Very disappointed

[treespider]

The thing I really don't get is all of these AI players that absolutely insist on opening up the AI sides turn to see what the AI is doing.

Had they not opened up the AI opponents side...then perhaps they could simply have enjoyed the ride.

People have to remember that "Historical" and "Hard" and "Very Hard" --- all of the AI settings ----are exactly as smart as each other....no difference....and are merely a collection of a bunch of scripts.

What is different is the amount of "assist" in strength at each setting....not an assist in "intelligence".

[Redd]

Andy, don't take things too much too heart. Like you said, a decision had to be made on which way to go with the AI. Either help it out for more of a challenge, or leave it stupid and ultimately boring. I personnally think that you're doing the right thing here. A direction has been set and that's the way it is. You can't go back and forth trying to make it perfect for everyone. Take some time off and enjoy the fruits of your labor. And try to have a nice day.[:)]

[DivePac88]

Have you heard the old saying Andy;

You can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.

I think that you had a difficult brief, and you have done an outstanding job with the time and resources that you had.

And if it means anything; I think your AIs just great for what it is.

DP.

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Guys I am in a bit of a quandry now - I am forming the opinion that I cannot please anyone on this stuff.

I never played the WITP AI I am a PBEM er through and through but for my sins I was assigned the Ai task on AE.

I researched it and the number 1 complaint was that the Ai didnt give you a good game, it was to easy, it was moronic, it was passive, it never suprised you etc etc

Every thread I went through on the old WITP forum - and there weren't many of them that are that recent because most AI players couldnt play mods or had got fed up of the Ai basically said make it better make it harder let it give us a game.

So thats the goal and target we set ourselves - we promised no worse than stock but defacto tried to make it better.

I am now at a loss what to do. The AI will give you a more enjoyable game I am convinced of that but yes it does get some help - some of it is EXACTLY as it was in stock make no mistake the AI cheated there as well - some of it was added because we identified what the stock AI was bad at and if we couldnt help it out legitimately tried to help it out in other ways.

I am sorry folks are dissapointed but what exactly do you want ? A game that can challenge and excite you without an AI that has some help ? No game that I am aware of can do that especially not one as complex as this

After patch 2 I think I need a break I am going to play some PBEM and enjoy the game and stop reading these kinds of threads because I simply don't get it - I apologise to everyone that doesnt like what the Ai is or how it operates but I have no idea what to say any more

I am playing AI only, and yes, it is much better now, and yes, it ist still stupid, and yes, it still cheats, so what?

Andy you did great work, really. Don´t people let bring you down. Noone could have done the job the way you did it. You finished a great job for the limitations you had to work with. [&o][&o][&o]

[LST Express]

Sounds like there is only so much you can do with an AI. I'm playing vs the Jap AI on hard and am heading into Sept 42 and having fun. I'm probably not the perfectionist some people are here, but what the hay.  I imagine when I get tired of playing the AI I will take the martians advice and try a human bean as an opponent.

[Mr.Custer]

Mynok, maybe tankist is demoralized by hearing you guys pan the AI as you push your PBEM agenda. It can't be that great or you would all be of playing instead of hanging around here. Must be waiting for you opponent to get permission from the wife to have a turn. Good luck I'm going off to play the much improved AI.

[dpazuk]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
After patch 2 I think I need a break I am going to play some PBEM and enjoy the game and stop reading these kinds of threads because I simply don't get it - I apologise to everyone that doesnt like what the Ai is or how it operates but I have no idea what to say any more

You do not need to apologize to anyone Andy.

You and others have done one heck of a job given the limitations of what you had to work with.

Anyone who has owned, played and followed the development of the game from the beginning knows only full well the differences between the original AI and what you and others have been able to develop it into for the single player crowd. [&o]

Take a well deserved break and know that your efforts have not been in vain!

[ckammp]

deleted

[Admiral Scott]

Andy, the AI is much better and sneakier than before. And Im sure no one would go back to the old boring AI.
I think when the patch comes out in ten days, the AI will be even better.

Thanks for giving us a better AI, and thanks for continuing to improve it for us.

[Talon_XBMCX]

Keep up the great work Andy. There is no game out there where the AI plays by the same rules as the player. Anyone who thinks it can just doesnt understand the complexities of the code necessary to complete such a feat. It just doesnt exist.

Take you time away and enjoy some PBEM. Everyone needs a break and then you get to come back with a fresh look. We all appreciate the fresh look you gave the AI in AE. Hell of a job! Hats off to you and the rest of the AE Team!

[Oldguard1970]

Let's all recognize an AI can only do so much, and, now that Andy has has worked his tail off for us, the AI in AE is doing so much more than I ever thought an AI could. (Bravo, Andy!)

Second, as Treespider reminds us, we can control the number of "assists" the AI gets. If the AI is cleaning your clock, play on "normal" until you gain more mastery of the game. Then you will want the harder settings. If you play enough, you will discover the harder settings still don't provide enough competition, so you will start to impose "house rules" to limit your own range of options. If that doesn't suit you, after having devoted hundreds of hours to the game, you can declare that you have exhausted the joy of the game from your perspective. Alternatively, you might want to try PBEM to see what happens when you REALLY upgrade the AI.

Additionally, some of the AI only players might, (will, I hope), take up the challenge to try to make an AI script themselves. Won't that be fun? I would love to finish bleeding against Andy's scripts and then see what happens with some of the modded scripts.

This is one heck of a game. It captures the enthusiastic attention of a wide variety of players. The UV/WITP/AE series has lasted for a stunningly long time, costs mighty little, and provides fantastic fun. Hooah!

[sfbaytf]

Andy-take it from someone who's been around for a while and done quite a few things so far...you will never please everyone all the time. Do what you think is right and take whatever suggestions you find useful and realistic.

Sun Tsu in a can doesn't exist. Most of us realize that a complex, multi dimensional game like this is best played against another person.

Yes in a perfect world and with unlimited resources you could probably have a team large enough to create a brute force AI, but you have limited resources.

Anyway the editor is out so there is ample opportunity for someone or some team to hack around.

With all that being said and done I'll give a few ideas...

Back in the ancient days of computing there was a game called "The Ancient Art of War". You could choose the style of game by choosing the general you fought. You could pick an aggressive offensive minded general to fight, a defensive minded general to fight or Sun Tsu who was the master and the most difficult challenge-ie probably cheated or got some unrealistic advantage-anyway the point being if possible it may be worthwhile looking into giving an AI player a choice. He could face a Japan that would take risks and be offensive minded and do things like take Canton Island with a huge force or perhaps Hawaii using the mentioned plan in one of the AAR's or a defensive minded Japan who will seek limited objectives like perhaps a early thrust to Port Moresby and then "turtle up" and begin digging in and do like some players and stock up for massive late war kamikaze swarms..I think you get the idea.

Another interesting avenue is something that other games like Age of Empires implements and that is "random event cards". In a campaign game you'll get at random times an event card that will give you and the other side a temporary advantage. You could have one where you break the other sides code for a turn or 2 and you can see where there fleets are, or you can get a free 2000 points of fuel and supply you can deploy anywhere, leader get an epiphany-gets 10% increase in skill...

It could also be a bad random event-such as AE blows up in dock destroying itself and causing damage to facilities and nearby ships. Typhoon hits area. All fleets in the area affect suffers damage...

Anyway that's my 02 cents for the day.

[pad152]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Guys I am in a bit of a quandry now - I am forming the opinion that I cannot please anyone on this stuff.

I never played the WITP AI I am a PBEM er through and through but for my sins I was assigned the Ai task on AE.

I researched it and the number 1 complaint was that the Ai didnt give you a good game, it was to easy, it was moronic, it was passive, it never suprised you etc etc

Every thread I went through on the old WITP forum - and there weren't many of them that are that recent because most AI players couldnt play mods or had got fed up of the Ai basically said make it better make it harder let it give us a game.

So thats the goal and target we set ourselves - we promised no worse than stock but defacto tried to make it better.

I am now at a loss what to do. The AI will give you a more enjoyable game I am convinced of that but yes it does get some help - some of it is EXACTLY as it was in stock make no mistake the AI cheated there as well - some of it was added because we identified what the stock AI was bad at and if we couldnt help it out legitimately tried to help it out in other ways.

I am sorry folks are dissapointed but what exactly do you want ? A game that can challenge and excite you without an AI that has some help ? No game that I am aware of can do that especially not one as complex as this

After patch 2 I think I need a break I am going to play some PBEM and enjoy the game and stop reading these kinds of threads because I simply don't get it - I apologise to everyone that doesnt like what the Ai is or how it operates but I have no idea what to say any more

Taking a break sounds like a good idea, go have some fun![:)]

I think there are three issues here:

1. The AI not playing by the same rules as the player.

2. The AI doing things (invading places even a player would have a hard time doing), some view this as gamy or non-historical. Some are never going to like the non-historical moves.

3. (Non-AI Issue) The player is much limited than in WITP, in what they can do, a lot of restricted commands, static units, high garrison requirements make the player feel like their hands are tied. The allied player starts off with 65-70%? of forces on the map they can't do much with because of these restrictions.


What I would like to see, to address these issues.


1. An AI that looks like it's playing by the same rules as the player (no more 4 engine bombers flying from level 1 or 2 bases, etc.) Teleporting AI task forces, add some random delay so the player doesn't see a ship/TF on one place on the map and than half way across the map on the next turn. I don't mind the AI getting bonuses just having it look like it's playing by the same rules as the player. Limit the load outs for carrier strikes, sometimes it seems AI carrier groups can bomb a location for weeks, (hitting Pearl Harbor of 14 days straight) These are the biggest issues I have with the AI.

2. Sometime after patch2, some discussions/help/how too's in player designed AI scripting (example: how to get the AI to invade
Midway, and/or the Aleutians during a campaign and how to get the AI to defend (respond to an invasion of x base.). This way players can develop more historic and/or non-historic AI scripts over time.

3. I want an AI that is some what random and dynamic, one that doesn't always do the same thing (big issue with WITP, the AI was so scripted it always did the same thing, at the same point in each campaign). Your idea of multiple scripts randomly selected at the start of a new campaign sounds like it will fit the bill. Maybe a AI script depo/library and how to randomly select scripts.

4. Some How to's with the editor on removing some of these restrictions,(reducing restricted commands, # of static units, high garrison levels, etc.) let the players play the way they want. I hope we get a AE version of Witpchk, for checking player made scenarios/campaigns.

[ckk]

Andy

Go take your well deserved break.[&o]
I came back to WITPAE as an AI opponent only player BECAUSE of the new IMPROVED AI and the more realistic resrictions e.g. air combat

It certainly was not for the increased micromanaging and the loss of computer controlled theaters[8|]

[dorjun driver]

Stop using "intelligence."  It ain't.  Chris Crawford referred to it as "artificial reckoning".  An old article http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/Chapter6.html

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: pad152

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Guys I am in a bit of a quandry now - I am forming the opinion that I cannot please anyone on this stuff.

I never played the WITP AI I am a PBEM er through and through but for my sins I was assigned the Ai task on AE.

I researched it and the number 1 complaint was that the Ai didnt give you a good game, it was to easy, it was moronic, it was passive, it never suprised you etc etc

Every thread I went through on the old WITP forum - and there weren't many of them that are that recent because most AI players couldnt play mods or had got fed up of the Ai basically said make it better make it harder let it give us a game.

So thats the goal and target we set ourselves - we promised no worse than stock but defacto tried to make it better.

I am now at a loss what to do. The AI will give you a more enjoyable game I am convinced of that but yes it does get some help - some of it is EXACTLY as it was in stock make no mistake the AI cheated there as well - some of it was added because we identified what the stock AI was bad at and if we couldnt help it out legitimately tried to help it out in other ways.

I am sorry folks are dissapointed but what exactly do you want ? A game that can challenge and excite you without an AI that has some help ? No game that I am aware of can do that especially not one as complex as this

After patch 2 I think I need a break I am going to play some PBEM and enjoy the game and stop reading these kinds of threads because I simply don't get it - I apologise to everyone that doesnt like what the Ai is or how it operates but I have no idea what to say any more

Taking a break sounds like a good idea, go have some fun![:)]

I think there are three issues here:

1. The AI not playing by the same rules as the player.

2. The AI doing things (invading places even a player would have a hard time doing), some view this as gamy or non-historical. Some are never going to like the non-historical moves.

3. (Non-AI Issue) The player is much limited than in WITP, in what they can do, a lot of restricted commands, static units, high garrison requirements make the player feel like their hands are tied. The allied player starts off with 65-70%? of forces on the map they can't do much with because of these restrictions.


What I would like to see, to address these issues.


1. An AI that looks like it's playing by the same rules as the player (no more 4 engine bombers flying from level 1 or 2 bases, etc.) Teleporting AI task forces, add some random delay so the player doesn't see a ship/TF on one place on the map and than half way across the map on the next turn. I don't mind the AI getting bonuses just having it look like it's playing by the same rules as the player. Limit the load outs for carrier strikes, sometimes it seems AI carrier groups can bomb a location for weeks, (hitting Pearl Harbor of 14 days straight) These are the biggest issues I have with the AI.

2. Sometime after patch2, some discussions/help/how too's in player designed AI scripting (example: how to get the AI to invade
Midway, and/or the Aleutians during a campaign and how to get the AI to defend (respond to an invasion of x base.). This way players can develop more historic and/or non-historic AI scripts over time.

3. I want an AI that is some what random and dynamic, one that doesn't always do the same thing (big issue with WITP, the AI was so scripted it always did the same thing, at the same point in each campaign). Your idea of multiple scripts randomly selected at the start of a new campaign sounds like it will fit the bill. Maybe a AI script depo/library and how to randomly select scripts.

4. Some How to's with the editor on removing some of these restrictions,(reducing restricted commands, # of static units, high garrison levels, etc.) let the players play the way they want. I hope we get a AE version of Witpchk, for checking player made scenarios/campaigns.

Andy Mac is at a disadvantage. AE is probably the only game where nosy AI players can look behind the curtain and "cheat" themselves twice. First they cheat by looking at the AI and seeing what it is doing, then they cheat themselves out of a blissfully ignorant AI experience when they realize that the AI REALLY needs a LOT of help.

If you looked behind the curtain, you deserve to be disappointed, much like the person who reads internet spoilers about a summer blockbuster and then complains that the movie was predictable....[8|]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: dorjun driver

Stop using "intelligence." It ain't. Chris Crawford referred to it as "artificial reckoning".

I've always liked the definition "Animated Idiocy"...., because most AI's move things around a lot (to give the impression of "doing something") with no idea of why they are going where. Andy's is actually a good deal ahead of that curve in that it has actual "goals" and goes after them.

[pmelheck1]

I think my issue is stated above about the AI ignoring the basic rules.  There are cheats and there are cheats.  Increased production for a better game is OK.  If Klingon and Romulan units appeared on map and started destroying units this is not OK.  Both are cheats but not of the same order of magnitude.

The whole Team did a great job with AE.  Please don't take any suggestions for improvement as besmirching the AE team.  I've been playing these games from the UV days and I'm not planning on leaving.  This is the only place I believe I can put in suggestions and have a chance to perhaps have them implemented.

Can you still do surveys?  How about a survey on what folks want on the AI that can be implemented.  put it a bit on the community.

Again Great Job Andy and the whole AE team.

[pad152]

TheElf

Andy Mac is at a disadvantage. AE is probably the only game where nosy AI players can look behind the curtain and "cheat" themselves twice. First they cheat by looking at the AI and seeing what it is doing, then they cheat themselves out of a blissfully ignorant AI experience when they realize that the AI REALLY needs a LOT of help.

If you looked behind the curtain, you deserve to be disappointed, much like the person who reads internet spoilers about a summer blockbuster and then complains that the movie was predictable....

Sorry ELF but, you don't need to look behind the curtain to see the AI flying 4 engine bombers from level 1 or 2 airfields, or AI carrier groups bomb targets for 15 days straight, or have the AI unload a complete divison in 1 turn while the players  task force has been trying to unload troops at the same location for the last 10 days, the AI is just not playing by the same rules as the player!!  Yes, we all know all game AI cheats but, it should look like it's playing by some of the same rules as the player. The idea that no one would have noticed is an insult to players. [8|]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: mullk

The whole Team did a great job with AE.  Please don't take any suggestions for improvement as besmirching the AE team.  I've been playing these games from the UV days and I'm not planning on leaving.  This is the only place I believe I can put in suggestions and have a chance to perhaps have them implemented.

Can you still do surveys?  How about a survey on what folks want on the AI that can be implemented.  put it a bit on the community.

Again Great Job Andy and the whole AE team.

Again, mullk, well stated.