Dumb AI

[Adam Parker]

Why is the "Default" AI (aka "Nomal" AI) considered wrong to play against?
 
Another example of general designer misinformation (ie: affecting most games today not just this).
 
Isn't it about time we started getting truer AI settings? Eg: "Pitiful", "Bad", "Zzzzz", "Cheat", "Flagrant Rip Off"?

[IainMcNeil]

The point is that you guys are all hardcore strategy gamers. The average user has a hard time with simple wargames so we need to pitch the difficulty somewhere to try and keep both ends happy and as we expect you guys to be capable of changing a switch to up the difficulty more than the casual guys who pick up a box in a shop, we tend to aim the difficulty settings for them. Nobody wants to play against "weak" or "easy" so if we labelled it that nobody woudl use it and then complain its too hard. You can't please everyone

[Deadmoon]

I don´t consider myself a hardcore strategy gamer. I´d only played simple wargames as Panzer General series or CEAW. Games more complicated tend to overwhelm me with hundreds of options and i get tired of them easily.

A strong or weak AI doesn´t have anything to do with casual gamers...the interface of Commander series is very intuitive and easy to learn. But a simple to manage game, no matter how quick you learn to play, becomes a very boring game once you realise that, no matter what you do, the enemy doesn´t move or react very often.

Try to imagine a checker game. It´s easy to learn the rules but boring if you win easily because the opponent doesn´t do anything to menace you nor move his pieces half of its turns. If i was a hardcore checker gamer...would i enjoy playing against an opponent with double number of gaming pieces to compensate my skills? Or would i prefer a smarter opponent?

"Simple" doesn´t mean "dumb".

I understand that this is a light wargame but i don´t think you can call a wargame a "casual game". Being interested in wargaming also implies that you should expect things to be a bit complicated.

[IainMcNeil]

I'm talking about difficulty settings, not AI? Having said that Johan is looking into any issues reported so I'm sure he'll have a fix for them soon.

[Deadmoon]

Like, let´s say, fixing the inmobile Mediterranean front in CEAW? Oh wait, that was never fixed. [:@]

Mmhh...maybe i´ll give another chance to CNAW (despite my criticism it´s a good game and i think you are doing a great job) but i think it would be wise to wait a few months until it´s more polished.

[Matto]

More fun with AI ... playing 1805 France with stronger Coalition ... Grand Armee is attacking Moscow now ... but Portugal joins Coalition and for all that strong British Army is relaxing in England, small Portugal army invaded France from the Canal !!!

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

The point is that you guys are all hardcore strategy gamers. The average user has a hard time with simple wargames so we need to pitch the difficulty somewhere to try and keep both ends happy and as we expect you guys to be capable of changing a switch to up the difficulty more than the casual guys who pick up a box in a shop, we tend to aim the difficulty settings for them. Nobody wants to play against "weak" or "easy" so if we labelled it that nobody woudl use it and then complain its too hard. You can't please everyone

'pitch the difficulty' should apply only to force sizes, resource amounts, supplies available, command points, etc.

What this thread is about is not 'pitching the difficulty,' it's about the AI following the most basic, reasonable strategies and tactics. I doubt anyone expects an AI to play as well as a human, but the AI should at the very least follow both offensive and defensive rules that make sense in whatever era or scale the game is in.

I haven't bought or played this game, but if the players here say such things as 'there is a passive AI' or 'the AI forces just congregate around cities' then it's simple - the AI is not following the typical strategies or tactics of the Napoleanic era. Thus the game loses all semblance of an historical simulation.

All the players are asking is that the developer(s) make an AI that acts sensibly at any difficulty level. Please!


p.s. any developer who says the AI can't be improved other than to change difficulty levels is actually saying - we don't want to put any more time or effort into this game.

[Sgt.Fury25]

Just finished two games at moderate playing as France.The AI needs work,British forces stagnate in England.Enemy seems to send out a challenge of a couple of forces but when beaten they stop sending more only to defend their capital!

[Toby42]

I really had High Hopes for this title. I'm kinda of tired of WWII games. And GGWBTS didn't work for me....

[IainMcNeil]

Why do people keep making assumptions and not reading what we say Someone asked why the default level was too easy - we replied saying it was not pitched at the average Matrix gamer. I also said Johan was working to improve the AI and someone else says we using the difficulty as an excuse not to do AI. If people aren't going to read what we say there's not much point in us replying as people are deliberately taking snipets out of context - we'd be better off not replying and giving you less thing to disassemble

[pzgndr]

If people aren't going to read what we say there's not much point in us replying as people are deliberately taking snipets out of context - we'd be better off not replying and giving you less thing to disassemble

Don't do that Iain, please keep talking. And also please keep listening and seriously consider suggestions for improvement. Where some basic improvements can be made to the AI, for both CNAW and CEAW, the developers should continue to work on those. I made another comment about whether the AI uses leaders? If not, that's a weakness that should be resolved because it handicaps the AI versus human opponent. Transport and amphibious operations are important, especially for Great Britain in CNAW and for both Axis and Allies in the Med in CEAW. We all understand it takes time to work on these things, but a fully "functional" computer opponent should at least be able to perform most of these operations, yes?

I played about a year of the game last night with French AI on medium difficulty. Despite a well fought battle around Vienna with Russian support, French took Vienna and Austria surrendered around May 1806. That's not exactly the historical result, but good enough for a fun game. My initial thought is that maybe unit density for land battles is too high but otherwise the game provides a nice Napoleonic flavor and plays OK. [:)]

[IainMcNeil]

As said we are working on the AI and always listen to feedback. 
 
If anyone spots any AI issues can they tell Johan the scenario and what the issue is as the AI has to be adjusted on a per campaign basis. Probably best to post it to our forum though.