Matrix Games Forums

I did own the boardgame although we didnt play it very much (difficult to get people to make the time commitment), so i now what im talking about. Of course its possible to make an AI that can handle it (look at the Civilization series which has excellent AI).

The thing is that around the EIA community people are starting to hint at excuses that the AI was never supposed to be anything other than for training purposes. Well, If that will be the case for WIF it should be stated so very clearly in my opinion.

I do understand that the best boardgameplayers will beat the AI and that there should still be room for improvement when the game is released, but it would be relly sad to discover that the game has an beginners AI when released and then to be forced to wait maybe another year for a "maybe better AI".

A computergame without an functioning AI will always be at most 40 % of a finished computer game, at least in my book.

The thing is that around the EIA community people are starting to hint at excuses that the AI was never supposed to be anything other than for training purposes. Well, If that will be the case for WIF it should be stated so very clearly in my opinion.

Had I known this about EIA, I'd have not purchased it. I am already planning to wait on WIF to see if it has a decent AI before I will buy it. This is quite a change from being ready to preorder it when the first announcement came out. I've been burned by things that I found distasteful in several games lately. I also believe that I will need to see a demo to convince me now.

This is not directed at anyone in particular... It is just an observation.  I hope that we can all keep the appropriate perspective.
 
I have been following both forums (EIA and WIF) for several years.

From my point of view, the EIA community complained and complained and complained about slow release until there was enough pressure to force a release before it was ready.  I understand that the development team and testors felt it was ready but obviously their focus was multiplayer for those who understood the game.  (Again, they caterered to the vocal elements of the community)
 
It is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that Steve is approaching the development of WIF from a different perspective than the EIA team.    This is not a slam against anyone, but is simply an observation.
 
It is also noteworthy that the pressure by the WIF forum community to release is not as great as it was with EIA.
 
WIF is one of the best wargames I have ever played.  It has one drawback--- it is so big as to be cumbersome to play.

MWIF will address that issue whether there is an 'acceptable' AI or not.
 
Programmers are notorious for being optimistic.  If not, we would never start some of the projects we attempt.
 
In my opinion, the following things will happen.
 
1.  Steve will work hard on creating an AI that will be (at least) useful for beginning players and casual play.
2.  Steve will attempt to create an AI that will be competitive for expert players
3.  The AI will improve after release IF there are enough sales to warrant continued development.
4.  After release, imbalance issues due to RAW (rules as written) will be exposed and the AI will take the initial blame for some of those.
5.  Innovative players will find 'secret knocks' that will allow them to whip the AI like a rented mule
6.  Steve will fix them IF there are enough sales to warrant continued development
7.  There will be vocal elements of the community that will claim 'foul' because they want the AI to be as polished as Deep Blue (IBM's chess program)
8.  If Steve is successful in points 1, 2, 3, and 6, the same vocal elements of the community will claim that the AI cheats.
 
and finally....
 
Steve will have moved heaven and earth to create something wonderful and if we are not careful, a few loud voices will prevent the continuation of development and the additions of Days Of Decision (a very wonderful addition, IMO). 
 
When the time comes, we need to remember how hard it was to learn to play this game well.  We need to remember, that an AI is nothing more than a computer program.  We need to realize that this game has so many exceptions to rules and fluid situations that a savvy player may always be able to outsmart the AI with feints, gambits, and such. 
 
We need to realize that if Steve accomplishes point 2 from above, that he will deserve to be installed as a minor deity in the pantheon of computer programmers.
 
Don't fault him for attempting the insanely difficult with an inadequate budget of time and money.  If it weren't for people like Steve, Marshall, and the folks at matrix games, we would have little or no option to pushing cardboard when we want our wargaming fix.  Vassal will never have an AI.  Cyberboard will never have an AI. 
 
For the record, I bought Empires in Arms the day it was released.  I have not been able to play it because (having never played the board game) I am lost.  Someday, I hope to find the time to study the tutorial and gain some understanding of the game.
 
BUT - I am not complaining.  Every now and then, we have to vote with our wallets to encourage private industry to attempt new things.
 
I will do the same with WIF.
 
I encourage others who feel the same way to be vocal as well.  Our opinions are valid too.
 
Good Luck Steve!!!!
 
 
 
Remember - anyone who wants may participate in the AI threads.  I haven't because I was never any good at this game.  What few things I felt I could add were covered already by others.
 
Have a nice day!
 
 

Why keep comparing EiA to WiF?

These are TWO totally different games. If you have to compare them at all, then the "difficulty" factor goes to EiA by far. EiA is a much more complex (and when I say that word I mean it in a strategical sense) game, thus making the AI much, much, much more difficult due to the diplomacy factor.

This is just my opinion. I hope MWiF is good, I'm sure I will buy it when NetPlay is adapted. PBEM is unacceptable for this type of game, IMO (and I think 1v1 WiF games are boring), it's bad enough for EiA.

Please God, don't release this until it is absolutely, completely, totally playable.
 
Please make sure the AI works well enough to give a solo player a good game.
 
Please, oh please don't drop another EiA on us.
 
 
 
GSB

ORIGINAL: Grapeshot Bob

Please God, don't release this until it is absolutely, completely, totally playable.

Please make sure the AI works well enough to give a solo player a good game.

Please, oh please don't drop another EiA on us.



GSB

Ok.

I'm encouraged by my reading and the screen shots on here that this is much more playable than EIA was at release.

WiF is a much simpler game than EiA, so that shouldn't be a problem I wouldn't think. EiA is complex and not nearly as straightforward as WiF.

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

This is not directed at anyone in particular... It is just an observation.  I hope that we can all keep the appropriate perspective.

I have been following both forums (EIA and WIF) for several years.

From my point of view, the EIA community complained and complained and complained about slow release until there was enough pressure to force a release before it was ready.  I understand that the development team and testors felt it was ready but obviously their focus was multiplayer for those who understood the game.  (Again, they caterered to the vocal elements of the community)

It is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that Steve is approaching the development of WIF from a different perspective than the EIA team.    This is not a slam against anyone, but is simply an observation.

It is also noteworthy that the pressure by the WIF forum community to release is not as great as it was with EIA.

WIF is one of the best wargames I have ever played.  It has one drawback--- it is so big as to be cumbersome to play.

MWIF will address that issue whether there is an 'acceptable' AI or not.

Programmers are notorious for being optimistic.  If not, we would never start some of the projects we attempt.

In my opinion, the following things will happen.

1.  Steve will work hard on creating an AI that will be (at least) useful for beginning players and casual play.
2.  Steve will attempt to create an AI that will be competitive for expert players
3.  The AI will improve after release IF there are enough sales to warrant continued development.
4.  After release, imbalance issues due to RAW (rules as written) will be exposed and the AI will take the initial blame for some of those.
5.  Innovative players will find 'secret knocks' that will allow them to whip the AI like a rented mule
6.  Steve will fix them IF there are enough sales to warrant continued development
7.  There will be vocal elements of the community that will claim 'foul' because they want the AI to be as polished as Deep Blue (IBM's chess program)
8.  If Steve is successful in points 1, 2, 3, and 6, the same vocal elements of the community will claim that the AI cheats.

and finally....

Steve will have moved heaven and earth to create something wonderful and if we are not careful, a few loud voices will prevent the continuation of development and the additions of Days Of Decision (a very wonderful addition, IMO). 

When the time comes, we need to remember how hard it was to learn to play this game well.  We need to remember, that an AI is nothing more than a computer program.  We need to realize that this game has so many exceptions to rules and fluid situations that a savvy player may always be able to outsmart the AI with feints, gambits, and such. 

We need to realize that if Steve accomplishes point 2 from above, that he will deserve to be installed as a minor deity in the pantheon of computer programmers.

Don't fault him for attempting the insanely difficult with an inadequate budget of time and money.  If it weren't for people like Steve, Marshall, and the folks at matrix games, we would have little or no option to pushing cardboard when we want our wargaming fix.  Vassal will never have an AI.  Cyberboard will never have an AI. 

For the record, I bought Empires in Arms the day it was released.  I have not been able to play it because (having never played the board game) I am lost.  Someday, I hope to find the time to study the tutorial and gain some understanding of the game.

BUT - I am not complaining.  Every now and then, we have to vote with our wallets to encourage private industry to attempt new things.

I will do the same with WIF.

I encourage others who feel the same way to be vocal as well.  Our opinions are valid too.

Good Luck Steve!!!!



Remember - anyone who wants may participate in the AI threads.  I haven't because I was never any good at this game.  What few things I felt I could add were covered already by others.

Have a nice day!

Samurai: I could not have put it any better if I tried. Steve is putting effort on this project that I believe should go down as one of the great computer game if not the greatest computer game accomplishments of all time. I think it is worthy to note for all of you, that I am quite certain he knows it too. So we all have to trust him on this because he has a lot to gain here in making such a game as this. If everything goes as planned(even if it takes more years) he will be the envy of the pc world. Make no mistake, he is going to deliver and BIG for us!

IMHO, the good thing about the EiA problems, is that Matrix can learn from that going forward in relation to WiF. If it takes an extra 6 months or year, so be it. I am sure the silent majority of us would be much happier.