Thinking of buying this game

[pmess11]

This looks like a game I would enjoy. I've seen mentioned on the board that the AI turns are slow...sometimes lasting several minutes. If I were to play a medium size random map with a few computer opponents how long would I have to wait per turn? My rig is decent...vista, 2 gig ram, intel dual core, nvidia 8800 gt. I just hate waiting for the AI to do it's thing...I'm old and life is short.

Happy holiday,
PM

[EricSilver_MatrixForum]

Mine is very similar, AMD Athlon 64 x2 Dual, 2 GB RAM, nVidia 8800 GTS, and I have no problems at all with the lenght of the ai turns, just what a normal wargame should be in time terms.

[IRONCROM]

 A medium size map with say 4 AI's, should be pretty quick on your rig.
It only gets really slow on a giant map with 6+ AI's, and even then it doesn't get slow til maybe turn 10+.
By slow I mean 6-10 minutes max.
 On my AAR, which is a huge map, it got slow after turn 15 or so. During the whole game I don't think the AI's turn exceeded 8 min.
If want to see how gig the map was go here.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1619792

[Peterk1]

I'm waiting about 3-5 minutes per turn on a pretty big random game with lots of units up to turn 120 so far).
It's a bit long...but...the AI does a pretty commendable job. This is the first game I've played in ages where I have to stay on my toes to fight the AI.

[freeboy]

with vista maybe more mem would help, but the game can be long" cough", I guess I err on the side of better ai than quicker, although I admit a minute or two is very quick compared to pbem and older games oln older systems as I am older doh!
the card is irrelavent as there is nearly no card graphics here, but a fast processor// when I get a breath and can resurrect my 6850 over clocked and test I will post some solitaire time to use as a refference.
 
IMO this game is a great pbem game a good solo game... what other strategy war games do you enjoy and we could perhaps give more precise feedback relevent to U?

[pmess11]

Thanks for the imput guys. I bought the game.

PM

[freeboy]

please follow up with both ?'s and any observations u have... did u also get the patch? a new one is due any day now as well, cheers and happy AT'ing

[hazxan]

ORIGINAL: EricSilver
just what a normal wargame should be in time terms.

Which begs the question: what is normal for an AI turn in a wargame? 5 seconds? 30 seconds? 2 minutes? Maybe a handful of milliseconds as we're talking about time you'll never get back again and a wise developer will regard it as priceless.

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM
It only gets really slow on a giant map with 6+ AI's, and even then it doesn't get slow til maybe turn 10+.
By slow I mean 6-10 minutes max.

Wow, and I thought my PC must be outdated or something (despite 35+ fps on Oblivion). But after the initial honeymoon period, AT is dropping down my playlist exclusively due to the excessively slow AI turn. As there's no-one else really complaining, I thought it must be just my 'antiquated' (circa 2005) Athlon 3200 processer and miniscule 1G of RAM causing the problem and everybody else was having AI turns of 5 seconds. Not so, then.

I agree that large scenarios are the main problem. For me the big scenarios are total no-go, as I value my time too much. That must rule out half of the scenarios that come with the game.

IMHO an AI turn can not break the flow of the game, which sets it at around 30 secs max. If you're playing a 2 player game, you can watch your opponents moves, you'll even participate by 'helping': "...I wouldn't move that *there*...!!!". In AT the map is removed and replaced by an empty screen with a text box showing the progress.

What strikes me is the different standards of acceptability between the community here and elsewhere. Here, it seems that 5+ minutes of waiting is absolutely fine, not even worthy of comment. Yet in the wider gaming community, 5 seconds of the human waiting for the machine to play would be deemed intolerable.

[Peterk1]

The long wait is acceptable by me for two reasons:
    1) When I finally do get to my turn I'm busy and having fun for 20-30 minutes. So the ratio of playing to waiting is fairly high.
    2) The AI is making pretty good moves considerring it's usually dealing with 4-6 sides in that 5 mins of waiting.

I used to play serious chess on my PC and used to give the computer 60-90 mins to make all it's move. THAT was a lot of waiting. But it's true I could at least study the board during that time. I would find it preferable to be able to see the map in AT while the AI is moving, but it's not in any way a game-breaker.

[rickier65]

I agree Peter - I actually haven't gotten into the monster games yet with AT, but if AT AI is doing 4-6 AI turns, and only 6-10 minutes - well to me thats not bad.

It ould be nice to be able to see the map - though I'd prefer not to garner intelligence this way, just see what my units can observe. it would also give a chance to do some planning.

Besides, I always have something handy I can do while I wait. AT so far has been pretty good aobut minimizing and letting me co other things in middle of games.

In any event, if it's plotting and playing turns for 4-6 players well - still not bad. In fact, I'd certinly be willing to wait longer if it meant better AI.

(of course I'm an old engineer that started out my career using a slide rule and printed log tables - so my idea of fast might be a vit different than some other folks here).


And Merry Christmas to all!
Rick

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: NotaGrog

What strikes me is the different standards of acceptability between the community here and elsewhere. Here, it seems that 5+ minutes of waiting is absolutely fine, not even worthy of comment. Yet in the wider gaming community, 5 seconds of the human waiting for the machine to play would be deemed intolerable.

The 'wider gaming community' do not play wargames. Following on from Peterk1, it rather depends on what the computer is doing in that time and what the results are. As he said, no computer chess player would have a problem with waiting. The reason for the 'different standard of acceptability' is a realization that there is no such thing as a free lunch. wargames are actually a particularly challenging AI task, rather more so than chess which is ultimately why, against the highest level players, wargame AI is considerably less successful.

[serg3d1]

I'm all for long AI turns. With longer turns AI have more resource to play smart. As I'm spending on my turns at least several minutes (up to hour with really big scenario), long AI turns don't disrupt the flow of the game, quite opposite they provide necessary break for relaxation. I'm usually surf the web during AI turn. Of cause dual-core CPU is a must in that case. BTW it would be a good idea to allow scroll the map and inspect data during AI turn.

[Saedor]

Compared to playing a live opponent, waiting a couple of minutes is nothing.
 

[Westheim]

Ah, five minutes - that's what books, apples, and household chores were made for. And when you came back - zing! - you can meet a grinning laptop and the message "You hold 22 of 39 Victory Points", and everything is like fluffy clouds again. "What?? That used to be 24! You stupid - ... can't you fight like a man??" [8D]

[kevinkins]

Perhaps the AI can calculate 1-2 rounds and then the playback history could start automatically with further rounds calculated in the background and displayed when ready. Watching the AI would be an improvment and seems to be within reach since playback is available already.

Kevin

[EricSilver_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: NotaGrog

ORIGINAL: EricSilver
just what a normal wargame should be in time terms.

Which begs the question: what is normal for an AI turn in a wargame? 5 seconds? 30 seconds? 2 minutes? Maybe a handful of milliseconds as we're talking about time you'll never get back again and a wise developer will regard it as priceless.

When I say a "normal time" I am comparing advanced tactics to other wargames I've played. I don't see a big difference with TOAW, for example, always talking about big maps, of course.

pmess11, on his post is thinking about buying this game, in fact he's done it yet, and I was simply answering his question about how slow AI turns are in this game.

[BlackSunshine]

I really think that once the patch comes out that things will be a little different.  After all, we will now have a replay movie so now you can watch the AI.  I honestly dont think it is that long of a wait.  Try watching a replay of a turn in WITP and see how long that can be.  Especially on multiple day turns.

[Woodruff]

It can be a bit long on larger maps...I simply read a book while I'm waiting for the AI to make it's moves. Keeps my time enjoyable.

[rickier65]

I had assumed that even with patch, you'd still have the wait, except now you might endure it twice, once looking at blank screen while it's being doen, the next time watching the replay (if you choose). But of course, won't know until we get the patch.

Rick

[IRONCROM]

ORIGINAL: EricSilver

ORIGINAL: NotaGrog

ORIGINAL: EricSilver
just what a normal wargame should be in time terms.

Which begs the question: what is normal for an AI turn in a wargame? 5 seconds? 30 seconds? 2 minutes? Maybe a handful of milliseconds as we're talking about time you'll never get back again and a wise developer will regard it as priceless.

When I say a "normal time" I am comparing advanced tactics to other wargames I've played. I don't see a big difference with TOAW, for example, always talking about big maps, of course.

pmess11, on his post is thinking about buying this game, in fact he's done it yet, and I was simply answering his question about how slow AI turns are in this game.

Ever try TOAW's FITE with AI playing. I can honestly say I have yet to see the AI in AT take that long.