is the braindead AI going to be solved???

[Mus]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


You AI guys are missing the point entirely. You think the AI in Civilization is good? It isn't. It's just a game designed for an AI that works out to be fun and challenging.

Agreed. Every game I ever played gives gradually increasing levels of material advantage to the AI as you raise the difficulty level just to keep the AI "in the hunt" against a competent player.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

You AI guys are missing the point entirely. You think the AI in Civilization is good? It isn't. It's just a game designed for an AI that works out to be fun and challenging.

I never thought of it that way, but I believe that is spot on.

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ROFL! You must be young. Us old boardgamers paid way more than that to play boardgames with other people. Why? Because it was fun. A lot more fun than playing some idiot computer program. [:D]

Good Lord Yes! Hundreds of dollars.

Star Fleet Battles with expansions 20 + 20 + 20 + magazines + miniatures
Star Fleet Battles New Version with expansions 30 + 25 + 25 + more magazines
Federation & Empire 30 + 15
Federation & Empire New Version 35 + 20 + 20
Starfire 20 + 20
Starfire New Version 25 + 35
World In Flames 60 + 20
Days Of Decision 40
World In Flames New Version with all the stuff 120
Custom Made Cabinet to keep 'in progress' games away from the cats/kids 160 (lucky at that)

How about roleplaying in the 80s - Think about the relative value of the dollar

D&D Players Manual 15
D&D Monster Manual 15
D&D DM Guide 15
D&D Fiend Folio 15
Various Modules 7 + 7 + 7 .....
And minatures
and 'lucky' dice (have to buy a bunch to find one that rolls a 20 when you 'really need it') [;)]

[Jimmer]

It's nearly impossible to find a decent (as in, not "just for kids") boardgame that goes for less than $50. Heck, I've even dropped several hundred on a CARD game (Magic: The Gathering).
 
For EiA, though, I bought two copies of the game and a third map (just to have extra pieces). I bought some plywood to mount the map on, and contact paper to lay out all nation sheets and map under, so it would stick together. We rigged up a system where we could hoist the game board up to the ceiling, so we didn't have to worry about kids and cats moving the counters around (at any given time, there are a couple hundred counters on the map in this game). All that cost a LOT of money. And, I would do it again, if most of my gaming buddies hadn't moved to other states.

[Grapeshot Bob]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


You AI guys are missing the point entirely. You think the AI in Civilization is good? It isn't. It's just a game designed for an AI that works out to be fun and challenging.

EiA was and is designed to be a multi-player human game. And yes, it absolutely was based on the boardgame design, with some minor deviations. Heck, the manual is almost exactly like the boardgame manual.

EiA was not designed to be an AI game. It was designed to be a multi-player human game. That is the best way to get the full flavor and feel of the design. Maybe they will come up with some AI that makes you happy. You still will not be playing Empires in Arms.

EiA has more in common with WoW than Civilization. You wouldn't play WoW solitaire against the computer and expect to get the real feel of the game would you? Of course not.

Paying 60 bucks so I can play a boardgame with other people is silly.

ROFL! You must be young. Us old boardgamers paid way more than that to play boardgames with other people. Why? Because it was fun. A lot more fun than playing some idiot computer program. [:D]

We differ on our views. Some like it one way others would like to see it another way.

If the primary use of this game is to play by hotseat or PBEM it should have that feature listed right at the top of the game description where we can read it before we klick "buy". That's all. Or maybe offer a demo, so we can see if it is ok to play against.

I'll bet you twenty bucks I'm old enough to remember the old days of board gaming. I watched the cartoon you use as your avatar when it first ran on TV. And I was playing tabletop wargames when I wasn't watching him on TV.



GSB

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Grapeshot Bob

I watched the cartoon you use as your avatar when it first ran on TV.

I do a pretty mean imitation of Marvin the Martian's voice. However, my kids never knew where it came from, even though they had heard it from me a lot. I guess I never mentioned who I was imitating.

Now, with YouTube and all kinds of other sites out there, they ran across some old Bugs Bunny cartoons (with dates from 1942 to 1959). It was old stuff to me, but they were rolling on the floor (literally) laughing at them.

Well, then comes up a Bugs Bunny cartoon with him getting sent to the moon in a rocket, and who does he meet? Marvin, of course! As usual, on a mission "to blow up the Earth".

The first time they heard Marvin's voice, I thought they were going to die laughing. They had to replay the cartoon, because they didn't hear much of anything after they heard his voice, they were laughing so hard. It was really fun to watch.

No matter how old I get, I'll never be too old to watch my kids with a gut-busting laugh-fest!

[yammahoper]

I do want to pvp this game one day, but I also would not have bought it if it did not have an AI with single player.  That is how I will play it most.
 
yamma

[zaquex]

I dont think anyone ever stated that "wargaming" was a cheap hobby, it isnt,  but it would be a a bit over the top if all 7 players had to get there own EiA box to play the boardgame...
 
Several posters seem to think its impossible to make a good AI for EiA, imo a good AI doesnt need to be perfect it can even incorporate a certain amount of "cheating" the important thing is that it is challanging for this it needs to be active and not totally random.
 
This should be possible to achieve and could be implemented in a way that is less complicated than most seem to think, someone already stated somewhere in this thread that constraints need to be put on each unplayed power and the AI should work within those constraints and I agree a layered decision making process should be possible to implement and is in my oppinion the only way to make the computer act somewhat consistently and rational.
 
The real question is how to prioritise the development of the game and in my opponion:
 
1 Bugs (adressed in the first patch)
2 Basic AI (excesive war decs, top leaders rocking around with single and often understrenght corps wich often leads to capture and inactivity is among the issues that needsto be looked at)
3 TCP/IP
4 Revamp the whole AI system (a layered, constrained AI based on political agendas that are scriptable/adaptable - this would make the game awsome and make it possible for the system to cover basicly any of the big europen conflicts before napoleon like the 7 years war the 30 years war etc)
 
 
 
 
 
 

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer
and 'lucky' dice (have to buy a bunch to find one that rolls a 20 when you 'really need it') [;)]

[:D] lucky dice were such an issue in EiA that one guy built a small tower (looked like an autofeeder for a cat but keep shaped) that you would put the die in the top of and it would roll out the bottom to help randomly spin it (it had protusions inside to pachinko the die). Everyone could use any die that anyone bought and one guy had this clear red plastic one that seemed to roll what I needed or close to it (1 or 2 for forage, 5 or 6 for casualties and pursuit 3s and 4s for the solo corps [:'(] ) when I really needed it. I tried to buy it from him but he would not sell! I loved thaat die almost as much as my girlfriend [:D]

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

Our group had one of those too!!
 
The 'Lee Maglinger Fair Dice Roller' (patent not assumed to be pending).  One of our group was really good at skidding the dice across the table instead of rolling them.  (Not that he did it on purpose or anything. [X(])
 
We even used to carry our dice with us all week to get our "karma" on them.  
 
Those were the days!!!
 
These young whippersnappers know nothing about serious board gaming.
 
(please no one take offense--- I am just kidding around)
 
 
And the taunting!!  Oh my god - the taunting!!.  We may have had more fun taunting than we ever had playing!  You can taunt your computer, but it won't taunt back.  (at least not effectively)
 
 

[Mynok]

We differ on our views. Some like it one way others would like to see it another way.

I'm certainly fine with you disagreeing with me, but I also know that you are going to be missing out on the primary attraction of this game: the diplomatic wrangling and intrigue among seven crafty humans.

Let me try another tact. Remember the AH game Diplomacy? Totally simplistic game as far as movement and combat--simpler than risk. And completely untenable as a computer game with a computer player.

Computers cannot think. They don't have personalities. They aren't human.

It's not that games cannot be designed and written to have a fun and challenging computer player. They can. Civilization is one of them. This game was not and will not have one. Not with today's technology. The saddest thing is not that people want this but that they refuse to even try the human vs human version of this game.

IT ROCKS!! I promise ya. It is worth the time. With a TCP/IP option, it would be even better.

4 Revamp the whole AI system (a layered, constrained AI based on political agendas that are scriptable/adaptable - this would make the game awsome and make it possible for the system to cover basicly any of the big europen conflicts before napoleon like the 7 years war the 30 years war etc)

It would be far more rational and less expensive simply to recreate the UMP rules of the original board game....where guess what? Yep...nations are controlled by humans.

If you don't like playing against humans, you bought the wrong game. Sorry to break it to you.

[carnifex]

I hope I didn't buy the wrong game. Because reading the marketing text that promises me "up to 6 AI players each with 3 different difficulty levels", I would think I bought the right game, except that it was defective. Of course I am using a common-sense definition of "AI players", where I regard such as simulations of what a human being might do, possibly, even if improbably. However, it strikes me that no human ever, except one in the most severe grip of an ether binge, would fail to take Portugal by...not moving into it. Or to land a Spanish corps in Greece and leave it there, forever. Or charge one French corps into Charles' full stack every land phase, without respite, until the entire French army is gone.

Oh sure, I understand, programming the AI is tough. This whole thread is crawling with people who understand just how tough it is, and keep explaining to others that well, people are smarter. I keep trying to empathize, but then I load up Ageod's ACW, where the AI is giving me a nice run for my money by cutting my supply whenever I try to make a thrust towards Atlanta, and this is from a much more complex game (The developer of ACW/BoA actually named his AI, a measure of how sure he was people weren't just going to laugh at it.)

I can load up any of the Decisive Battles games I have. Very complex, lots of units, big maps, and...a challenge from the AI. How about World at War? Or Strategic Command? More big games, lots of strategy, and the AI? Hardly brilliant, but I don't see entire countries just sitting there, doing nothing. How about apples to apples, and check on Crown of Glory? Can AI Russia take Sweden? Check! EiA? No, sorry.

Do I need to list EVERY single strategy game I have? Because they all have better AI than EiA.

If the AI in EiA did absolutely nothing but build troops and place them on their capitals it would do 150% better than it does now, with it's retarded thrusts and fits. That's how bad the AI is.

Now me, I'm one of the fortunate ones to be able to play EiA against humans. So personally it really won't matter to me if EiA's AI continues to suck eggs. The graphics are OK and the functional bugs will get worked out, so it will be playable for me. But I feel for the people who would like to see a programmed opponent in action, because they won't get that here, in spite of the marketing text.

Claiming that the AI in EiA is for "training" is sophistry. And reminding everyone to wait for patches so that features promised actually become features delivered strikes me as the worst kind of consumer complacency - one that ultimately produces a series of declining quality products that are then defended (for some unexplainable fanboish reason) by those who consume them, in a vicious spiral.

[Murat]

Actually if you read over the several years of strategies that have been laid out in this forum there is no 'ideal' AI structure for anyone here.  My thought on this was that we were given the game as is, so that we could at least play with it some and make recommendations which Marshall seems very open to. EiANW II will rock!  So I have been playing along. I swept through some solo games and I am now experiencing the PBEM and learning that others do not think like I do (especially when playing Spain, you traitorous Anglophile bastards [:D]) and watching what works and what doesn't.  At some point my hope is that AI will be re-examined with input from the mega-beta that is the current owners of the game. Hopefully by then I will be ready to comment intelligently ("Do it my way" ).

[zaquex]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

We differ on our views. Some like it one way others would like to see it another way.

I'm certainly fine with you disagreeing with me, but I also know that you are going to be missing out on the primary attraction of this game: the diplomatic wrangling and intrigue among seven crafty humans.

Let me try another tact. Remember the AH game Diplomacy? Totally simplistic game as far as movement and combat--simpler than risk. And completely untenable as a computer game with a computer player.

Computers cannot think. They don't have personalities. They aren't human.

I fully acknowledge that this game shines with seven human players. Nevertheless computer opponents is needed or we could as several others pointed out as well play EiA over the allready existing PBEM systems. It is the computer opponents that makes this version different, if this part was not intended - then maybe this was the wrong project to start at all.

That computers aint human is clearly evident, and they dont think as per your definition, however they are very logical (sorry couldnt help myself) and can act rational within pretty easily set up constraints. The actual thinking needs to be done by the developer/programmer but once the thinking is implemented noone can beat the computer in logic within the constraints put up.

It's not that games cannot be designed and written to have a fun and challenging computer player. They can. Civilization is one of them. This game was not and will not have one. Not with today's technology. The saddest thing is not that people want this but that they refuse to even try the human vs human version of this game.

And it sadens me when people bullheaded refuses to acknowledge something that is clearly possible as in this case to develop a model for the computer opponent that can pose a challenge human players. I even think I know how such a model can look and its not as hard as you might think, its more a question of process of decision making and writing constraints (wich still is a huge work) that actual AI programing.

IT ROCKS!! I promise ya. It is worth the time. With a TCP/IP option, it would be even better.

4 Revamp the whole AI system (a layered, constrained AI based on political agendas that are scriptable/adaptable - this would make the game awsome and make it possible for the system to cover basicly any of the big europen conflicts before napoleon like the 7 years war the 30 years war etc)

It would be far more rational and less expensive simply to recreate the UMP rules of the original board game....where guess what? Yep...nations are controlled by humans.

If you don't like playing against humans, you bought the wrong game. Sorry to break it to you.

I have played this game on the board on and off for about 20 years although i must confess that the number of games we actually played to finnish is very small.

Ive played the game with all players active and ive played it with UMP rules and I really do like playing this game against humans. In its current form though I'd rather play it on the board. I find the current PBEM model to slow and cumbersome and sometimes making violence against some of its more vital components, mostly in combat and politics, I totally agree with the statement that this game is much more suited for direct play than PBEM and if TCP/IP is implemented id love to have a go at a game. But im always more likely to play it over LAN or VLAN than PBEM and I doubt that we always be able to fill all powers in such game.

I always been excited over this project and I really want it to be successfull, EiA has always been my favourite boardgame all cathegories it is as a boardgame quite brilliant. I didnt primirily buy the game as human vs computer or a PBEM game I bought it to support the project and was fully aware that it probably will take a long time before this game can be concidered mature. But to survive and be developed this game as everything else it needs to create revenue and for this the PBEM market is way to small in the long run.

This is why GUI, TCP/IP and mostly Computer opponents (AI) is important and indirectly even so for the hardcore PBEM players who have no intention to play the game in any other way, as it will keep the development and support of the game going and attract new players to play the game in multiplay mode with.


Regards

zaq

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: zaquex

This is why GUI, TCP/IP and mostly Computer opponents (AI) is important and indirectly even so for the hardcore PBEM players who have no intention to play the game in any other way, as it will keep the development and support of the game going and attract new players to play the game in multiplay mode with.


Regards

zaq

I bought this game so that I can play against humans. Practicing against the AI has proven useful because it's helping me learn the interface. This is not unlike my experience with other MP computer games, which is to say that I always turn to playing people after I've picked up the UI.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Grapeshot Bob]

ORIGINAL: Mynok
If you don't like playing against humans, you bought the wrong game. Sorry to break it to you.

If the developers agree with you they should print those exact words on the reciept they e-mail you after you pay for the game. Or maybe on a splash screen when the program loads? LOL!

Thank goodness they don't seem to be like that. As far as I can tell the guys who made this game are very responsive. They realize that all we want is some fun. With PBEM I can play a full game in - what - several weeks? With an AI I might be able to play several games over a weekend.

All I want is an AI that will give me a challenge. I want to be able to PBEM but it is fun to hack away on my own, too. I'm planning to try some PBEM as a matter of fact. The reason why is that computers can't think like a person and a game like this can be very social. But an AI can teach me the game and let me have some fun on my own also. This isn't a zero sum-winner-take-all experience. Both are valid choices.

Anyhow, these posts are starting to get a bit out of hand and this will be my last word on the subject.


GSB

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

EiA was and is designed to be a multi-player human game. And yes, it absolutely was based on the boardgame design, with some minor deviations. Heck, the manual is almost exactly like the boardgame manual.

EiA was not designed to be an AI game. It was designed to be a multi-player human game. That is the best way to get the full flavor and feel of the design. Maybe they will come up with some AI that makes you happy. You still will not be playing Empires in Arms.

You're incredibly wrong here. EiA was designed to be an AI game because, well, it has an AI. Pretty easy to specify that a game is multiplayer only if that is, in fact, the intent of the designer.

No criticism of the EiA folks intended. I don't think they've EVER suggested that EiA was intended to be an multiplayer-only game. They've been clear to the contrary all along.

[pzgndr]

Anyhow, these posts are starting to get a bit out of hand and this will be my last word on the subject.

Ditto.

As far as I'm concerned, Eric Rutins' statement is the definitive last word on the subject:

As soon as the first update is out to address critical issues and bugs, we'll be looking at ongoing AI improvements as the top priority.

[DodgyDave]

please all relax now!!!

there is two issues in this game, AI and multi player!

If they find AI faster to fix, then they should fix that, if multi player issue is easier, then they should fix that, i would be fine with either part, but i dont want them to split up their time, so that it will take longer to do them both

I would prefer multi player first, if i want to play a single player game, i got alot of other games, civ 4 for one

[zaquex]

If they find AI faster to fix, then they should fix that, if multi player issue is easier, then they should fix that, i would be fine with either part, but i dont want them to split up their time, so that it will take longer to do them both

 
Signed

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
I'm a bit more lenient on Matrixgames releases than I am Paradox because Paradox has smart ass Admins and Moderators at their site that pretty much impose THEIR way and threaten banning everytime you have issues with their games. For instance there's an issue going on over at the CK/Dues Vult forum which I was involved in concerning the pledging system. Not only did the moderator cut my OPINION short with threat of banning, but, also the main admin after I carried my opinon futher. Just goes to show Matrixgames has a more open forum (though there are times we all cross the line), but, Paradox is too gestapoishlike and forces the forum to run a particular way and by orders. If I like a FEATURE within a game I don't want some moderator or admin telling me I can't like it because 9 other people on the forum don't. Or be told (and I was told) I can't express my opinion to the fact while others can. Grosshaus over there is a real pip. lol That's why I enjoy Matrixgames site so much. I have the freedom to express myself and only occassionally do some things get out of hand. But, at least Erik et al let me have my say, I don't hear the ban word after every other opinion here.

Thank God! I thought I was the only one arbitrarily "banned" from Paradox for suggesting that some of their sh-t DID stink! Nice to have company...