No AI ?

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

Since I ran it through the ocr I can also do searches, including adobes advanced search. As you can see by the highlighted blue field on the page I had searched for the key word vehicle.

It is very crisp and clear. Much more so than these screens capture.

Any chance you would want to share a copy [:)]

[brian brian]

I used to play a lot of Squad Leader; more particularly a lot of Cross of Iron. I was simultaneously playing a lot of Third Reich, until I discovered World in Flames. And I actually think WiF ruined me for Squad Leader. Squad Leader is a great, great game, but in some ways a terrible simulation. WiF simulates high-level military decision making very well. Squad Leader does not simulate military decision making at all in my opinion. To have God-like control over small groups of men is just impossible. Still a very fun game to match ordnance and small groups of men vs the other side's ordnance and small groups of men.

Another game that ruined me for Squad Leader was SPI's Task Force, a game of 70s/80s hypothetical Cold War Naval Combat. It used a dual map hidden movement system, with grid call-outs reminiscent of AH Bismarck and Battleship! (as in, you sank my Battleship!). I thought it actually worked fine and I miss it. But it made me wish for a WWII company to battalion level game with umpired Hidden Movement, which would obviously be handled best by a computer, and also more of a simulation of what a company commander has to do in infantry combat, where you can't precisely order the fire & movement of a squad unless it is standing right next to you. Even moving down to platoon level, a platoon leader can not do this as perfectly as the player of Squad Leader can. By the time you reach the level of an actual squad leader, yes, the fine control is possible and you have almost reached the level of first-person shooter games I have no interest in playing. But at the level of squad leader, so many other events are going on nearby simultaneously, that have a huge impact on what happens to you (all the other squads on your side), you again need some outside system to model what the other friendly forces are doing.

So in approaching improved levels of realism I see huge possibilities in the use of computers and yes even AI. Someone mentioned on one of these many threads (I'm fine with derailing one away from World in Flames, there are scads of these that all say the same thing) that the best AI performance will happen out of a game system designed in advance for AI decision making.

And when we moved on into Cross of Iron and never left (I could play Hube's Pocket over and over again, but never punched the counters in GI:Anvil of Victory), we also burned out on I-go-You-Go tactical AFV combat eventually. Another place where video and computer assisted gaming will eventually satisfy what I want out of a game at this scale. And I think a good way to go is to have an AI run parts of your own forces. A tank company commander can tell another tank what to do, but not necessarily every minute decision that tank executes.

One of the best depictions of infantry combat command I have ever seen, is the Mel Gibson movie We Were Soldiers. A battalion level infantry battle is an intense thing, with simultaneous activity on a 360 degree horizon, performed by enemy units that can't be seen, not by enemy units all in known locations that patiently wait for your decisions, in even 60 second or 30 second intervals. No "turns", just continual real-time information input and decision making, with many results of your decisions beyond your control.

I would also like to see an operational American Civil War game run by a computer where information moves across the battlefield at the speed of a horse (which might not reach it's destination), and units are even more unlikely to do what the high-level commander tells them to do, while that commander can only sort out information based on his immediate vicinity and the no-radio time delay of all other incoming and outgoing information. Another case where AI could boost realism while only partially 'playing' the game.

I think there are probably computer games out there by now along these lines, though I don't go looking for them. Because I play World in Flames too much.

[DSWargamer]

Some will respond with 'you mean there are other games than ASL?'

I suspect this title might gain that aspect.

I have seen titles appear in the past and it's a pity they didn't go further. A Normandy title and a Market Garden title, both played double bind (I think that appeared in the actual game name title too, 'double blind'). Low counter density, and the players didn't see the others units on the map, you had to locate them through he design process of the game. Small maps, and very playable. Another fine example of 'why the heck didn't I keep those?'.

Some games shine small and some simply can't resist being big.

Best simulation of squad tactical ever though, has to be Up Front. You simply can't predict how the cards will arrive and it simulates the unpredictable nature of combat. Might actually be possible to play as a game on a machine. I have seen it done with other card driven titles.

One of the problems of taking a board game and making it directly into a computer version though is the turn sequence. It isn't a problem to design a board game this way, but can really mar a computer emulation. And it is near impossible to design involved turn sequences into games that need to play computer vs computer in multi player and not make it a slow plodding process. The adversary essentially need to be playing live at the same time as the other player. No small task in today's world. Lost track of how many times I have heard gamer friends groan about needing to show up for a raid. They almost act like they were called into work

I'd rather play most games solo, and just be both persons, and require no concessions to wait times or involved processes to accommodate complex turn sequences. Playing as both people is a lesser evil to relying on an adversary that is no real challenge at all.

[wodin]

Paradox has the Squad leader rights..have had for awhile.

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I used to play a lot of Squad Leader; more particularly a lot of Cross of Iron. I was simultaneously playing a lot of Third Reich, until I discovered World in Flames. And I actually think WiF ruined me for Squad Leader. Squad Leader is a great, great game, but in some ways a terrible simulation. WiF simulates high-level military decision making very well. Squad Leader does not simulate military decision making at all in my opinion. To have God-like control over small groups of men is just impossible. Still a very fun game to match ordnance and small groups of men vs the other side's ordnance and small groups of men.

Another game that ruined me for Squad Leader was SPI's Task Force, a game of 70s/80s hypothetical Cold War Naval Combat. It used a dual map hidden movement system, with grid call-outs reminiscent of AH Bismarck and Battleship! (as in, you sank my Battleship!). I thought it actually worked fine and I miss it. But it made me wish for a WWII company to battalion level game with umpired Hidden Movement, which would obviously be handled best by a computer, and also more of a simulation of what a company commander has to do in infantry combat, where you can't precisely order the fire & movement of a squad unless it is standing right next to you. Even moving down to platoon level, a platoon leader can not do this as perfectly as the player of Squad Leader can. By the time you reach the level of an actual squad leader, yes, the fine control is possible and you have almost reached the level of first-person shooter games I have no interest in playing. But at the level of squad leader, so many other events are going on nearby simultaneously, that have a huge impact on what happens to you (all the other squads on your side), you again need some outside system to model what the other friendly forces are doing.

So in approaching improved levels of realism I see huge possibilities in the use of computers and yes even AI. Someone mentioned on one of these many threads (I'm fine with derailing one away from World in Flames, there are scads of these that all say the same thing) that the best AI performance will happen out of a game system designed in advance for AI decision making.

And when we moved on into Cross of Iron and never left (I could play Hube's Pocket over and over again, but never punched the counters in GI:Anvil of Victory), we also burned out on I-go-You-Go tactical AFV combat eventually. Another place where video and computer assisted gaming will eventually satisfy what I want out of a game at this scale. And I think a good way to go is to have an AI run parts of your own forces. A tank company commander can tell another tank what to do, but not necessarily every minute decision that tank executes.

One of the best depictions of infantry combat command I have ever seen, is the Mel Gibson movie We Were Soldiers. A battalion level infantry battle is an intense thing, with simultaneous activity on a 360 degree horizon, performed by enemy units that can't be seen, not by enemy units all in known locations that patiently wait for your decisions, in even 60 second or 30 second intervals. No "turns", just continual real-time information input and decision making, with many results of your decisions beyond your control.

I would also like to see an operational American Civil War game run by a computer where information moves across the battlefield at the speed of a horse (which might not reach it's destination), and units are even more unlikely to do what the high-level commander tells them to do, while that commander can only sort out information based on his immediate vicinity and the no-radio time delay of all other incoming and outgoing information. Another case where AI could boost realism while only partially 'playing' the game.

I think there are probably computer games out there by now along these lines, though I don't go looking for them. Because I play World in Flames too much.

Just wondered if you had checked out Battle from The Bulge? A little higher level than ASL, but you give orders at a higher level and the troops under you try and carry them out. The AI is pretty good as well for both sides.

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Paradox has the Squad leader rights..have had for awhile.

Do you have a source for that as I would love to read about it?

[scout1]

Wish this product well ....

But w/o AI or pbem ....... passing on it (sorry to say) for now ...... will watch for updates ....

[Numdydar]

You are aware you can play with someone through NetPlay correct? Or even hotseated.

[Missouri_Rebel]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

Since I ran it through the ocr I can also do searches, including adobes advanced search. As you can see by the highlighted blue field on the page I had searched for the key word vehicle.

It is very crisp and clear. Much more so than these screens capture.

Any chance you would want to share a copy [:)]

I'm sorry but I cannot. To do so would be illegal and immoral on my part. I hope you can understand.

[Numdydar]

That is what I figured, but thought I would ask [:)]. Totally understand so no harm, no foul [:)]

[Missouri_Rebel]

But I can play you a game of World in Flames real soon. Care to school this noob?

Also, I am working on something you will definitely be interested in. No details yet. WiF related.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

Since I ran it through the ocr I can also do searches, including adobes advanced search. As you can see by the highlighted blue field on the page I had searched for the key word vehicle.

It is very crisp and clear. Much more so than these screens capture.

<snip>

Any chance you would want to share a copy [:)]

I'm sorry but I cannot. To do so would be illegal and immoral on my part. I hope you can understand.

IMHO you would be entitled to share a copy with anyone who has legally obtained the same source material ie already bought the game and rulebooks ... (FTAOD that's not me and I'm not requesting a copy).

Just saying.

[DSWargamer]

Actually there is no shortage of versions of the ASL manual in the wild already, and the ASL community freely shares them routinely. Not sure about the legality, but I just know it is no challenge to get one, it's all in how you ask and who you ask and where you ask.

Some of them are quite good, some average. I've seen a few.

The main reason it won't be appearing, is the moment it becomes 'digital' it raises all sorts of hassles Hasborg clearly isn't interested in touching nor is MMP for logical reasons.

I think the main reason nothing is officially being done to complain, is essentially as has been made obvious, anyone with the hard copy, could always do it themselves too. But it's a lot of work.

Given a choice, I'd rather my ASL came in bound chapters like the WiF manuals here instead of any form of digital regardless of how searchable.
Some days I have pondered taking them to a printer and getting just that done too. The binder as it currently stands, eats a 4 inch d-ring binder belches and asks for more. Just too big.

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

ORIGINAL: Numdydar




Any chance you would want to share a copy [:)]

I'm sorry but I cannot. To do so would be illegal and immoral on my part. I hope you can understand.

IMHO you would be entitled to share a copy with anyone who has legally obtained the same source material ie already bought the game and rulebooks ... (FTAOD that's not me and I'm not requesting a copy).

Just saying.

Very good point Greyshaft. I had forgetten that aspect of the legal requirements. If you legally own copyrighted contect in one form, you are legally able to own it in a different form. You just cannot sell it for money, give it away, or trade to anyone that does not own it already.

So in the case of the ASL manual, it is not viloating any laws for anyone to provide me (or anyone else) an electronic version of the ASL manual providing I legally own a copy from the IP owner already, I.E. MMP and/or Hasbro.

Thanks for the reminder [:)]

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

But I can play you a game of World in Flames real soon. Care to school this noob?

Also, I am working on something you will definitely be interested in. No details yet. WiF related.

Thanks so much for the offer, but will no be able to do anything like that for a while. But I will definately take you up on the offer if things change.

[Missouri_Rebel]

DS said

.The binder as it currently stands, eats a 4 inch d-ring binder belches and asks for more. Just too big.

Yeah. I used to have all the first ed rules in page savers and in binders. My wife brought me home some massive binder and I had all the rules in there. I'm talking about the full rule book including the chapters from Kampfgruppe Peiper, red barricades, pegasus bridge, chapter F, airborne, and all,of chapter G . it was like some massive tome at the courthouse.

I eventually moved them to individual binders. Being in page savers all those years they are still in pristine shape. My 2ed that I converted went straight into large food saver bags and vacuum sealed.

A bit over the top? Probably.

[Missouri_Rebel]

And Numdydar, sorry if I sounded like a sanctimonious jerk. That wasn't my intention.

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: DSWargamer

Just to pick a nit, but WOTC does not own the AH brand, as the WOTC brand is itself owned by Hasborg hence the derisive version of the name.

My bad. WOTC bought TSR. WOTC was in "Borg mode", making a lot of acquisitions and then was bought by Hasbro. Hasbro later bought A/H and placed it under WOTC in the corporate structure.

[SuluSea]

Nothing has changed for me. No AI .....Not going to buy.

If releasing the game this way makes for a better AI in the future I am happy the developers chose this route but if the AI is not produced in the future or isn't decent then I'll look elsewhere.

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

And Numdydar, sorry if I sounded like a sanctimonious jerk. That wasn't my intention.

Not at all. Totally understood where you were comimg from.