Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!

[IrishGuards]

I am tired .. very tired of people thinking they are decent Wargamers and ....
They are not ... go play Rail Baron ... [X(]
IDG

[LitFuel]

ORIGINAL: spcsisco

I'm not pouting FireBalls...Just tired of game companies advertising games for what they are not. Watch those matches your daughter might get burned.........

What the F*** does that mean?...your one sick dude.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: themattcurtis

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

If you two guys make an effort to get the chips off your shoulders we might have a chance at some worthwhile discourse here.

I can appreciate that you are feeling a little "put upon" by the rather harsh criticism coming down from the hardcore gamers here, but a little less "bristling" under the strain of that criticism would go a long way.

I have not criticized the game for it's "lite" approach, in fact if you read my comments in the partisan thread, you will find me arging in the opposite direction. I was merely trying to point out the potential pitfall of making "normal" mode "introductory" mode!

I didn't read the posts as they have chips on their shoulders. Or that they bristled.

A comment was made, and they responded.

I tend to doubt on the side of developers, as I like to give the benefit of the doubt. And if folks DO get a little defensive on these forums, I think there's ample cause when half the criticisms posted on the boards include words like ridiculous, or accusations that playtesters neglected the game...all backed by smilies like dees one here [8|]

Hell, look at the post that even started this thread. There was an effort made to acknowledge the guy's comments (a guy with 1 post to date to his credit), and all I saw in there was someone acting like a troll.

Constructive criticism should be offered with the outlook that the developers might actually hit back a little re: the decisions that went into the time they spent creating the thing in the first place.

You missed the nuances of the conversation. I made a post criticizing the choice to make "normal" mode "introductory" mode and made a reference to "dumbing down". That reference was clearly in regard to the dumbing down of the AI in normal mode in order to make normal mode introductory mode.

Both respondants immediately jumped to the erroneous assumption that my reference to dumbing down was a comment on the game in general and came with with very defensive posts regarding the "choice" to design a "lite" game. My reference to "dumbing down" had nothing whatsoever to do with the "level" of the game design. I have been playing wargames for almost 35 years. I have a collection of hundreds upon hundreds of baord and computer wargames. I have played, enjoyed and own dozens of "lite" games. I wasn't, in any way, criticizing the choice to design and publish a "lite" game, but the immediate responses in defense of that choice is illustrative of the chips they are carrying on the shoulders with regard to criticism they have already fielded from others over that choice. I was the wrong target for those defensive posts. That's all I was trying to say. [;)]

[targul]

ORIGINAL: IrishDragoonGuards

I am tired .. very tired of people thinking they are decent Wargamers and ....
They are not ... go play Rail Baron ... [X(]
IDG

I would love to great game and I had lots of fun playing it.

[targul]

ORIGINAL: spcsisco

I'm not pouting FireBalls...Just tired of game companies advertising games for what they are not. Watch those matches your daughter might get burned.........

I understand your disappointment here and with many game companies but the cost to produce and market a game is tremendous and typically the labor of love that the game started became one to no money but lots of time invested and all there savings.

Now what put it out and hope or toss it. I like most people put it out and hope I can patch it to good.

[IrishGuards]

yep .. we also get together once and a while now and play
7 Ages .. great game .. and history to boot ..

when we go for beer and pretzels ...
It's Enemy in Sight ... fun all the time ..
IDG

[JonBrave]

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

There are very different expectations from difficulty settings from you guys and from the more casual gamer.

If you add an easy setting, nobody uses it - they play on normal. Nobody wants to feel dumb and play on the easy setting. They are rarely if ever used. It's just the way it is.

We have to make the normal setting easy so that new players will not be beaten by the game. If people lose most of them stop playing. They should try again at an easier setting, but most don't - they give up and say the game is crap. It's just the way it is.

As you guys are all hardened wargamers its obvious you need more of a challenge than the average person. We either had to make it too easy for you on normal or too hard for the average guy. We always go with what the average guy would want. Maybe that was a mistake because this game has more of a niche market than our previous games, but we are trying to reach out to more casual gamers with the slick UI.

It's not something we overlooked, it's a design decision. If other people were prepared to play on easy settings or be beaten it wouldn't be an issue - but they're not. We thought you guys would be willing to up the difficulty, but looks like we were wrong!

Iain,

As I posted to a developer elsewhere (whoops, please don't shoot me!) on this type of issue:

Simple question: why not put a choice on difficulty screen selector that asks user is s/he:

• newbie to computer war games
• regular played a few, won a few, lost a few
• expert

and adjust your "normal" level of whatever from that.

Then you wouldn't have to heart-search over which one your human player was, would you.........

[IainMcNeil]

It's possible but I think it may just add confusion. Difficulty settings would then mean different things depends on what people had chosen on a set up screen so it makes it very confusing when tracing bugs or trying to set up multiplayer.

[JonBrave]

Sounds like a developer's point of view to me [;)]

I totally respect your opinion, as you respect mine. [:)] I'm still right, though.....

[firepowerjohan]

An aspect of the difficulty level is we want it to be consistent with the multiplayer also and avoid too much clicking and setting to get a game going. The "Small Axis advantage" for instance means same in multiplayer while a difficult level of say "Normal, Hard, ..." or "Corporal, Captain, Colonel, ..." would be of no use when you want 2 players to set up difficulty.   

[zman1974]

Concerning AI:
 
I was corresponding with Rich over at HPS regarding the poor AI of their ACW Campaign games, and he responded with a very good point.  It takes a supercomputer to match a grandmaster's playing ability at chess.  Just imagine how much processing power it would take to simulate a very compentent army commander with an OOB the size of Gettysburg.  We're just not there technologically yet, although I do think a game can still be "fun" playing the computer, if not competitive.
 
Jim

[firepowerjohan]

Yes, Chess is 64 squares and with 32 pieces. The combinations will grow exponentially as these numbers grow. CEaW is 10800 hexes with perhaps 150 active units on map at any time from 1941-1945

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: zman1974

Concerning AI:

I was corresponding with Rich over at HPS regarding the poor AI of their ACW Campaign games, and he responded with a very good point. It takes a supercomputer to match a grandmaster's playing ability at chess. Just imagine how much processing power it would take to simulate a very compentent army commander with an OOB the size of Gettysburg. We're just not there technologically yet, although I do think a game can still be "fun" playing the computer, if not competitive.

Jim

How many chess grandmasters are there on earth? How many "grandmasters" of wargames. Chess games have shipped with AI's capable of beating most players for decades, and using the BigBlue excuse is disingenous. It's an irrelevance which doesn't negate the chess AI which could run on a Spectrum 25 years ago was capable of winning against 99% of humanity.

Further, the chess solution to AI isn't going to be applicable to most wargames, though that doesn't mean that the AIs shipped with some games to be as bad as they are.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: zman1974

Concerning AI:

I was corresponding with Rich over at HPS regarding the poor AI of their ACW Campaign games, and he responded with a very good point.  It takes a supercomputer to match a grandmaster's playing ability at chess.  Just imagine how much processing power it would take to simulate a very compentent army commander with an OOB the size of Gettysburg.  We're just not there technologically yet, although I do think a game can still be "fun" playing the computer, if not competitive.

Jim

Yes, this is a quote that's been floating around for a couple of decades at least. It glosses over the point that the average gamer is not a Grand Master. Few people can beat any Chess program at its hardest setting - let alone Deep Thought/Blue. Besides, compared to 20+ years ago, we are all using supercomputers. Of course some games do have an adequate computer opponent. That seems to disprove the notion that it simply can't be done.

If the above quote is just being used to manage expectations and the game maker actually made a strong effort on the AI portion of a game, then that's just dandy. If it's being trotted out to excuse away a poorly written Artificial Opponent, then it's dishonest to call what's produced a single player game. Label it "multiplayer only" so those uninterested in that play style don't waste their money.

edit -

Oops, sorry Dinsdale. I didn't see your brilliant post.

[zman1974]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

ORIGINAL: zman1974

Concerning AI:

I was corresponding with Rich over at HPS regarding the poor AI of their ACW Campaign games, and he responded with a very good point. It takes a supercomputer to match a grandmaster's playing ability at chess. Just imagine how much processing power it would take to simulate a very compentent army commander with an OOB the size of Gettysburg. We're just not there technologically yet, although I do think a game can still be "fun" playing the computer, if not competitive.

Jim

How many chess grandmasters are there on earth? How many "grandmasters" of wargames. Chess games have shipped with AI's capable of beating most players for decades, and using the BigBlue excuse is disingenous. It's an irrelevance which doesn't negate the chess AI which could run on a Spectrum 25 years ago was capable of winning against 99% of humanity.

Further, the chess solution to AI isn't going to be applicable to most wargames, though that doesn't mean that the AIs shipped with some games to be as bad as they are.

I won't speak for Rich, but I will tell you what I think of his point. It is easier to design a competitive AI in a simple game like chess. However, to design competitive AI's for gigantic wargames is much more difficult. Can it be done? I suppose there are those games where such a result is possible. SSG, for example, usually has an excellent computer opponent. A game like War in the Pacific, however, is challenging not so much because of a great computer opponent, but because it is a very hard system for a person with average skill and time to master. The computer opponent already has this huge edge on you, the player, from the outset. But I think that as one masters the UI, and makes less and less unforced errors, then the computer AI may become a much less vaunted opponent. In a way, by designing an elegant and easy to understand UI, the developer takes away one of the AI's biggest advantages. The assertion that poor AI and the incredible complexity of huge, ambitious wargames are interlinked components remains vaild.

Jim

[JonBrave]

I would have thought/guessed that there is absolutely no connection between an AI for chess and an AI for a wargame like this (as of present at least). As in, I can barely think of any technique (that would be coded) that AIs for these would share.

Which raises the question of whether there is any point at all comparing them.

[Vypuero]

I have yet to meet one I could not beat pretty easily (excluding cheats).  The AI in Galactic Civ II is supposed to be excellent, but it does not seem as good as it was made out to be in the reviews.

[geozero]

These comparisons to chess AI are ridiculous... first off 99.99% of chess players will have a tough time beating any $19 chess game out there. How many of you are grand masters...NONE... I thought so.

Secondly, CEAW while having a lot more "hexes" over 90% are likely to be empty MOST of the time. It doesn't take much of a programming routine to check if a hex is empty and then ignore it.

Why are the DEVs so bent on disregarding the lame AI? People here and other posts are trying to be very helpful and bring up suggestions. Don't scoff at them. They are paying customers who only want to see the game better.

[SMK-at-work]

Nonetheless many of those empty hexes represent possible destionations for unit movement, and there are a lot more units in play in most games than there are pieces in chess.
 
Plus you get to move all units (usually, or nearly all) every turn in wargames, viz 1/turn in chess.
 
AI is an area of high investment for limited returns IMO.  there is only so much you can get AI to do, and once you've got it up to a reasonable level even vast investments in developer time are not goign to help much.
 
Hence hte dev's don't want to waste their time on somethign they can't actually  improve very much at all.

[geozero]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Nonetheless many of those empty hexes represent possible destionations for unit movement, and there are a lot more units in play in most games than there are pieces in chess.

Plus you get to move all units (usually, or nearly all) every turn in wargames, viz 1/turn in chess.

AI is an area of high investment for limited returns IMO.  there is only so much you can get AI to do, and once you've got it up to a reasonable level even vast investments in developer time are not goign to help much.

Hence hte dev's don't want to waste their time on somethign they can't actually  improve very much at all.

Waste time? Excuse me for asking that a DEV actually make a game playable. You may as well have made the game in ADC2.

Then it should be a $29 game not $70 with the hard copy.

Your AI argument holds no water...