Will this ship with an AI?

[paulderynck]

Let's see. 50% of the revenue now and 50% later, versus no revenue now.

[rmdesantis]

I agree with Paul. Matrix has a very large investment on their books and they need to start getting some return on that investment. Waiting several more years for an AI would seem to be a very poor return on that investment, especially given that they know that there are a substantial number of people who don't need an AI to enjoy the game. People who don't absolutely require an AI will buy the game as soon as it is released; those who want to wait for an AI will wait regardless.

As an aside, I would hope that the AI will be user-programmable in the sense that the user community could help develop/improve it over time rather than rely on the efforts of Steve (or any other single programmer). None of us are as smart as all of us.

Mike

[Kham]

ORIGINAL: rmdesantis

I agree with Paul. Matrix has a very large investment on their books and they need to start getting some return on that investment. Waiting several more years for an AI would seem to be a very poor return on that investment, especially given that they know that there are a substantial number of people who don't need an AI to enjoy the game. People who don't absolutely require an AI will buy the game as soon as it is released; those who want to wait for an AI will wait regardless.

As an aside, I would hope that the AI will be user-programmable in the sense that the user community could help develop/improve it over time rather than rely on the efforts of Steve (or any other single programmer). None of us are as smart as all of us.

Mike

I don't think Matrix is so heavily involved as you seem to assume.

Seeing that the only work done on the project is Steve and volunteers - and as Steve appearantly is only paid through royalties I don't see Matrix having put much if any investments into this project.

Which also happens to explain why the project has not been killed a long time ago. Or simply published in whatever unfinished state the game was in when the deadline came up - as some developers are infamous for. No way these past 10 years would be acceptable if Matrix had a 'large investment'.

[rmdesantis]

Okay, good point. Then let's substitute 'Matrix' with 'Steve' in terms of who holds the investment. Either way, there is a significant investment in the work-in-progress so having a capable product to sell, without an AI at first, appears to be the most financially prudent.

Mike

[shunwick]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Let's see. 50% of the revenue now and 50% later, versus no revenue now.

Paulderynck,

Thing is - by the time the AI arrives there are going to be lots of people who will just view it as an "old game" and therefore not worth investing in.

I do not agree with it but the gaming community (as a whole and including some wargamers) tend towards being ageist in this way.

They will look at it at release. See that it has no AI. And will write it off. Will they wait two or three years for the AI? Chances are that many will have forgotten about it by then.

Best wishes,
Steve

[Terminus]

And deservedly so. Not launching with an AI is just bad business.

[CrusssDaddy]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And deservedly so. Not launching with an AI is just bad business.

Bad business? This lot? Never!

[Windfire]

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Don't exactly know which one. However, it was removed (AFAIK) because Steve wanted to finally release the first version of the game and it was unrealistic to wait till a version with an AI was possible, after all these years, and after Steve's recent illnesses...

There will be an IA but there is no date. Which is normal if you realize that there is not even a date for the non-AI version yet. Whichs is normal too, after several announces of release that finally didn't happen (years ago).

Joseignacio - thanks for the information

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Let's see. 50% of the revenue now and 50% later, versus no revenue now.

Paulderynck,

Thing is - by the time the AI arrives there are going to be lots of people who will just view it as an "old game" and therefore not worth investing in.

I do not agree with it but the gaming community (as a whole and including some wargamers) tend towards being ageist in this way.

They will look at it at release. See that it has no AI. And will write it off. Will they wait two or three years for the AI? Chances are that many will have forgotten about it by then.

Best wishes,
Steve

It's funny how many of these forgetful people keep dropping in once or twice a year to whine.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: shunwick

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Let's see. 50% of the revenue now and 50% later, versus no revenue now.

Paulderynck,

Thing is - by the time the AI arrives there are going to be lots of people who will just view it as an "old game" and therefore not worth investing in.

I do not agree with it but the gaming community (as a whole and including some wargamers) tend towards being ageist in this way.

They will look at it at release. See that it has no AI. And will write it off. Will they wait two or three years for the AI? Chances are that many will have forgotten about it by then.

Best wishes,
Steve

It's funny how many of these forgetful people keep dropping in once or twice a year to whine.

warspite1

paulderynck I would give it up if I were you. It's just not worth it. You know the sort of people you are dealing with - most of them are just p***** because they have proudly announced on this and other forums at various times in the past that this game would never be released. When they see that they will be proved wrong they look for something else to bitch and whine and/or pontificate on [>:][>:].

- The game will be coming out.
- It will have no AI in its original release. That decision has been made, having been weighed up by the stakeholders in the project - you know, the people who actually invest money in a project and so have real cash on the line.

If that decision works for you then buy it, if not then don't, or simply delay the purchase until you get the AI you want. Simples.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: rmdesantis

Personally, I don't mourn the fact that the AI will be delayed. An AI would be nice to have, but I can't imagine that it would be anywhere near as good an opponent as a human (even one who plays badly). This game is extraordinarily complex and is challenging for humans to play. A year or two to develop an AI? I think you're off by an order of magnitude.

Once it is released, to your point, there will be bugs to fix. Frustration with the game would only be compounded by any dissatisfaction with the AI as well, and it would prove a distraction to correcting playability issues. Even in your scenario, fixing an AI would be secondary to having a stable platform that could be played by the paying public.

To me, the only advantage to an AI is to help learn the rules to prepare you better to play against human opponents. You can play a few impulses, perhaps a turn or two, but a competent player will likely see little challenge in continuing against it. I would love to be proven wrong, but I think this is the way the smart money would bet.

Mike

Hey Mike I am starting to feel sorry I told you about registrating for net play testing [:D]

There was an AI battle two to three years ago that you would not believe, anti and pro and it got nasty. Even though I have to agree with you that an AI in a game this immence could be hairy, but my opinion of this is when I want to play MWIF I can play it without worring about time zone opponets, those who are on vacation in the middle of a match or you young people [any left here?] who have to change a diaper when I am ready to crush them with my Panzers. Only an AI can give me the freedom to play when I want to play.

I believe net play will be difficult at best and pbem next to impossible, again just an opinion, could be totally wrong [&:]

I believe with all my heart and soul that Steve will put out a decent AI in the next year or so. But more important Steve is a dedicated WIF player and will not fade into the sunset when issues occur and he will always do his best to keep the game up and running to everyones satisfaction [errrr Steve my vacation days are from nov 1st to the 7th and I know you will gladly let me use your condo] [;)]

Bo

[rmdesantis]

Hi Bo

I'm generally a skeptic on the ability of AIs to do a good job of simulating a human opponent. I don't have any concerns with his ability to program, but an AI is very challenging. If it was a game of just tactics, say, then I think an AI can me manufactured to provide a decent adversary. But I am pessimistic that a grand strategic AI could be generated that would provide a reasonable opponent. Will the AI, as German, declare Vichy or try to close the Med? Will a Japanese AI try for a China first strategy? The strategy determines production which in turn limits choices further into the game, etc. I suppose that it can be pre-determined what the AI will do (check a box for the strategy that the AI will take - close the med, for example) and the choices would be set - but the fun part of this game is unpredictability of people who will take chances in trying things that others may not have considered.

I recall that conversation, and I think I said pretty much the same thing back then. I would love for a great AI to be created. If the AI was somehow user programmable, though, then it might be able to be crowd-sourced and with contributions from may people we might get a decent computer opponent.

So I am hoping for the best, but I don't expect it. For me, I'd prefer PBEM over netplay (only because I really like to take time to think things through and don't want people to stare at a screen for an hour while I muddle through things), and netplay over AI.


Mike

[pzgndr]

Thing is - by the time the AI arrives there are going to be lots of people who will just view it as an "old game" and therefore not worth investing in...

They will look at it at release. See that it has no AI. And will write it off. Will they wait two or three years for the AI?

I have to chuckle here. WiF already IS an "old game", released in 1985. Methinks after 28 years, those who are somewhat unsatisfied with actually playing the full-up boardgame face-to-face with real human beings or exchanging volumes of emails playing the VASSAL version, will continue to be patient for even a post-release AI. I suspect Steve will be well rewarded for his efforts over the years. And players will be well rewarded for their patience.

[shunwick]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: shunwick

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Let's see. 50% of the revenue now and 50% later, versus no revenue now.

Paulderynck,

Thing is - by the time the AI arrives there are going to be lots of people who will just view it as an "old game" and therefore not worth investing in.

I do not agree with it but the gaming community (as a whole and including some wargamers) tend towards being ageist in this way.

They will look at it at release. See that it has no AI. And will write it off. Will they wait two or three years for the AI? Chances are that many will have forgotten about it by then.

Best wishes,
Steve

It's funny how many of these forgetful people keep dropping in once or twice a year to whine.

Ah, but the whiners are not the forgetful people. Please don't confuse the two.

Best wishes,
Steve

[shunwick]

- The game will be coming out.
- It will have no AI in its original release. That decision has been made, having been weighed up by the stakeholders in the project - you know, the people who actually invest money in a project and so have real cash on the line.

If that decision works for you then buy it, if not then don't, or simply delay the purchase until you get the AI you want. Simples.

warspite1,

It should be that simple and I really hope it is. This game deserves to be a huge success. That would be a fitting reward for Steve and Slitherine and everyone who has supported the project through its development.

Best wishes,
Steve

[shunwick]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Thing is - by the time the AI arrives there are going to be lots of people who will just view it as an "old game" and therefore not worth investing in...

They will look at it at release. See that it has no AI. And will write it off. Will they wait two or three years for the AI?

I have to chuckle here. WiF already IS an "old game", released in 1985. Methinks after 28 years, those who are somewhat unsatisfied with actually playing the full-up boardgame face-to-face with real human beings or exchanging volumes of emails playing the VASSAL version, will continue to be patient for even a post-release AI. I suspect Steve will be well rewarded for his efforts over the years. And players will be well rewarded for their patience.

Pzgndr,

No. This release will be a new game. You are arguing that Hearts Of Iron III is an "old game" because there was Hearts of Iron II. It does not work like that.

But I do agree that this game deserves to be a huge success.

Best wishes,
Steve

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Empires in Arms was bug infected? I have been thinking of buying it, lately... Is it bug-free now?

EiA had some issues, for sure. The last patch resolved a lot of it and it plays pretty well. There are still a few gameplay issues but not bad. The AI still needs work, and hopefully the developer will return to it someday.

To me, the only advantage to an AI is to help learn the rules to prepare you better to play against human opponents. You can play a few impulses, perhaps a turn or two, but a competent player will likely see little challenge in continuing against it.

I disagree. The nirvana of having a computer opponent for a PC wargame is to have a ready willing competent adversary whenever it is convenient for you, not some pbem or NetPlay opponent someplace. I don't mind waiting for a post-release AI. And I don't mind waiting a while for Steve to continue to improve and enhance the AI over time. You can be a naysayer all you want, but I remain optimistic. The Strategic Command series has an outstanding AI, but it's taken years to get it where it is now. And the effort needed to script the AI and game events is considerable, but well worth it and proves the point that it IS possible to have a formidible AI for a complex grand strategy WWII wargame. Be patient.

Thanks a lot!

[LeeChard]

I have played WitP by email and I had a good time, but after playing my turn and sending it to my opponent I was in the mood to play so I was able to switch over to my AI game and play on. For me an AI is criticle but if I was conviced the one would be added in a reasonable time I might buy the game to learn the rules and maybe try an email game.

[brian brian]

I think the AI will come along fine eventually, but there is really no other way to get one than the present course. When you walk into a "Gaming" store and encounter blank stares when you ask if there are any hex-based wargames for sale, you realize how esoteric this hobby has become. And that despite a vibrant line of WWII miniatures in production and widely available.

Release to the public for human & solitaire play will put the perfect icing on what sounds to be an already smooth game engine. I do hope that perhaps there could be a way for Matrix to accept uploads of saved game files from the players, to use in AI development and to generate statistics on what is happening in the game. Data storage is so cheap now... That would be quite a project that could also help further improve the game system as a whole in years to come. Perhaps too much to hope for.

But WiF has a built-in way to learn to play the game - the Barbarossa & Guadalcanal scenarios. I think an AI good at playing Guadalcanal will be the more challenging one, as in the naval system there is more potential for feints than in the my-tanks-go-your-tanks-go land campaigns with zero Fog of War to consider. Once the AI can handle navies, the Decline & Fall scenario is the best to play as a third choice (for humans as well), as Grand Strategy is already mostly set for each side and country, but world-wide operational skills still need to be mastered. I predict that the AI for the Barbarossa scenario will be very challenging for a human opponent, and I look forward to playing it.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think the AI will come along fine eventually, but there is really no other way to get one than the present course. When you walk into a "Gaming" store and encounter blank stares when you ask if there are any hex-based wargames for sale, you realize how esoteric this hobby has become. And that despite a vibrant line of WWII miniatures in production and widely available.

Release to the public for human & solitaire play will put the perfect icing on what sounds to be an already smooth game engine. I do hope that perhaps there could be a way for Matrix to accept uploads of saved game files from the players, to use in AI development and to generate statistics on what is happening in the game. Data storage is so cheap now... That would be quite a project that could also help further improve the game system as a whole in years to come. Perhaps too much to hope for.

But WiF has a built-in way to learn to play the game - the Barbarossa & Guadalcanal scenarios. I think an AI good at playing Guadalcanal will be the more challenging one, as in the naval system there is more potential for feints than in the my-tanks-go-your-tanks-go land campaigns with zero Fog of War to consider. Once the AI can handle navies, the Decline & Fall scenario is the best to play as a third choice (for humans as well), as Grand Strategy is already mostly set for each side and country, but world-wide operational skills still need to be mastered. I predict that the AI for the Barbarossa scenario will be very challenging for a human opponent, and I look forward to playing it.

Acquiring saved games from owners of MWIF is a good idea for improving the AI Opponent.[&o] It would only take a few lines of code to change from a different mode of play in a saved game to AIO.