Beta Testers: Winning % ?

[Zap]

I was a sure bet for purchase of this game before reading these posts. I would still like to. I had convinced myself it was going to be a great game. Now, I want to buy it but I think I better wait for more feedback. Rethinking

[ravinhood]

That has nothing to do with the AI though. There is nothing 'intelligent' about upping an attack factor or giving extra money to buy more units etc.

Handicapping doesn't make the AI better as in it will perform better moves or act more 'human' with intelligent unpredictableness, but rather it just gives the human more to fight against. Whether it more units or more morale or whatever...

Of course it doesn't make the AI smarter, but, it does make the AI more challenging and that has everything to do with the value of the game as a whole. The I part of AI should be taken out, but, it just sounds good I guess "intelligence", but, if you read the definition of intelligence, no AI has any because it requires the ability to "learn" and no AI can learn, so the advantages and handicaps are the importance of an AI in most all games. It should be called AO (artificial opponent), then there wouldn't be any confusion about intelligence, handicaps or advantages (or cheats some call them).

So when I'm asking about an AI, I'm not asking about it's intelligence, but, it's ability to be challenging or even win with overwhelming odds. Several of these posts are already showing the AI is fairly easy even when the human is outnumbered 2 to 1. That's the part I take most interest in. You give me 2 to 1 odds against another human and I'll crush them (given balance in the combat factors) and so the advantages and handicaps should be so with this AI to do the same, regardless of intelligence. If it can just use basic tactics, it still should win the battles.

Also, many people play the normal or lower difficulties and then describe the AI (many never even mention what difficulty they are playing on), it's rare I can find someone to play the hardest difficulties and then describe the AI "challenge" level. When I first get a game I go immediately and play the hardest difficulty and work my way down from there (if I have to). If I beat it first try out of the box on the hardest difficulty (RTW), that's a suky game, even if PBEM, or MP is superb, if it doesn't have a darn good most difficult level AI, it's crap in my book.

[Reiryc]

Sad to hear it...

The game is a blast. Unless you're one of those anal retentive types then I wouldn't put too much stock into the majority of the complaints/concerns posted here. The AI atleast can keep a person interested. While it won't pull of the stunts a human will, it's still a decent opponent and the way the game plays it makes it fun.

[Zap]

I said I was rethinking and reading but I lean in favor of the game. Every opinion counts for me. I just don't want it to be another game that sits in my no play pile. Your positive comments help.

[ravinhood]

Well the total polls aren't in yet on this one, it's only a few days old, but, I'm sure someone will try out the most difficult level and give some feedback on the AI eventually. It just puts me on the fence to wait and see what the comments are.

If I were 20 again it probably wouldn't be such an issue, but, at near 50 I don't care to "waste my time" just playing a fair AI opponent. I want that "fix" of more challenge and my time worth it to try to defeat it, even if it means overwhelming numbers against me. I get this everytime I play a Combat Mission or Steel Panthers WAW game because I can make it almost impossible to beat. That's the "fun" I get out of computer games.

I play some PBEM games, but, I find them too slow to reach the satisfaction level I'm looking for. So, that is why an AO (I'm going to call it AO heh), needs to be challenging and remain challenging for years to come. Much like the Civilization game which I still have never beaten the most difficult level. That makes it a great game.

[Reiryc]

Also, many people play the normal or lower difficulties and then describe the AI (many never even mention what difficulty they are playing on), it's rare I can find someone to play the hardest difficulties and then describe the AI "challenge" level. When I first get a game I go immediately and play the hardest difficulty and work my way down from there (if I have to). If I beat it first try out of the box on the hardest difficulty (RTW), that's a suky game, even if PBEM, or MP is superb, if it doesn't have a darn good most difficult level AI, it's crap in my book

That's the thing... most people don't view AI like you do.

Most have complaints about the stupid moves an AI makes thus alluding to its 'intelligence', not the handicaps it was given. I've rarely heard someone complain that an AI wasn't given enough enough handicaps/cheats to overwhelm a person.

In my book, a good AI is one that doesn't or rarely makes moves that put it in a situation to suffer needlessly. A good example would be any panzer campaign game. I don't know how many times I've seen the AI park units in travel mode either right next to my units or right in my units line of sight. Thus exposing itself to increased damage and fatigue levels without atleast doing so because it was making a gamble on capturing a victory location or some other type move.

I think, atleast based upon the posts I've read in countless forums, people want to see an AI behave more intelligently or even with the unrealistic expectation in some cases, act more like a human opponent. So when answering the question of a good AI, I think people want to know about what the computer opponent does not how it's handicapped.

[sol_invictus]

I would bet that if a person plays Sweden, Spain, or Turkey at Naploeon Level and changes the Power settings that they would get all the challenge they would want; at least for several games per Nation.

I never have liked cheating AI. It is no achievement to just throw the kitchen sink at the player and call that a challenge; epecially when it is very blatant. I find it boring. I can accept some slight bonus for the AI and if this keeps me honest and on my toes that is fine and all I expect from an AI.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Zap

I said I was rethinking and reading but I lean in favor of the game. Every opinion counts for me. I just don't want it to be another game that sits in my no play pile. Your positive comments help.

I hear ya...

I think that this game provides quite a few situations where there is this 'unknown' quantity that keeps it interesting due to the numerous variables that affect the outcome of your decisions.

There are so many inputs into the economy, diplomacy, initiative etc that the game is interesting because you don't just learn a simple formula to master it. You get the feel of the game after a day or two of playing, but there is alot to learn when it comes to mastering it which makes it quite fun in my book.

[Zap]

While it won't pull of the stunts a human will, it's still a decent opponent and the way the game plays it makes it fun.

The way the game plays for you does that mean the detailed invovlement with food, morale, and how you disburse your resources? You beat me to your answer in your above post. Let me ask you this; then one battle does not play a decisive factor but all the ingredients put together affects your win victory points.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

I would bet that if a person plays Sweden, Spain, or Turkey at Naploeon Level and changes the Power settings that they would get all the challenge they would want; at least for several games per Nation.

I never have liked cheating AI. It is no achievement to just throw the kitchen sink at the player and call that a challenge; epecially when it is very blatant. I find it boring. I can accept some slight bonus for the AI and if this keeps me honest and on my toes that is fine and all I expect from an AI.

I feel the way you do on this issue...

[ravinhood]

I think, atleast based upon the posts I've read in countless forums, people want to see an AI behave more intelligently

We've been asking for that for near 25 years now.

Granted that is so, but, in 25 years have we seen this accomplished? Therefore, since there is no improvement of "intelligence", the only other alternative for challenge is to play against "overwhelming odds or increased bonuses" as is what the majority of games on their most extreme difficulties give to us, been that way for 25 years now. So, since they aren't going to give us more intelligence, they should at least give us overwhelming odds that are challenging as well.

Each person as I said find challenge on an individual basis. After 25 years, my challenge level has risen and I require even more "overwhelming odds" in many games to enjoy them. "Normal" is like "ultra easy" for me in a matter of no time as well. Thus I don't get enjoyment out of the games if they don't have extreme difficulty levels with those "overwhelming odds". It's why I always start out playing on the highest difficulty.

I'd like a more intelligent AO that played with equal balance, but, it hasn't happened in 25 years and doesn't look to be going to happen for another 25 to 50 years, so, only the "odds" provide a challenge in them for me. Since you as well as I know the AI never learns or is going to improve the way it plays, it can be improved in how difficult it is in how much advantage it is given, and that is what I look for, since that is what I know to be true for 25 years up to present day. AO's have a one track mind, but, odds can be changed with a slider or player enhanced setting like CM/SPWAW.

[jchastain]

Can AI be perfect? Nope; not with today's technology and the budget available for a game anyway. Can it be better? Sure. I wouldn't call it outright bad, but I do think there are a few tweaks that would make CoG into a stronger opponent. Where those enhancements can be made with a reasonable amount of effort, I'd love to see them implemented. Like with most things that could be improved (and what couldn't be?), the key is in crossing that line between vague criticism and detailed constructive suggestions. [;)]

[bluemonday]

ORIGINAL: jchastain

Like with most things that could be improved (and what couldn't be?), the key is in crossing that line between vague criticism and detailed constructive suggestions. [;)]

Agreed- and nice job on the suggestions for Detailed Combat AI.

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: jchastain

Can AI be perfect? Nope; not with today's technology and the budget available for a game anyway. Can it be better? Sure. I wouldn't call it outright bad, but I do think there are a few tweaks that would make CoG into a stronger opponent. Where those enhancements can be made with a reasonable amount of effort, I'd love to see them implemented. Like with most things that could be improved (and what couldn't be?), the key is in crossing that line between vague criticism and detailed constructive suggestions. [;)]

After 25 years it's long past time for "constructive suggestions" it is more of a time for "vague criticisms".

[Cyrano]

I find this all so predictable and strange.

If a challenging A.I., as it appears to have been defined here, is a sine qua non of purchasing a game, what are you guys playing?

TW series? Please.
CM series? Please also, let that A.I. TRY and attack.
BG/HPS? The less said here the better.
ANY RTS?

Don't misunderstand me, I LOVE aspects of TW, CM, BG and HPS series and have played them BLIND. I just think you're proposing a standard for CoG that, if made normative, would basically leave you gameless and angry.

Maybe it's just my motto now: If you want "I", play a human.

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Cyrano
If a challenging A.I., as it appears to have been defined here, is a sine qua non of purchasing a game, what are you guys playing? ... Don't misunderstand me, I LOVE aspects of TW, CM, BG and HPS series and have played them BLIND. I just think you're proposing a standard for CoG that, if made normative, would basically leave you gameless and angry.

Actually, I've been trying to be abundantly clear throughout these discussions that I love this game; I find it to be refreshingly unique, perplexingly interesting, and a whole lot of fun. I started this thread merely because I was curious if my repeated winnings were a fluke, just the few nations/scenarios I was playing, or if it was a more universal phenomena. With a more complete understanding, I then went on to offer a few suggestions and hope others will as well. The intent was never to disparage the game, but rather to assess the situation and then propose a few suggestions for making a very good game even better.

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: Zap

I said I was rethinking and reading but I lean in favor of the game. Every opinion counts for me. I just don't want it to be another game that sits in my no play pile. Your positive comments help.

The only other game that caused me to use so many brain cells to maintain a grand strategic focus and keep my head out of water is Witp. Witp is a little more complicated but the ai is easier to trick than COG...if you become too powerful they will gang up on you[;)].

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: Zap

I said I was rethinking and reading but I lean in favor of the game. Every opinion counts for me. I just don't want it to be another game that sits in my no play pile. Your positive comments help.

You can win a few battles...but can you win a campaign? I have played quite a few campaigns through and i have seen nations glory skyrocket or plummet, including my own on both counts, so it's not over 'till it's over[:D].

[2gaulle]

If I'm always able to defeat the AI in detailed battle, even with the Turk at a difficult level it’s not the case at the Strategic level.
So now I only use Quick battle. Anyway, the game is as funny with Quick or detailed battle

[strategy]

Don't misunderstand me, I LOVE aspects of TW, CM, BG and HPS series and have played them BLIND. I just think you're proposing a standard for CoG that, if made normative, would basically leave you gameless and angry.

Maybe it's just my motto now: If you want "I", play a human.

Or try to build it yourself (which is my philosophy). [;)]