Potential purchase....How is the AI?

[tevans6220]

Sorry in advance if this topic has already been discussed but I'm interested in purchasing this game and was wondering how well the AI plays. I'm not really interested in PvP so the computer opponent has to at least be able to give me a challenge. Will this game fill my WW2 hunger or should I look elsewhere?

[Tordenskiold]

Hi, I find the AI satisfactory in many ways, but are a little surprised by the bold but stupid attacks from the Western Allies on German occupied France. The Allies do not take the longer but safer way via North Africa and Italy to tie up Axis troops before Overlord. I am plying without the patches so this might have been adjusted.
I like the game but have not played as the Allies.

[lparkh]

I've been contemplating a purchase for some time as well. The general scuttlebutt in this forum however has been that the AI is weak. The design is getting a fair amount of praise though. An alternative design that has been around long enough for AI to really mature is Strategic Command Weapons and Warfare expansion. The AI is quite good there, though not as good as a human. Near term might want to consider trying it's demo (won't show the AI that well but still) and perhaps this game for the longer term.

[firepowerjohan]

There is some inflation when it comes to difficulty levels and AI also and many other games give the AI significant advantages and different rules to follow even on the "normal" difficulty levels. CEAW is consistent and does not try to create a sense of a smart human opponent by giving it hidden helps. So, comparing a "normal" difficulty on CEAW to "normal" diffculty on some other game might not tell the whole story [:)]

[TheHellPatrol]

If you loved Panzer General it's a must buy! The AI does a fair job in all areas EXCEPT the Middle East/North Africa. You can give the AI an edge for more of a challenge but the main point is "is it fun?" This game is Hellafun![8D], although after 30-40 hours you may get a been there, done that feeling...[:)].

[Ola Berli]

This is an excellent game. I would highly recommend it. It is also stable.

[Shawkhan]

The game is very historical if you play the 1944 scenario. As you play earlier years in the war, you have more chances to correct historical mistakes made by one side or the other. Everyone here who complains about the AI does so it seems while playing the 1939 war start which gives the German human player a HUGE advantage over the AI. Even Winston Churchill, when told about the Allies' plans to assassinate Hitler ordered it cancelled, as Hitler was acknowledged to be winning the war for the Allies!
I would like to see how players here do in the 1942 or 1943 scenarios where the North African situation is adequately handled by the AI and players can't build up such a huge ahistorical advantage. Myself, I have yet to win the war in any start after 1941, but I am still trying.

[Lucky1]

I hate to rain on the parade (because I sooo wished for this game to be good), but I found the AI to be VERY weak. As noted by others, the AI was very poor in the Med. Well, I would also add that the AI was VERY poor on the Western front. It would seem that the AI only attempts landings in the Belgium and Normandy areas -- I left almost all the Med ungarrisoned and simply filled each beach hex in France and Belgium with Italian troops. Similarly, Russia declared war on Germany when she was clearly not ready. Yawn. The allied transports piled up in the channel and were easy fodder for my airforce. This was in my first and last game against the AI where I thrashed them without ever reading the manual. Furthermore, if your goal is to play vs. the comp there is also the issue of interminable waits while the computer does its turn. They are excessive, and often were up to 3-4 minutes. Indeed, they are why I would never play the game vs. AI again. So, I cannot recommend this game for computer play. However, I think it would be quite entertaining vs. human opponents. So, if you think this is what you will pursue, it would be a decent purchase....
 
It is hoped that a patch might allow players to disable "watching" the computer turn (especially tedious if FOW is on). This is possible in Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided and speeds things up immeasurably. Then it might make computer play a bit more tolerable....

[wargamer123]

The game looks good, SC2 was good. Civ3 and Civ4 were good but not MultiPlayer quality too much game engine not enough practically for that type of play. Even in that million dollar title the AI sucks rear end, and I'll tell the truth all AI is given Steriods to compete and that's that.. The best Strategy Game AI is Civ as far as I've seen and there is no point to it. You will get bored with it and fall asleep the only fun is doing what you do differently. The difference between a human and an AI, is the Human will think, retrace his steps, perfect his path and the AI will simply react to whatever the dumb human does...
 
There is no point to buying a game for a good AI, there is however a point to buying a game with a good PBEM community and is a good IP game... IMO
 
However I doubt CEAW is any different than SC2-WAW...Which I played, and would defeat if not the first game within a few games. Once you know the engine you win...Period, in GOA I won the 2nd game I played, and the 1st game I played would've been a partial AI victory because I tripped on my own moves!

[KarlXII]

I regret my purchase of CEAW for single player experience only. However it is a very good multiplayer game. But to answer your question I think the AI is quite poor.
 
For all who says it is impossible to make a human AI they are right but they assume that the AI in CEAW is the best there is in the market, which it isn´t.

[wargamer123]

karl
 
it's just tough, civ ai is the hardest i've ever faced. there is none better for a tile or hex game I've seen since. what civ does is just what all these games are doing now, gives the AI a lot more aggressive behavoir and a lot more resources or less to the human player. so they don't win by skill but by cheating
 
i think the focus on these games should be toward matchmaking, AIs are meant for the learning time and to have a hack it for about a week

[KarlXII]

wargamer123

Civ has a decent AI but it has its shortcomings (like a town growing from a settler to a point 2 city with one or two defense units from one turn to the next). But it is unfair to compare Civ AI with CEAW since Civ is so much more advanced so it would be harder to give Civ a better AI. Civ is decent in gathering troops and moving them together prior to attacking or making war, can make unexpected landings anywhere and generally hold on into good defense terrain hexes etc. CEAW does only have to take the military part into consideration and while the strategical side is its weakest part it is in its tactical performance I see it lack quite obviously. It is not aggressive enough, does not try to surround you enough, does not follow up attacks enough etc etc. Panzer General had a better AI so why couldn´t the AI in CEAW be improved ? It was never intended to prioritize single player mode in the first hand and so the engine is not really up to it. That is my guess. As a multiplayer game it is excellent tough.

For the strategical part it is a joke that it doesn´t take the Mediterraneian or North Africa into accound at all. Whats the reason to have these landmasses in the game in the first place ? And why can we expect the Allied AI to land in Normandy all the time when Italy, South of France and the whole Axis Mediterranean could be undefended at the same time ? Why trying to make a land if all the coast hexes are occupied by cheap axis forces ? Why not try to land elsewhere ?

Your reasoning is like what I might expect if this was 1982 and the first strategy game was for C-64. Things have moved forward. Excellent strategy games have been released since then with a varied ability of the AI. The good examples show that you can do a more REACTIVE AI than what we see in CEAW. Stop defending CEAW as being a reference for a good AI game. It isn´t!

"AIs are meant for the learning time and to have a hack it for about a week"

This is quite a weak amibiton for a game in todays standard. I guess that statement often comes from board wargamers that only see a strategy game on the computer for the benefit of it taking care of all die-rolls and nothing more.

I understand the AI has to cheat on higher levels regarding production and research.
Tactically it should however be possible to produce a good AI. Look at Korsun Pocket, Battle for Italy etc. CEAW is not reactive enough today. I feel the AI is restriced in its abilities to change strategy at all. If it fails to land in Normandy with huge losses, does it try another way ? Does it try to invade Norway or Denmark ? Spain ? Italy ? etc etc ? I´ve just seen a steamroller tactic so far that only moves towards its pre-written goals - totally unaffected about the situation at hand. Scripted AI is what I hate.

[IainMcNeil]

The AI is actually totally unscripted. It is all dynamic, but obviously there is room for improvement.

[firepowerjohan]

I must dement the speculation that CEAW was not built for single player, that is something we have never said or claimed. We have done everything we could to try making all game modes as good as possible.

[emcgman]

Any plans to upgrade the AI?

CEAW is an awesome game design.

Are you planning any other releases, like Pacific Theatre or Entire World?

[paologvn]

Hi,
I bought CEaW few weeks ago, and I have completed three complete games with the Axis player, in different difficulty levels. The rating after 3 games (against AI) is surely favourable and I think i will play again the game, also as the Allies player. But...
Some indication on AI behaviour:

1. The British Fleets in the Meditteranean Sea sleep for the entire game, and never try to intercept the traffic between Italy and North Africa and react only on italian direct assault (even if more powerful).
2. A weak italian Army (1 armoured, 1 motorized 4 infantry corps supported with one figther and 1 tac bomber wing) can overrun British forces in western desert, conquer the Egypt, go over Lebanon and occupy Iraq and Persia with their oil reserves. The Allies don't seriously react and only garrison units resist against the invasion.
3. Garrisons units are evidently not necessary. After the occupation of a Country the invader should not leave any unit in the conquered land (no revolts and partisans appeared only if the country is actually at war). This is not realistic (expecially if the invader is the Axis player). What's more, the Allies don't try to invade the uncontrolled country (I left France and Belgium without any garrison in '41, '42 an '43 but no invasion was attempted by the Allies.
4. Sometimes some Soviet Units perform a counter attack that can infiltrate deeply the german line but in most cases it ends in a kamikaze attack without great consequences.
5. Unfortunatly the designers decided not to put railways on the map, so the partisan units (as happened in AH Russian Campaign f.e.) cannot block the traffic (and this would be a problem for the german). So you only need to have some units to intercept partisans and destroy them.

I think that is enough, and, after all, I think that the game is a good game and worth the money. paologvn

[Krasny]

AI is handy for practice, but the main attraction is MP.

[ArborisMatrix]

ORIGINAL: emcgman
Any plans to upgrade the AI?

emcgman asked this question back in January. Has there been any word from Slitherine on this subject?

It really disturbs me that the AI does not take the Mediterraneian or North Africa into account. Has this issue been resolved?

[panzers]

I realize all the definciencies with the AI and they do seem to be a little anhistorical, but have any of you tried the hardest level where your readiness level never exceeds 65%?
That forces the axis to attack, attack, attack because there is hardly any income while the russians are busy with their near 200 production transports.