Absolutely superb AI

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: LewFisher

Actually, I have printed out the rules books for Matrix's games. I have them binded at Kinko's. Tehy look pretty good.

However, I agree with you I would like to see computer games come out better playtested and with better rules. I would even pay more for the games - say $110.00 instead of $80.00.

I should add, compared to most companies, SSG's games come out well developed with excellent tutorials.

Yes, I've done the same thing with the SSG manuals, printing them out myself, experimenting with paper grades to get the best results and then binding them. Rather silly to go to all that expense but I think this game will last for a while and I can give my manuals to other people as I get them to buy the game. Sort of bribery on my part.

The only thing I'm annoyed about is the changes to the game system from version 1.0 that are not reflected in an updated rulebook. Korsun Pocket would be most annoying for somebody trying to work out a game by reading the detail of the rulebook and then going to play Ver 1.11. Now seeing that the rulebook is in PDF I don't think it unreasonable to correct the errors and make updates when the game mechanics are changed. It could even be downloaded separately form the patch so people don't have to complain about the extra 10 MB size to the patch.

[LewFisher]

For that, you are going to have to ask programmers; but I think the A.I. for SSG's newer games seem to fit the bill?!

[LewFisher]

Yeah, I agree. HPS is very good about upgrading it's rules. Prehaps atrix should do the same.

BTY, if you have played board wargames, they are riddled with rules and map problems and most companies rarely bother to fix their mistakes.

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: LewFisher

For that, you are going to have to ask programmers; but I think the A.I. for SSG's newer games seem to fit the bill?!

Well I think the programmers will be a little biased in this respect since they are being paid in some part for the quality of their product. Just read some of the product descriptions for these type of games. Instead I'd rather seek the opinion of the consumer in this respect of AI quality. Now there is no doubt that BiN does represent a superior AI when compared to, say TOAW. Will all computer hex based wargames have the same or better level of AI ability from now on? Strategic Command 2 is coming out soon and I'm willing to bet in beer.

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: LewFisher

Yeah, I agree. HPS is very good about upgrading it's rules. Prehaps atrix should do the same.

BTY, if you have played board wargames, they are riddled with rules and map problems and most companies rarely bother to fix their mistakes.

It can be hard to keep up with the errata and revisions. I think the ideal answer is a web based rule book which is always up to date and available for printing individual updated pages if you want the hard copy. I would probably burn CD's of the latest version each time an update was made. What is most appealing about this is that it could be hypertexted, but that would cost extra, not that I wouldn't pay if it was for ASL. WiF has a CD version but I have't looked at it yet.

[wodin]

Ive said before I DO play games against others, more than against an AI, read my posts.

I also know OTHERS want to play against an AI so I want an AI for those people.

Have you played Squad BAttles? Or HTTR? or CMBB? I think you will find all these games have an AI that can put up a good fight. Granted we ALL KNOW that an AI is in noway as good as another human HOWEVER at least its there for those who CANT play against another person or who lack the CONFIDENCE to do it.

Do you UNDERSTAND THIS???

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Ive said before I DO play games against others, more than against an AI, read my posts.

I also know OTHERS want to play against an AI so I want an AI for those people.

Have you played Squad BAttles? Or HTTR? or CMBB? I think you will find all these games have an AI that can put up a good fight. Granted we ALL KNOW that an AI is in noway as good as another human HOWEVER at least its there for those who CANT play against another person or who lack the CONFIDENCE to do it.

Do you UNDERSTAND THIS???

So what are you saying? That an AI should be able to defeat the average player 50% of the time? Or perhaps just 25% of the time? Can you give some sort of idea of the win ratio an AI that can put up a good fight should be able to achieve?

[ravinhood]

I wouldn't say that an ai has to win any certain amount of games, but, present a tough challenge, so when the player finishes a scenario or campaign against it, he surely feels satisfied he's been in a fight and not just a one sided checkers game.

That's what I get out of the Combat Mission Series. I'd say I beat it on average 90% of the time giving it perks, but, I definitely feel I have to pull out every trick in the book to do so. I used to could roll up the flanks in Combat Mission Overlord, but, in Barbarossa and Afrika Korp both, they have started planting ai units on the map edges, mainly heavy anti tank guns or infantry guns and sometimes a handful of infantry. This plays hell on my map edge maneuvers and those AT guns are pretty darn accurate with the perks.

It's not the win or lose for me, it's the challenge, how hard it is to win or lose if the case may be. I don't expect an expert player on the other side of the table, just a fairly good challenging one that isn't predictable every single game. RTW has a predictable combat AI, that's why it suffers as a great game to me. Combat Mission doesn't have a predictable ai on defense, though it does on offense. It's not hard to beat the CM ai on offense outnumbered 2 to 1 because it just tries to use always the best means of approach and I just mass up my troups where I know it's coming from and it's like a massacre, fun to watch for a couple of games, after that, it's just too predictable.

I can understand programming the ai to use the best terrain as it approaches a defensive position, but, if it always uses this tactic, it's predictable and easily overcome by just massing the defense units in one spot. So, if anything the offensive approaches of the AI need to be randomized and perhaps sliced into three or more different approaches on a combined assault. Yes, the AI might lose some units to heavy damage in the open, but, losing some is better than losing them all to just "one" approach that is camped out for. Makes it too easy for me to use off board artillery to pound it to death in one spot than if I had to worry about 3 or more.

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

...so when the player finishes a scenario or campaign against it, he surely feels satisfied he's been in a fight and not just a one sided checkers game.

Yes, I agree with you too.

The AI in BiN for me is doing just this - even when it beats me! Which is often.

Other factors which are of importance to me in the way an AI functions are:

1. Lack of cheating.
2. Historically parametered performance.
3. Variety in reponse - ie: little or very well hidden scripting.
4. Ability to "understand" and employ all assets at its disposal.
5. Aggressiveness.
6. Open to and employing bluff.
7. Able to match the style of the commander it is simulating.

BiN impressively is providing all. Especially the latter. There is a HUGE difference in playing against the German AI in the regular "Overlord" campaign and in "Rommel's Plan".

Yesterday for example after getting slaughtered pushing forward in the "Rommel's Plan" I fired up a new game of "Overlord". I tried a new strategy in making Carentan my no. 1 priority.

I can't believe how closely the design mimicked history. Carentan was taken but only 5 turns after the actual achievement made by the 82nd and 101st in reality. Yet, on sitting back on turn 13, the entire west-east frontline pretty much mirrored that of June 12th, 1944, dips, bends and salients and all.

Basically, I was much slower than my Allied counterparts of 1944 - but the reponse of the AI was such to limit my macro gains to historical lengths.

For a while I've wondered whether the ability for the AI to travel from zone to zone amidst my air interdiction and the bocage itself is historical? Reading Zetterling and seeing the actual campaign lines I'm satisfied that what I'm experiencing is very plausible. The "Rommel's Plan" AI response really tests the mettle!

Btw guys and gals, I highly recommend a new book: "The D-Day Atlas: Anatomy of the Normandy Campaign". (Here) Some previously unpublished progress maps with nice close-ups of the action applicable to the individual beaches through the closing of the Falaise gap. Some details on the push into Brittany and to Paris included. Nice, also for providing some brief summaries detailing all divisions involved for those gamers without a comprehensive library. Expensive but cheaper than buying 6 Osprey titles [;)]

Highly recommend this book too if you can find it for a concise, quick, yet very straight-forward and informative read of the campaign's progress (The Normandy Campaign)

Adam.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Prester John

ORIGINAL: wodin

Ive said before I DO play games against others, more than against an AI, read my posts.

I also know OTHERS want to play against an AI so I want an AI for those people.

Have you played Squad BAttles? Or HTTR? or CMBB? I think you will find all these games have an AI that can put up a good fight. Granted we ALL KNOW that an AI is in noway as good as another human HOWEVER at least its there for those who CANT play against another person or who lack the CONFIDENCE to do it.

Do you UNDERSTAND THIS???

So what are you saying? That an AI should be able to defeat the average player 50% of the time? Or perhaps just 25% of the time? Can you give some sort of idea of the win ratio an AI that can put up a good fight should be able to achieve?

You sure like your percentages.

As said above an AI that puts up a challenge like those games mentioned.

See it can be done. Thats what I want. One that puts up a challenge. One that I beat and yet it can beat me. One that I can cut my teeth on first before playing another human. One that when I feel like a quick game solitiare I can and enjoy it too.

Cant put percentages on it mate sorry.

[PresbyterJohn]

I think that with a suitably large sample of play testers you could put a percentage on it. I don't think one person could do this because each time they played the one scenario they would get better and better. Anyway I'm guessing that it would have to be on the order of one in ten, with the ability of the AI to punish mistakes that is important, to meet your requirements for a challenging AI. Otherwise you can goof off as much as you want and still win in the end, it just won't be a maximum points win. Now if one assumes that a win loss ratio of 5-10% is required for an average player to be satisfied by the quality of the AI, how many game AI's measure up to the mark? How much value for money are those games which don't scrape in one or two wins in twenty if the AI is so essential to a computer game?

And does anybody understand why Mr Parker says "That umpire is also known as Fog of War and FOW is best applied via an AI."

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: Prester John

And does anybody understand why Mr Parker says "That umpire is also known as Fog of War and FOW is best applied via an AI."

To give you peace [:)] Context John! The full quote is:

The one thing the computer is giving us, that board gamers have always craved for and I've said it before in this thread, is an umpire. That umpire is also known as Fog of War and FOW is best applied via an AI.

What this means is:

Grognards (war gamers who trully love this hobby - there's another debate for ya!) come to realize that board games where you can see the opponent's set up and every move, isn't realistic in the realms of command. Otherwise, McClellan would not have attacked at Antietam piecemeal and Lee wouldn't have needed Stuart as scout. Therefore what these gamers really crave for is the "fog of war".

The main way to achieve full fog of war other than designs with completely hidden set-ups and movements ala "Stratego" or the 1970's Avalon Hill "Napoleon" is to employ an umpire who maintains a game board separate to the player with everything on it.

But thanks to today's advances in technology, a player can also game against an AI.

So umpires today, are also known as AI's.

NB: Neither my quote or this explanation mention more than 1 player though of course, they are equally attributable to more.

As a side note, it's interesting to see of course that those board games designed purely for solitaire play actually contain these umpires or AI's too. Even the great relatively new "Solitaire Advanced Squad Leader" Otherwise, they couldn't function.

Adam.

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

The one thing the computer is giving us, that board gamers have always craved for and I've said it before in this thread, is an umpire. That umpire is also known as Fog of War and FOW is best applied via an AI.

What this means is:

Grognards (war gamers who trully love this hobby - there's another debate for ya!) come to realize that board games where you can see the opponent's set up and every move, isn't realistic in the realms of command. Otherwise, McClellan would not have attacked at Antietam piecemeal and Lee wouldn't have needed Stuart as scout. Therefore what these gamers really crave for is the "fog of war".

The main way to achieve full fog of war other than designs with completely hidden set-ups and movements ala "Stratego" or the 1970's Avalon Hill "Napoleon" is to employ an umpire who maintains a game board separate to the player with everything on it.

But thanks to today's advances in technology, a player can also game against an AI.

So umpires today, are also known as AI's.

NB: Neither my quote or this explanation mention more than 1 player though of course, they are equally attributable to more.

As a side note, it's interesting to see of course that those board games designed purely for solitaire play actually contain these umpires or AI's too. Even the great relatively new "Solitaire Advanced Squad Leader" Otherwise, they couldn't function.

Adam.

Okay, in case you haven't worked it out, I disagree and think you are wrong. An umpire whoch provides fog-of-war does not need any AI capability. Take a player Vs player game of BiN, which has a reasonable rendition of fog-of-war and therefore gives the effect of an umpired board game. It does not have any AI function in the game. All the actions and movements are directed by the players with no moves attacks or other decisions made by the AI (artificial intelligence).

Umpired games two player board games also have nothing to do with an AI because the umpire makes no decisons, he just rolls the dice and displays the pieces on the maps as appropriate to the rules. The umpire may even roll on random event tables and impliment the results but this is not the function of an AI. The random event table could have some of the features of a programmed AI with triggers and so forth, but the umpire himself is not fulfilling the role of an AI, just implimenting it. If the umpire was required to actively make decisions about moving and attacking then I would agree, but I am not aware of any games with umpires or fog-of-war where somebody other than the two players direct the action in the way that a computer AI does in a player versus computer game. And you can't imply the contrary either, to wit, that a game with an AI therefore has fog-of-war (or umpired features).

Therefore you cannot simply say that fog-of-war or an umpire is AI. This is simply wrong and fog-of-war does not require an AI.

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: Prester John

Okay, in case you haven't worked it out, I disagree...

It's not for me to work out [:)] but I trust you now have peace of mind. Going by your answer though you'll need a few more cracks at reading the post and not in between its lines.

No more soup for you! Come back in one year.

Happy gaming.

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

ORIGINAL: Prester John

Okay, in case you haven't worked it out, I disagree...

It's not for me to work out [:)] but I trust you now have peace of mind. Going by your answer though you'll need a few more cracks at reading the post and not in between its lines.

No more soup for you! Come back in one year.

Happy gaming.

The only thing to read is that you are making definitions up as you go along. An AI is not required for (or called) fog-of-war just because you say so.

I'll try and quote in context.

The main way to achieve full fog of war other than designs with completely hidden set-ups and movements ala "Stratego" or the 1970's Avalon Hill "Napoleon" is to employ an umpire who maintains a game board separate to the player with everything on it.

Yes I accept this completely, no problems at all. But then you go on, or should I say go off.

But thanks to today's advances in technology, a player can also game against an AI.

Yes, once again I accept this completely. Now you join two completely unrelated things together and come up with:

So umpires today, are also known as AI's.

Complete rubbish! The role of an umpire has nothing to do with the role of an AI.

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: Prester John

So umpires today, are also known as AI's.

Complete rubbish! The role of an umpire has nothing to do with the role of an AI.

Conversation of John hotseating against himself with full fog of war:

John: "You moved yet?"
Himself: "Moved what?"

Commercial break: "You've just witnessed John trying to play with himself in a solo umpired war game where only one side gets to move. Not much fun is it? You know the umpire can't make any moves. What you need is the new ACME AI! Umpire and opponent rolled into one".

John: "Thank you ACME. With my new ACME AI it's just like having a live opponent and umpire rolled into one!"
Kids rushing from the street to have a look: "Wow see that? There's full fog of war and the pieces are moving too!"
Kid Number 1: Should we tell Stuie? He's gonna reach puberty before he realizes pieces don't move by themselves when you can't see them."
Kid Number 2: "Unless you have a poltergeist!"
Kid Number 1: "You're weird Fat Herbert."

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

ORIGINAL: Prester John

So umpires today, are also known as AI's.

Complete rubbish! The role of an umpire has nothing to do with the role of an AI.

Conversation of John hotseating against himself with full fog of war:

John: "You moved yet?"
Himself: "Moved what?"

Commercial break: "You've just witnessed John trying to play with himself in a solo umpired war game where only one side gets to move. Not much fun is it? You know the umpire can't make any moves. What you need is the new ACME AI! Umpire and opponent rolled into one".

John: "Thank you ACME. With my new ACME AI it's just like having a live opponent and umpire rolled into one!"
Kids rushing from the street to have a look: "Wow see that? There's full fog of war and the pieces are moving too!"
Kid Number 1: Should we tell Stuie? He's gonna reach puberty before he realizes pieces don't move by themselves when you can't see them."
Kid Number 2: "Unless you have a poltergeist!"
Kid Number 1: "You're weird Fat Herbert."

By all means try and divert attention from the fact that your statement does not make logical sense by making stupid references to contradictory impossible situations. Like I said, you take yourself and your pronouncements way too seriously. You can have a game with an umpire (fog-of-war) and no AI. You can also have a game with an AI and no umpire(fog-of-war).

Now lets stick to something that you can't argue with, BiN itself. Start a game and choose from the following. 1.) Human opponent or Computer, the latter being the AI. And a separate choice is 2.) Hidden Units (fog-of-war or umpire) or Exposed Units.

Now even the slowest on the uptake can appreciate that two separate choices means that AI is not included when you choose fog-of-war, and vice versa. See how in BiN, contrary to your self imposed sillyness, one has a clear choice of playing the AI or another human, regardless of the choice to play with fog-of-war.

Okay, now it's your turn to make more immature puberty jokes (why am I not surprised at the level of your argumentary skills) in the face of undeniable fact and logic from a source you yourself praise.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Prester John

I think that with a suitably large sample of play testers you could put a percentage on it. I don't think one person could do this because each time they played the one scenario they would get better and better. Anyway I'm guessing that it would have to be on the order of one in ten, with the ability of the AI to punish mistakes that is important, to meet your requirements for a challenging AI. Otherwise you can goof off as much as you want and still win in the end, it just won't be a maximum points win. Now if one assumes that a win loss ratio of 5-10% is required for an average player to be satisfied by the quality of the AI, how many game AI's measure up to the mark? How much value for money are those games which don't scrape in one or two wins in twenty if the AI is so essential to a computer game?

And does anybody understand why Mr Parker says "That umpire is also known as Fog of War and FOW is best applied via an AI."

John the things that your missing here is ENJOYMENT & FUN. Its not all about winning or ratio's. If I buy a game and I ENJOY it and its FUN then Im happy. I'm not interetsed that if I beat the AI in your eyes it not a MAXIMUM point win. Who cares. I play a game, I either dont like it or I do. The thing is there are games out there that I really enjoy I have fun, EVEN against the AI. You make out that every game produced is a walk over and you will find many people who disagree. IF a game has an abyismal AI then no one would buy it or if the do it wouldnt be popular. Yet look at the Combat Mission series, it has loads of fans who not only play against another human but also play against the AI.

You only have to read a review by a site like Wargamer or Armchair General to know if the AI is good enough.

By the way I dont GOOF off.

Here is a comprimise. Release a game with no AI. The with either a patch or repackaged release the same game with. They did this with LAser Squad Nemisis I believe. Then were all happy.

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: wodin

John the things that your missing here is ENJOYMENT & FUN. Its not all about winning or ratio's. If I buy a game and I ENJOY it and its FUN then Im happy. I'm not interetsed that if I beat the AI in your eyes it not a MAXIMUM point win. Who cares. I play a game, I either dont like it or I do. The thing is there are games out there that I really enjoy I have fun, EVEN against the AI. You make out that every game produced is a walk over and you will find many people who disagree. IF a game has an abyismal AI then no one would buy it or if the do it wouldnt be popular. Yet look at the Combat Mission series, it has loads of fans who not only play against another human but also play against the AI.

You only have to read a review by a site like Wargamer or Armchair General to know if the AI is good enough.

By the way I dont GOOF off.

Here is a comprimise. Release a game with no AI. The with either a patch or repackaged release the same game with. They did this with LAser Squad Nemisis I believe. Then were all happy.

Firstly I'm sorry, I didn't mean you specifically, I meant a general "you" (including me) and goof off was meaning that you (general) can try all the stupid pet tricks you want knowing that you can't lose the game against the AI.

Now you are saying that the ability of the AI to play well and possibly win is not important. Is this correct?

Also you say that if a game has an abysmal AI nobody will buy it, implying that a fantastic multiplayer counts for nothing. Is this correct?

Also you say that you don't care if everytime you play the AI you get a win with maximum points. Is this correct?

I just want to be sure about your position in relationship to these points before I make my next point about the relative value the AI contributes to a multiplayer computer game.

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: Prester John

...making stupid references... you take yourself and your pronouncements way too seriously... even the slowest on the uptake... your self imposed sillyness... immature puberty jokes (why am I not surprised at the level of your argumentary skills).

[:D]

Anyway, they've even got that commercial playing on cable now. "Thank you ACME. With my new ACME AI it's just like having a live opponent and umpire rolled into one!" Mmm. Maybe another hint needed here. "Don't feel the absolute, Luke".

How about getting this thread back O/T. Though its been great fun [8|] BiN offers something that is unique in wargame campaign play and this praise deserves to stand alone. A solid AI experience. Keep 'em coming SSG.

Happy trails in the general forum John.