Absolutely superb AI

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Yes you are going around in circles and making me dizzy.

So I'm guessing, but what you "really believe" counts as fact?

If a developer is aiming for a larger market then they will include an AI. If they only want to aim at the smaller market which includes board game players who do not want an AI to play against, then they will skip the AI and save money.

Am I fantastic at playing BiN? I know some people who will be rolling on the floor at that silly suggestion of yours. Nevertheless I seem to be able to beat the AI (as German in OverLord).

But what it comes down to is that given the option of making a computer version of ASL without an AI or no game at all, you would vote for no game at all, thus denying anybody of the chance to play. Now that's selfish!

[wodin]

No if its a question of one without an AI or no game at all then I would want the game without an AI. However I really dont believe any game hasnt been made because they couldnt afford the AI.

Your saying you dont want games with an AI. Which in effect excludes many wargamers.

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: wodin

No if its a question of one without an AI or no game at all then I would want the game without an AI. However I really dont believe any game hasnt been made because they couldnt afford the AI.

Your saying you dont want games with an AI. Which in effect excludes many wargamers.

Well that's what I'm saying. With something as marginal to produce (read impossible if you want) as computer versions of the best two player board games, you couldn't afford to waste any money on an AI just to please some people who only want to play the AI but won't buy the game because the AI will be so terrible anyway.

In effect the AI players are excluding themselves because they won't buy the game anyway if the AI is rubbish and since a game like ASL is too complicated to have a good AI they won't buy it even it it had an AI. So why waste the money to please somebody who won't buy it?

Now consider your statement:

However I really dont believe any game hasnt been made because they couldnt afford the AI.

It depends on what you call an AI. Is it just something that can just move a few pieces towards an exit hex and make some attacks at unit's in their LOS but always gets walked over(maximum point win), or do you want some thing that can give the average player a bit of a challenge. Sticking to BiN as an example (even though I seem to have no problems kicking the British off their beaches in OverLord), how many games have been released with hopeless AI's that don't even hold a candle to BiN, and could have been much better if more resources (read money) had been put into bringing the AI up to BiN's standard?

My position is that too many games have been made where they couldn't afford the AI, so while they have something called an AI it is useless as an opponent. It always gets completely destroyed, and is only good as an alternative to a tutorial when you need to learn how the game works. And to make it worse those games have no security features and you have to suffer other design shortcuts as well, but you can rest easy because it does have an AI.

[Ron]

Nothing wrong with expressing an opinion on what one would like in a wargame. Whether such an idea is feasible or would garner enough of a following is another matter.

I recall back in early '99 when I first became aware of CM/Battlefront and began to follow the progress of that game. At that time the founders, Steve Grammont and Charles Moylan, were forging new ground after breaking from Avalon Hill(they were to develop a computer SL) and posted a lot of their thoughts on game design, self publishing etc. They made a point with being upfront with the potential customers right from the start. "AI" was an obviously much discussed issue and there were a few who didn't care if there was one or not, wanting, as Prester John, the resources and time to be used in creating a better simulation. As I remember, the bottom line, according to Steve Grammont, was a game without an AI would be the kiss of death for them. Coming from someone with many years in the industry I would have to believe they knew what they were about. As for making a better AI, the response from them was that once past a certain point, the time and effort required to simply improve the AI just marginally couldn't be justified.

As I sit here I look up on my shelf where I still keep SL/COI/COD/GI and ASL, albeit only a few modules, and I know I will never play them again, even with such tools as VASSAL. I don't consider ASL with all of its rules and complexity to be a better simulation than CM, in fact the opposite, CM is closer IMO to the feel of tactical combat, even with its quirks and less than desireable elements and it has a challenging AI opponent to boot! As I have gotten older I find I have less patience for wading through page upon page of rules to learn and understand the mechanics of a game. From the people I have met online in the same age-group(40+), I know there are many with similar feelings. The unexpected success of a game like CM, which appealed to the hardcore as well as the uniniated, speaks volumes.

And there must be an audience out there for big, complex games as well. The success of WITP is a case in point. A lot of wargames are out there already to appeal to a wide variety of tastes, Russo-German War, the Panzer Campaigns, Squad Battles etc. to name a few. In addition, Matrix games is now publishing WIF and EIA, so it seems to me we all are getting what we want. I must admit I don't know exactly what it is that Prester John wants in a wargame, apart from the direct port of ASL previously mentioned.




Ron

[PresbyterJohn]

It's more like a matter of knowing what I don't want. In a board game it's poorly written rules, inaccurate mechanics, badly produced counters etc. And in a computer game it's poor two player gaming (including security), bad graphics, awkward controls and unexplained complexity (a poorly written manual with insufficient detail). The thing about porting successful boardgames is that the design work is already done and most of the effort can go into making sure the other things I like are well done.

[wodin]

After taking sometime to think about it. IF someone wanted to develop a two player ASL conversion but couldnt afford an AI then yes I would buy it. However I'd hope they patch it to include an AI once funds from the sale built up.

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: wodin

After taking sometime to think about it. IF someone wanted to develop a two player ASL conversion but couldnt afford an AI then yes I would buy it. However I'd hope they patch it to include an AI once funds from the sale built up.

But having done all that hard work, why squander the profits if all they can produce is an AI that will be blasted as completely useless and not worth the bother by game reviewers. The mechanics of BiN are a bit simpler than ASL and as the complexity increases I'm sure the AI will get worse and worse.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Prester John

ORIGINAL: wodin

After taking sometime to think about it. IF someone wanted to develop a two player ASL conversion but couldnt afford an AI then yes I would buy it. However I'd hope they patch it to include an AI once funds from the sale built up.

But having done all that hard work, why squander the profits if all they can produce is an AI that will be blasted as completely useless and not worth the bother by game reviewers. The mechanics of BiN are a bit simpler than ASL and as the complexity increases I'm sure the AI will get worse and worse.

Yes but Prester you will have nothing to complain about as the conversion would have been done. Also more people will be able to then enjoy the game. To argue my last point shows that for some reason you hate AI EVEN if the game is perfect for you in 2 player mode. Finally you just cant say that the AI will be rubbish, how do you know? Like I said before if EVERY AI was useless in everygame then fair comment but it isnt.

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Yes but Prester you will have nothing to complain about as the conversion would have been done. Also more people will be able to then enjoy the game. To argue my last point shows that for some reason you hate AI EVEN if the game is perfect for you in 2 player mode. Finally you just cant say that the AI will be rubbish, how do you know? Like I said before if EVERY AI was useless in everygame then fair comment but it isnt.

Yes it's true that I hate an AI which is worthless and detracts form the total value of the product and gives reviewers something to complain about. And I CAN say the AI will be rubbish because I can see the results of other attempts at producing an AI of such complexity. None of them have been very successful. I know you have made reference to some of the RTS style games but they are not ASL by any shake of the stick. Same goes for an AI that is just able to use a few of the rules without real effect. With so many variables a complex game will can only promise a terrible AI. Even BiN has a narrow range of ability it seems and while it has been said that the AI does well as an opponent for the attacking Allies I find the AI's performance as the Allies is less effective once it's lines are disrupted. And BiN is a relatively simple game compared to ASL. It would require a lot of counters (I'm reminded of Afrika Korps) but BiN as a board game wouldn't be too hard to do if you skipped the complexity of the supply rules.

Anyway I'm happy with BiN as a product but I would be unhappy with ASL if time was wasted on an AI that demonstrated none of the principles of how the game is played and nobody actually played against it because it was so bad.

[wodin]

RTS games? I hate RTS games. The games I have constantly quoted for having a good AI are Combat Mission BB, HTTR and squad battles.

[PresbyterJohn]

Sorry, RTT for HTTR and WeGo for CM.

[wodin]

Surely an AI would be far easier to programme for a turn based game than a game like HTTR?

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Surely an AI would be far easier to programme for a turn based game than a game like HTTR?

I don't know but given your report that it has a good AI and that turn based games, with few exceptions, have weak AI's we can assume either they are easier to program or turn based game producers are very slack. Of course I don't know how many other real time games like HTTR there are out there and what their AI's are like.

Either way none of those games you have mentioned are as complex as ASL regardless of the play system.

[wodin]

Read the HTTR forum there are a fair few threads on the AI where the developer mentions how difficult it is to programme and the problems faced. Even more so with the upcoming Crete game.

[PresbyterJohn]

I daresay any developer will tell you how much work his AI took to program. And as I said that game is not as complex as ASL so it makes the likelyhood of a reasonable ASL AI even more remote.

[wodin]

Surely programming real time movement, with order delays and all the other things HTTR has makes it far more complicated than a set of rules?

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Surely programming real time movement, with order delays and all the other things HTTR has makes it far more complicated than a set of rules?

I don't think so. Real-time seems simpler than turn based because you don't have to worry about being caught in the wrong place at the end of your turn. ASL depends a lot on being in the right place at the right time in the turn. The same principle applies to BiN in that you don't want to end the turn in the open if you can avoid it. RTS avoids this issue of having to deal with pulses of movement.

[ravinhood]

I think the "point" you are missing overall Preston John, is "technology" and programming are moving "forward" not backwards when it comes to gaming entertainment. Developers WANT to make a solid AI, I'm sure they would love to create an AI that would stomp your butt, and it WILL come eventually as they keep "trying" to improve them.

Once the graphics "eyecandy" age has passed or slowed down to a crawl, more and more time will be spent towards a gaming AI like in the 80's when graphics were 8bit, easy and quick to make and not a lot of fluff for graphics, so games tended to be better quality of play and AI performance than they are today.

Main thing though, technology will always move forward and not backwards to hex and cardboard units to move around a computer screen on a regular basis. Todays wargamers want AI activity, even if it's 3rd party while they play a friend head to head, they want something challenging to play around with when their friend isn't around or to practice some setups or maneuvers. I use the AI a lot for that.

As much as you would like the computer gaming industry to move backwards and just produce computer versions of boardgames, it's hardly going to happen in any major role of the wargaming market.

Some group "may" do it or be doing it, but, they will not get the market that is out there for computer wargaming as it is today with an AI and multiplayer features as well. I prefer both, head to head vs human and an AI to mess around with when I just have a little time to play.

Personally I'd love to see a Squad Leader or Advanced Squad Leader boardgame to computer conversion "with or without an AI", it's my favorite of all the boardgame wargames I have save for "Swords & Sorcery" and I could deal without an AI for those two conversions and those two only. Just to be able to play a PBEM game without having to have a board setup on a table and having to calculate all the movement and los and all that every turn. But, if it comes with a half way decent AI, that's just as great to me. I'm sure the main charge for computer games isn't the AI $39.95 and the rest of the game $10, more like the rest of the game $44.95 and the AI included $5.

You're not going to see a major price drop even in a board wargame conversion from the standard $39.95 to $49.95 prices you see with games with an AI. Developers and Producers will just capatilize even more on including less and charging the same or in MATRIX's case charging MORE! Yah Ya hear me MATRIX you're prices are too high even with an AI!

[MengCiao]

ORIGINAL: Prester John

ORIGINAL: wodin

Surely programming real time movement, with order delays and all the other things HTTR has makes it far more complicated than a set of rules?

I don't think so. Real-time seems simpler than turn based because you don't have to worry about being caught in the wrong place at the end of your turn. ASL depends a lot on being in the right place at the right time in the turn. The same principle applies to BiN in that you don't want to end the turn in the open if you can avoid it. RTS avoids this issue of having to deal with pulses of movement.

HTTR is a fantastic system. The AI works continuously at all levels for both sides. Basically the operation of the AI defines everything about the game. The player intervenes in the battle to give orders, but the AI runs everything. It's not a matter of simplicity, its a matter of a design that uses the computer to control and enact everything about the game...ie the game uses the computer in a positive way and the AI is an integral part of that.

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: MengCiao

ORIGINAL: Prester John

ORIGINAL: wodin

Surely programming real time movement, with order delays and all the other things HTTR has makes it far more complicated than a set of rules?

I don't think so. Real-time seems simpler than turn based because you don't have to worry about being caught in the wrong place at the end of your turn. ASL depends a lot on being in the right place at the right time in the turn. The same principle applies to BiN in that you don't want to end the turn in the open if you can avoid it. RTS avoids this issue of having to deal with pulses of movement.

HTTR is a fantastic system. The AI works continuously at all levels for both sides. Basically the operation of the AI defines everything about the game. The player intervenes in the battle to give orders, but the AI runs everything. It's not a matter of simplicity, its a matter of a design that uses the computer to control and enact everything about the game...ie the game uses the computer in a positive way and the AI is an integral part of that.

And therefore .......??????