Absolutely superb AI

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

ORIGINAL: Prester John

...making stupid references... you take yourself and your pronouncements way too seriously... even the slowest on the uptake... your self imposed sillyness... immature puberty jokes (why am I not surprised at the level of your argumentary skills).

[:D]

Anyway, they've even got that commercial playing on cable now. "Thank you ACME. With my new ACME AI it's just like having a live opponent and umpire rolled into one!" Mmm. Maybe another hint needed here. "Don't feel the absolute, Luke".

How about getting this thread back O/T. Though its been great fun [8|] BiN offers something that is unique in wargame campaign play and this praise deserves to stand alone. A solid AI experience. Keep 'em coming SSG.

Happy trails in the general forum John.

Yes back on topic and not to be distracted by your nonsensical rambings, BiN has a reasonably good AI regardless of whether you choose to have fog-of-war (hidden units) turned on or off.

I mean you aren't going to insist that when you are playing BiN against the computer (AI) with the hidden units option off, that you have fog-of-war are you? And likewise if you are playing against another human with hidden units on, that you have no fog-of-war?

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Prester John

BiN has a reasonably good AI regardless of whether you choose to have fog-of-war (hidden units) turned on or off.

EXACTLY. It can be done see? Thankyou for aknowledging that fact. A decent AI is what I want in my games. Not one that you win everytime, that would be silly and very boring. Surely you must know thats not what I or anyone else wnats?

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: wodin

ORIGINAL: Prester John

BiN has a reasonably good AI regardless of whether you choose to have fog-of-war (hidden units) turned on or off.

EXACTLY. It can be done see? Thankyou for aknowledging that fact. A decent AI is what I want in my games. Not one that you win everytime, that would be silly and very boring. Surely you must know thats not what I or anyone else wnats?

Do I acknowledge that BiN's AI is reasonably good, of course. Do I acknowledge that most AI's (TOAW for eg) are next to useless, of course.

Of course the real question here is whether Parker has blown a fuse when he insists that if you play the AI you are also using fog-of-war, and in BiN fog-of-war (as Hidden Units) is clearly a separate option from choosing to play the AI (computer).

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: Prester John

Of course the real question here is whether Parker has blown a fuse when he insists that if you play the AI you are also using fog-of-war, and in BiN fog-of-war (as Hidden Units) is clearly a separate option from choosing to play the AI (computer).

Again the latex gauntlet slaps Parker! I miss being "Mr". Sadly, you've failed to do the decent thing and start a debate in the proper forum. Anyway, I'm honored I've now become the "real question"!

Without sarcasm (for the most part), you will only find peace reading this thread from the start John because you've managed to jump all over the place, attack many people, lose every point you've made and now ended up with me. So here's some guidence.

Page 1 Adam wrote:

You see, where a designer can make an AI work then leaving it out would be ridiculous. For the biggest strength of the PC other than reducing map space, organizing counters, doing the record keeping and allowing for some much more complex math is providing the fog of war. Head to head board gamers require an umpired set-up to achieve the same and only if the design so caters, at a much longer play session too.

John, you then continued contradicting yourself, making points up, tripping over your feet, insulting people. In reply to your failure to understand my thoughts above and in response to your desire to port the whole ASL system to PC without an AI, Adam then repeated:

Page 2 Adam wrote:

However, given the very adequate AI in Close Combat 5 Normandy, why would I now want that? The one thing the computer is giving us, that board gamers have always craved for and I've said it before in this thread, is an umpire. That umpire is also known as Fog of War and FOW is best applied via an AI. An AI-less game could at best, offer hidden opponent views via self-hotseat. Either way, you'll still know where the enemy (your alter ego) is planning his schwerepunkt and its impossible to apply the tactics of bluff which only true FOW can allow.

Be sure to read the sentence following the bold print.

So John I'll try one more time to make my statement clear. Yes you can play a wargame such as BiN without hidden units and an AI. However, that doesn't give the player fog of war. You can then play BiN with hidden units and no AI solitaire, however again you will of course lose fog of war as soon as you take control of side 2 - hence my "advert" analogy and Stuie reaching puberty without realizing same, the poor dude.

So I will now repeat my main claim in support of AI's remaining part of PC designs: "The one thing the computer is giving us, that board gamers have always craved for and I've said it before in this thread, is an umpire." Can you now grasp the claim in view of the context? Play a PC game solitaire with hidden units and no AI and you will lose the umpire - the fog of war. From above: "That umpire is also known as Fog of War".

Now as you've been so rude, I can't resist this final jibe, so well deserved at you.

Page 1 John wrote:

Unfortunately there are no computer games that match the board games for detail (read as complexity if you will) and that also have a reasonable AI.

Nice to see you've again contradicted yourself with your grudging approval of BiN and its AI. Afterall, that what this thread is about - BiN and its superb AI performance.

Parker.

[Ron]

There seems to be a fair amount of confusion here, whether intentional or not. I would like to hear PresterJohn's opinion of what type of wargame he would like to see made for the computer, ie a quick design doc, or better yet how existing wargames have 'failed' in his opinion and what they failed to model/include.

I think part of the issue is there is a difference between 'AI' and a 'Programmable Opponent'. I agree the 'PO' in wargames, with a couple exceptions, is woefully inadequate after the player has learned the system. The PO in many other games can be quite challenging. A continous type wargame like HTTR needs an AI and perhaps in conjunction/necessity a PO. We-Go types wargames like the CM series needs an AI.

I disagree completely with PresterJohn's statement - "Unfortunately there are no computer games that match the board games for detail (read as complexity if you will) and that also have a reasonable AI." One only has to look at the aforementioned HTTR and CM games, the complexity is under the hood but it is there. The PO in CM can challenge and beat the player(if he doesn't cheat by reloading) occasionally, depending on the situation, and there are many custom scenarios made specifically for play against the PO that will do just that.

I doubt I would buy a wargame without at least a partial PO, even though I know after the initial phase I would rarely play against it. It is a learning tool to understand the intricacies of that particular wargame system.


Cheers,



Ron

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: Ron

There seems to be a fair amount of confusion here, whether intentional or not. I would like to hear PresterJohn's opinion of what type of wargame he would like to see made for the computer, ie a quick design doc, or better yet how existing wargames have 'failed' in his opinion and what they failed to model/include.

I think part of the issue is there is a difference between 'AI' and a 'Programmable Opponent'. I agree the 'PO' in wargames, with a couple exceptions, is woefully inadequate after the player has learned the system. The PO in many other games can be quite challenging. A continous type wargame like HTTR needs an AI and perhaps in conjunction/necessity a PO. We-Go types wargames like the CM series needs an AI.

I disagree completely with PresterJohn's statement - "Unfortunately there are no computer games that match the board games for detail (read as complexity if you will) and that also have a reasonable AI." One only has to look at the aforementioned HTTR and CM games, the complexity is under the hood but it is there. The PO in CM can challenge and beat the player(if he doesn't cheat by reloading) occasionally, depending on the situation, and there are many custom scenarios made specifically for play against the PO that will do just that.

I doubt I would buy a wargame without at least a partial PO, even though I know after the initial phase I would rarely play against it. It is a learning tool to understand the intricacies of that particular wargame system.


Cheers,



Ron

I can agree with most of what you say, but when I speak of a complex game I mean true conversions of ASL and World in Flames, or on the Science Fiction front, Star Fleet Battles. With all their rules those games are truly complex and time consuming, and I would love to see an AI that could competantly play those games but on the basis of what has been developed so far I just don't believe it possible.

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

ORIGINAL: Prester John

Of course the real question here is whether Parker has blown a fuse when he insists that if you play the AI you are also using fog-of-war, and in BiN fog-of-war (as Hidden Units) is clearly a separate option from choosing to play the AI (computer).

Again the latex gauntlet slaps Parker! I miss being "Mr". Sadly, you've failed to do the decent thing and start a debate in the proper forum. Anyway, I'm honored I've now become the "real question"!

Without sarcasm (for the most part), you will only find peace reading this thread from the start John because you've managed to jump all over the place, attack many people, lose every point you've made and now ended up with me. So here's some guidence.

Page 1 Adam wrote:

You see, where a designer can make an AI work then leaving it out would be ridiculous. For the biggest strength of the PC other than reducing map space, organizing counters, doing the record keeping and allowing for some much more complex math is providing the fog of war. Head to head board gamers require an umpired set-up to achieve the same and only if the design so caters, at a much longer play session too.

John, you then continued contradicting yourself, making points up, tripping over your feet, insulting people. In reply to your failure to understand my thoughts above and in response to your desire to port the whole ASL system to PC without an AI, Adam then repeated:

Page 2 Adam wrote:

However, given the very adequate AI in Close Combat 5 Normandy, why would I now want that? The one thing the computer is giving us, that board gamers have always craved for and I've said it before in this thread, is an umpire. That umpire is also known as Fog of War and FOW is best applied via an AI. An AI-less game could at best, offer hidden opponent views via self-hotseat. Either way, you'll still know where the enemy (your alter ego) is planning his schwerepunkt and its impossible to apply the tactics of bluff which only true FOW can allow.

Be sure to read the sentence following the bold print.

So John I'll try one more time to make my statement clear. Yes you can play a wargame such as BiN without hidden units and an AI. However, that doesn't give the player fog of war. You can then play BiN with hidden units and no AI solitaire, however again you will of course lose fog of war as soon as you take control of side 2 - hence my "advert" analogy and Stuie reaching puberty without realizing same, the poor dude.

So I will now repeat my main claim in support of AI's remaining part of PC designs: "The one thing the computer is giving us, that board gamers have always craved for and I've said it before in this thread, is an umpire." Can you now grasp the claim in view of the context? Play a PC game solitaire with hidden units and no AI and you will lose the umpire - the fog of war. From above: "That umpire is also known as Fog of War".

Now as you've been so rude, I can't resist this final jibe, so well deserved at you.

Page 1 John wrote:

Unfortunately there are no computer games that match the board games for detail (read as complexity if you will) and that also have a reasonable AI.

Nice to see you've again contradicted yourself with your grudging approval of BiN and its AI. Afterall, that what this thread is about - BiN and its superb AI performance.

Parker.

Hmmm, lets see - lots of irrelavent verbage - check. Failure to come to grips with the issue of what an AI does - check. Posted by Adam Parker - check.

I don't care how you choose to play solitare, I've always been talking about playing other people and how you can have fog-of-war (hidden units) without having an AI. You on the other hand are under the impression that you can't have hidden units or fog-of-war without an AI. Now BiN as a computer game proves you soundly wrong becuase everybody who cares to play the game can see that two players can have fog-of-war without using the AI and without using hotseat play (Hint: try a PBEM game).

Now you insist on also bringing up solitare play (of which I have said I don't have much of an interest when AI's are so hopeless) and once again BiN proves that you can play the AI without using fog-of-war. They are not one and the same, or connected in anyway. They are two separate options in BiN.

That umpire is also known as Fog of War and FOW is best applied via an AI.

An AI is not necessary to have fog of war and having a game with an AI does not mean you have fog-of-war. Why do you believe it does?

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: Prester John

I don't care how you choose to play solitare.. Now you insist on also bringing up solitare play (of which I have said I don't have much of an interest when AI's are so hopeless)...

Finally John I think you're getting it. The others posting on this thread, the one's discussing the merits of AI do.

Now two points of forum ettiquette:

1. You're posting off topic.

2. You have a habit of quoting in full unnecessarily, without preparedness to edit to relevant points, wasting both time and space on this thread.

Both of these are not polite to the forum hosts nor its patrons.

[:-]

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

Finally John I think you're getting it. The others posting on this thread, the one's discussing the merits of AI do.

Now two points of forum ettiquette:

1. You're posting off topic.

2. You have a habit of quoting in full unnecessarily, without preparedness to edit to relevant points, wasting both time and space on this thread.

Both of these are not polite to the forum hosts nor its patrons.

[:-]

Well, another post from you which does not address why you think you need an AI to have fog-of-war. BiN's options page clearly shows that the two are separate things. You have no reason to say that one is best applied through the other.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Prester John

But thanks to today's advances in technology, a player can also game against an AI.

Yes, once again I accept this completely.

Hmm so why where you disagreeing with me on this point?
SO you see now, why saying I want a game with no AI, on the presumption the game will be better, is unfair to those at last can play wargames instead oof just dreaming about it.

[wodin]

Also please post the reasons why Combat Mission BB, HTTR and BIN have a useless AI. One that offers no challenge and no fun?

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Also please post the reasons why Combat Mission BB, HTTR and BIN have a useless AI. One that offers no challenge and no fun?

I didn't say BiN has a useless AI but for the second time in a row I have played the OverLord game against the AI (purely for testing purposes of course) and both times I have driven the British from their beaches. The other two are not hex based games and one is not turn based.

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: wodin

ORIGINAL: Prester John

But thanks to today's advances in technology, a player can also game against an AI.

Yes, once again I accept this completely.

Hmm so why where you disagreeing with me on this point?
SO you see now, why saying I want a game with no AI, on the presumption the game will be better, is unfair to those at last can play wargames instead oof just dreaming about it.

But that is what I'm saying. If it wasn't for the need for an AI, games such as ASL and WiF would be easier to produce for the computer. And that is why I object to your cries of selfishness because it is you, with your demand for an AI, make the cost of production needlessly higher for those who only want to play the two player games. Instead we can only dream about it because it will be too hard to make a reasonably competant AI at a reasonable cost. So therefore because of your unreasonable demands, nobody gets anything (well we do still get to play the board game).

[wodin]

But you havent mentioned who isnt making these games because they havent the money to do the AI. So your argument is unfounded. Also its you in the minority.

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: wodin

But you havent mentioned who isnt making these games because they havent the money to do the AI. So your argument is unfounded. Also its you in the minority.

Now who's going to stand up and say, "We can't make a complex AI so we aren't designing a game"? Of course at this time the people with the license to WiF seem committed to making a game which is not WiF in it's original form so their ability to make an AI which can tie all the parts of the game together is pretty moot.

It's like asking for proof that somebody has sat down and thought about making an AI for ASL then realised how tough it was and never did anything about it. Who keeps records or makes announcements about all the stuff that they can't do. Have you announced that you can't be an astronaut? I haven't.

Ahh, and being in a minority makes you wrong? Well more power to you I suppose.

[wodin]

Your whole argument about me being selfish wanting an AI is unfounded and based on no facts whatsoever. So in effect it hasnt a leg to stand on.

No being in a minority isnt always wrong. However asking for games to be produced without an AI to satisfy your needs, which will mean many people will not be able to enjoy the said game isnt fair. When you can stii have the game with an AI which will mean EVERYONE can enjoy and play it.

You STILL havent said what was so bad about the AI in HTTR, BIN and Combat Mission that made the games to damn easy to make it all worthwhile. I would agree with you if all AI@s where useless as you say theu are but they arent.

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: Prester John

Well, another post from you which does not address why you think you need an AI to have fog-of-war.

I love this guy [:D] Excuse me Wodin for interfering with your flow!

John, you need an AI to have fog of war in a solitaire war game because without an AI you just get fog - but no war. I have explained this to you 3 times.

ORIGINAL: Prester John

I don't care how you choose to play solitare, I've always been talking about playing other people... Now you insist on also bringing up solitare play...

No John! I have only ever been talking about solitaire play! Player vs computer and player vs himself. You unfortunately have always lost that context my friend.

"The one thing the computer is giving us, that board gamers have always craved for and I've said it before in this thread, is an umpire. That umpire is also known as Fog of War and FOW is best applied via an AI." In the context of all preceding posts to that original quote being - in solitaire play.

I genuinely look forward to really debating something juicy with you, tactics, strategy, actual campaign design. You're a good guy John and early on you'll note I was in your corner. I still am. Two player games will always have a market but the computer can now give a solitaire player something that 2 player gamers can only dream of, an AI opponent also being an umpire called Fog of War.

To heart-feltly sum up: To play a solitaire game of BiN with hidden units and without an AI defeats full fog of war. Once the human takes over side 2, he sees all side 2 forces and knows where he is sending them. Only an AI in a solitaire setting can provide the full services of a human umpire presiding over a 2-person game.

Of course I totally expect you'll agree with this because unfortunately you've been thinking all along I've been debating another point, when not the slightest.

Cheers fellow grognard,
Adam.

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
No John! I have only ever been talking about solitaire play! Player vs computer and player vs himself. You unfortunately have always lost that context my friend.

"The one thing the computer is giving us, that board gamers have always craved for and I've said it before in this thread, is an umpire. That umpire is also known as Fog of War and FOW is best applied via an AI." In the context of all preceding posts to that original quote being - in solitaire play.

I genuinely look forward to really debating something juicy with you, tactics, strategy, actual campaign design. You're a good guy John and early on you'll note I was in your corner. I still am. Two player games will always have a market but the computer can now give a solitaire player something that 2 player gamers can only dream of, an AI opponent also being an umpire called Fog of War.

To heart-feltly sum up: To play a solitaire game of BiN with hidden units and without an AI defeats full fog of war. Once the human takes over side 2, he sees all side 2 forces and knows where he is sending them. Only an AI in a solitaire setting can provide the full services of a human umpire presiding over a 2-person game.

Of course I totally expect you'll agree with this because unfortunately you've been thinking all along I've been debating another point, when not the slightest.

Cheers fellow grognard,
Adam.

Okay I've followed your point about a person "switching sides" now, but only because I never played a two player game by switching sides. It all sounds a bit absurd to me (who wins?). The board games I've played solitaire are just that, solitaire board games or solitaire scenarios where you win or lose. But all that has always been irrelevent to my position about making two player board games easier to play by putting them in a computer format. And this is especially clear when you see that you can play a two player game like BiN, without any AI in use on the options screen, and have a much better experience then if it had been in a board game format, including the use of hidden units.

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Your whole argument about me being selfish wanting an AI is unfounded and based on no facts whatsoever. So in effect it hasnt a leg to stand on.

No being in a minority isnt always wrong. However asking for games to be produced without an AI to satisfy your needs, which will mean many people will not be able to enjoy the said game isnt fair. When you can stii have the game with an AI which will mean EVERYONE can enjoy and play it.

You STILL havent said what was so bad about the AI in HTTR, BIN and Combat Mission that made the games to damn easy to make it all worthwhile. I would agree with you if all AI@s where useless as you say theu are but they arent.

Look it is not unfounded because it is based on what you have said. You want games to have an AI for whatever reason. And an AI costs money. Therefore you are insisting that money be spent. If there is not enough money to do the game then it can't be made. Money can be saved by dropping the AI. Insisting that the AI be included is therefore a selfish position because ti limits the options of game producers who have a limited amount of money to work with.

Lets say that I win the lottery and could actually afford to buy the rights to computer ASL and then paid a production company to make it for me and said to them, may it exactly true to ASL Beyond Valour and Yanks, with built in rules, about a dozen boards, but no AI because I didn't want to pay for it. What would your opinion be? That I shouldn't be allowed to make the game because it doesn't have an AI and therefore people like you can't play it?

As for the last question, read this again if you can be bothered to:

I didn't say BiN has a useless AI but for the second time in a row I have played the OverLord game against the AI (purely for testing purposes of course) and both times I have driven the British from their beaches. The other two are not hex based games and one is not turn based.

I don't intend to argue here about anything beyond the realm of hex and turn based wargames like BiN.

[wodin]

Im going around in circles here. For the last time you are only guessing that games arent made due to lack of mooney for an AI. I really believe if a game developer cant afford to do the AI then they are not really game developers are they?

There are a few one man independent developers here and they are doing an AI aswell so explain that one?

Honestly you just will not listen so there is no point in continuing with this thread.

You beat the AI in BiN, many other players cant and they get a challenge from the game. Because you are so fantastic at playing hex games you want to deprive anyone else of playing these games who arent as good as you. How selfish is that?

Yes you could make the game if you won the lottery. I would make the game and pay extra for an AI so that everyone can enjoy it not just the few. Im not tight.