John Tiller and AI

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: eastwindrain

Ok, and what percentage of advantage do you give the AI.

Depends how well I know the scenario. I play mostly Early American and Civil Wars.

[Ekaton]

AI can be decent on the defence. Playing Normandy '44 as Allies, you could get a decent playthrough if AI had just a few more limitations - don't put divisional and corps HQs on the front line, don't put or leave artillery units on the front line without infantry, and keep your units relatively close to their HQ. More HQs in general should be static - Moscow '41 always moves very high HQs to the front line immediately, in a very piecemeal fashion. Also, move whole units to different places, so we don't get regiments from different units just completely mixed and spread around the front.

More and more games out there have decent AIs, even games made by just one person. It's a matter of will and talent, perhaps the engine as well, but it is certainly doable.

Ultimately, it is a business decision. They clearly don't perceive players who play solely against the AI and won't buy their games because of their reputation in that area as important enough to justify the cost. They're not running a charity so they're doing their best to use resources available to them efficiently.

[eastwindrain]

I will concede that it's not a great AI, no better or worse than the vast majority of other games, however we have got to utilise the set advantage option.
I used to play table-top wargames at a club level in various periods and participated in competitions against other clubs before switching to PBEM, however now it's only the AI.
Regarding any scenario or campaign game it's a impossible task to program the AI script to deal with all the probabilities that will be thrown at it by us humans.
My PBEM games, only one mega campaign game went the full distance, most games ended half way through, so for me setting the AI advantage to 50% is a very satisfying campaign game experience, the downside is it's a click fest.

Still awaiting feedback on the AI advantage setting from other gamers.

[Ekaton]

I always play with advantage set for the enemy, usually around 30-50% range, depending on the game/scenario. This is a must for the AI to be a challenge, but it doesn't fix the more blatantly stupid things, like HQs on the front line. Advantage makes the game better, but doesn't improve the feeling of playing against dumb AI rather than simulating warfare. This is not the feeling I have in many other wargames.

Shadow Empire, which I'm binging at the moment, is really good vs AI. It's not perfect, but it doesn't behave like an idiot - it won't put HQs on the front line, usually manages to avoid exposing fragile units like artillery, and maintains a proper, continuous line of defence. It is also capable of retreating, trading land for time when it's hopeless, which to me is a mark of quality in itself - few games do that properly, with most just stubbornly holding onto meaningless ground, provoking excessive losses. JTS games never do it right. Decisive Campaigns and Gary Grigsby are other examples of quality - AI won't defend France or Italy till the end in WitW - it will retreat to more defensible positions, shortening the line. Sure, it's pre-programmed, but it's pre-programmed in a way that makes sense and seems plausible. You feel like you're playing a proper simulation of warfare, with the enemy making decisions that are, for the most part, understandable. And when it makes mistakes, real commanders also made mistakes, but no sane man would put an army or corps HQ on the front line - that's the main difference.

[eastwindrain]

There are numerous examples of unit commanders throughout military history being KIA including WW2 which is the period in question, but I have experienced what you described.
I still think these games give you a feel of the battle in question and the terrain over which the action was fought better than any video or book on the subject.
Just remembered you can actually enter the AI and order it to move to a location, but I have never personally done this.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: eastwindrain

There are numerous examples of unit commanders throughout military history being KIA including WW2 which is the period in question...

Aye, in the opening says of the Barbarossa campaign it was common for Soviet division commanders to be directly involved in the fighting. Driving tanks into battle even up to the point of ramming enemy tanks. They were chastised for this hands on approach and ordered to remain in the command area. It was not uncommon for Corps commanders to have to send couriers out looking for division commanders. However, the entire HQ staff did not march off to combat.

[eastwindrain]

Tongue in cheek, after encountering loads of parodies on the subject, what a situation hitler manoeuvred himself into.

[gamer78]

I think for the last games designers try to eliminate faults of AI and designing scenarios with a time limit for human player. Tunisia'43 one of them in grand campaign. Vic designs both Advanced Tactics and Shadow Empire can be good about AI but they are&will be in Steam. AI should be more important in there.In here this is niche wargaming devs don't care about how much sold people much enjoy about maps and OOB I believe. But still these games more enjoyable with trusted human opponent.

And what is AI advantage about? I think it is about reinforcement chance or any more advantage?

[Simulacra53]

Warts and all I am going to get myself Scheldt 44 the moment it is released.
Besides that I am going to get Waterloo during the summer sale to try out the new features.

That’s it for the summer campaign.

Although I have been eyeballing their Strategic War titles, I may try one or both.

[eastwindrain]

I assume the AI advantage will increase morale, plus attack and defence values, I cannot find any specific detailed explanation within the latest manual rewrite, however the latest updated manual is available for download from the John Tiller update page.