against an AI, are like that. So don't change that approach! The answer is to provide what-if scenarios as alternatives, as people have suggested. I wouldn't touch the alternatives, but others would, clearly. Also, I think if I wanted a non-historical fight I would go PBEM.

So far, playing this, I'm like others have described themselves above - useless - and hence I've not been noticing many crap AI moves. Seems good to me so far.

[Toby42]

ORIGINAL: Phoenix100

I support 100% the idea of making the historical scenarios as historical as possible. It's not everyone who wants to play what-if scenarios. I only play against the AI and I really like to play scenarios where the moves reflect the actual moves, because I'm interested in the history, above all. I think many players of this type of game, against an AI, are like that. So don't change that approach! The answer is to provide what-if scenarios as alternatives, as people have suggested. I wouldn't touch the alternatives, but others would, clearly. Also, I think if I wanted a non-historical fight I would go PBEM.

So far, playing this, I'm like others have described themselves above - useless - and hence I've not been noticing many crap AI moves. Seems good to me so far.

I agree!