Europe at War - great game, if it had AI

[Warfare1]

Let's remember that CEaW has just been released. It's also a huge strategy game and patches are going to be needed to tweak the game.

I think it has HUGE potential.

Some ideas:

1) Allow for multiple invasion times, and not just in 1944. Have the AI invade and/or probe, with different size forces, French North Africa/Middle East/Sicily in 1942, 1943. Keep the player on his toes.

2) Give the AI "recon" units: Aircraft with long flying ranges to explore the map; a special ship that can "see" 4-5 hexes away; and land recon units which can see 5 hexes away. The player can destroy them, but the AI can replace them AT NO COST. The AI could even receive special "radar" installations that gives it long range "eyes".

3) Unit, tech and scenario editors. Let the player modify everything in the game.

[Dave Ferguson]

idea 3) is what will give me long term interest, without them in a few months I will probably move on to another game.

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan

Game starts on normal difficulty by default so if we want to make it challenging then we still have to decide if that should be for the newbie player who never played wargames before, regular casual player or expert who played all games in this genre for years and years?

From reading all the posts on this forum, it looks as though the normal setting is good as it stands for new players. The only problem I am seeing is that the AI does nothing in the Mediterranean area. So i would tweak the AI to be more aggressive.

The higher settings should then ramp-up the difficulty settings. The higher levels should: add more AI units; add higher tech levels; add larger invasion forces; add more experienced units; more places for the AI to invade; AI invasion forces should invade sooner and in different locations (randomness), etc....

If possible, and if the coding allows it, add in an editor or a function whereby new units will appear in the game for the AI defender once certain cities have been captured by the player. This is part of scenario design and is something a user can do at the start of a scenario: ie use the editor to indicate how many units, what units (their experience level and locations) will appear for each city that is captured.

[benpark]

Simply giving the AI "more" is the default method for most games in dealing with a computer opponent. I'm not a fan of this method, and won't play it. I realize that building a CO is no easy task whatsoever, so I hope this post isn't taken as complaining too much. I am finding the games AI so far decent, but it could use some tuning up without just giving it more of everything.

Making an AI that is truly challenging takes imagination on the developers part. I often wonder if more variability based upon historic possibilities can't be utilized through scripts that are treated as a kind of series of the old Basic lingo "If:Then" rules.

ex: "If Germany holds France in May-Sept 1944: Invade with no less than X number of units around x-z chouice of beach hexes". This would be a sort of choice "A" of around 10 variables for the Allied AI. Another could be invasion through Italy, etc.

This would require that the AI is split inti two sections, one that takes in all of the strategic situation (which utilizes the variable scripts for invasions and DoW etc), and one that is operational (and much like we have now, choosing what units to attacke, etc)

These semi-randomized choices would make a more challenging AI that would appear "smart", and provide that no two games turn out the same.

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: benpark

Simply giving the AI "more" is the default method for most games in dealing with a computer opponent. I'm not a fan of this method, and won't play it. I realize that building a CO is no easy task whatsoever, so I hope this post isn't taken as complaining too much. I am finding the games AI so far decent, but it could use some tuning up without just giving it more of everything.

Making an AI that is truly challenging takes imagination on the developers part. I often wonder if more variability based upon historic possibilities can't be utilized through scripts that are treated as a kind of series of the old Basic lingo "If:Then" rules.

ex: "If Germany holds France in May-Sept 1944: Invade with no less than X number of units around x-z chouice of beach hexes". This would be a sort of choice "A" of around 10 variables for the Allied AI. Another could be invasion through Italy, etc.

This would require that the AI is split inti two sections, one that takes in all of the strategic situation (which utilizes the variable scripts for invasions and DoW etc), and one that is operational (and much like we have now, choosing what units to attacke, etc)

These semi-randomized choices would make a more challenging AI that would appear "smart", and provide that no two games turn out the same.

I certainly agree with you that just flinging more forces is not ideal.

Fortunately there are many ways around this.

I certainly agree with the "IF, THEN" type of programming. CEaW does use scripts.

Interestingly so does Civ2. Anyone using notepad can edit the events script in Civ2. It is so easy to use, yet one can include literally hundreds of pre-written commands for the AI.

What would be great to see would be an editor (or part of a larger scenario editor) that would allow the player to designate an invasion force, its composition, location, and time of entry into the game (month/year/turn), etc....

[Primasprit]

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

[...]even in a simple game like chess they cant make an AI that will beat a human [...]

Sorry for being OT but just couldn't resist: Since several years chess AI's beat every human. (And labeling chess as a 'simple game' seems a bit strange...) [8D]

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: Primasprit

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

[...]even in a simple game like chess they cant make an AI that will beat a human [...]

Sorry for being OT but just couldn't resist: Since several years chess AI's beat every human. (And labeling chess as a 'simple game' seems a bit strange...) [8D]

Have to agree - chess AI - toughest AI I have ever played against. I am beaten even on normal settings.

[targul]

Personnally I no longer play this game with AI at all.  I can actually hear the AI snoring even with sound effects off.  I love the game verses Humans though.  But the TCP/IP is risky it seems to have a serious flaw other like games do not have.  The lack of replay in PBEM makes that difficult. 
 
I can live without the AI it isnt there now so I dont need it in the future but I sincerely hope they quickly address the connection problems many of us seem to be experiencing in TCP/IP and get us a PBEM feedback.
 
Jim

[firepowerjohan]

ORIGINAL: targul

Personnally I no longer play this game with AI at all.  I can actually hear the AI snoring even with sound effects off.  I love the game verses Humans though.  But the TCP/IP is risky it seems to have a serious flaw other like games do not have.  The lack of replay in PBEM makes that difficult. 

I can live without the AI it isnt there now so I dont need it in the future but I sincerely hope they quickly address the connection problems many of us seem to be experiencing in TCP/IP and get us a PBEM feedback.

Jim

I have played several TcpIP games with beta version against one of the testers. Only problem was if someone had a restrictive firewall because then that person could not host. But, once we connected and played only occasionally did it crash but this was because physically my opponent lost Internet connection and that is nothing a game can prevent. It is on the physical side, not the gaming side. Game autosaves every end of turn so even if opponent loses Innternet connection you will both have one save from each ones last end turn to continue.

Targul, once you did connect how often did it crash and was it because anyone of you or opponent had a bad Internet connection?

[targul]

Once it did connect it would crash after each players turn.  Since I played prior and after that with IP connections on different games I MUST believe it is this game not my connection.
 
There is a possibilty of a router between the two locations but I see so many people complaining about the same problem here I have trouble believe many of us dont have descent internet connections.

[decaro]

How about an If, Then, Else command?

If Germany occupys France in '44, Then invade w/ >=X number of units @ one of the following beaches (to be determined by a random dice roll), Else keep making more troops, transports, bombers/bomb runs, etc., in prep for the If (and just run it as a loop that checks this status every day?)

The above could be modified into a function that also handles invasions for N. Africa (Torch) and Italy (Husky) w/the appropriate dates and locales.

HoI2 solved this problem w/a Normandy scenario start date.

Re better AI: even the old PG had an option that caused the AI to pull damaged units out of harms way in lieu of defending "victory hexes" to the death, unless that's what the player wanted as it made for a "tougher" -- if not smarter -- game.

Does anyone know what exactly the higher difficulty settings actually do, i.e, veteran replacements, more opposing forces, etc.?

[Barthheart]

Higher levels = more starting units, higher production point generation, more oil generation.

[IainMcNeil]

It's a bit more complex than this unfortunately Scripting of this kind ends up with spaghetti strands that all intefere with each other. There are so many exceptions you need to think about or end up with an exploit that you have complex buggy code that's impossible to fix. Then think about the effects of different scripted events interacting and you've got a nightmare

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil
It's a bit more complex than this unfortunately Scripting of this kind ends up with spaghetti strands that all intefere with each other. There are so many exceptions you need to think about or end up with an exploit that you have complex buggy code that's impossible to fix. Then think about the effects of different scripted events interacting and you've got a nightmare

In reply to Barthheart?

[IainMcNeil]

Sorry - was in response to the comments on IF, THEN and scripting.

[decaro]

Ok, I assumed as much, but wanted to be sure before I responded.

You folks at Slitherine know more re code than I ever will, but I thought using a called "invasion" function might avoid this spaghetti effect, or would it simply be a rouge function bouncing around your program like a pin ball?

[IainMcNeil]

We're looking in to it - it's just that we're not sure scripting specific events is the way to go.

[balto]

Man, unbelievable thread.  I am getting crushed beaten by the AI when I am Axis (OIL PROBLEMS) .., and I have played HSP Simulations for years.  I think I see why, the post said that he invaded England very easily.., I never thought of that!  I think I got locked into what really happened.., well, sort of.., so I never think like that. 
 
I have a feeling when I play a human, I may be the worst challenger in the history of the board for CEAW.  But, hey man, I am ready for anybody for a challenge!  I will lose, but I am ready.  Thanks

[Hard Sarge]

yea, I think that may be part of it, if you let England stand, soon, it will be a major airfield, and anything on the french coast is toast, if you clear out England, then it is a major pain to do a landing in France
 
(think the AI is geared to land in France, and not to take back England, if it falls)
 
you game the system, the system is easy, you play like you think it should be played, then it plays decent

[targul]

Sarge that is always true.  Most people find the flaws in the AI and abuse the game system instead of playing historically which the normally the design of the game and its AI.
 
Regrettfully this games AI is seriously asleep in the Med.  It seems incapable to invade France.  Russia seems pretty good. 
 
If they put some work into the Med and shake those guys awake and make it recognize it should invade when the Axis appears weak then we will have a really good game.
 
Still need plenty of work on the PBEM and IP needed also.