Playing against Co-pilot AI - reflections
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2026 12:17 pm
Recently I managed to get an old favourite of my running on my laptop, SSG's Battles in Italy. It's a 20+ year-old game, but one of the best wargame systems ever devised, in my opinion.
Having booted the game up, I was face with the problem of an opponent. The in-build computer opponent is tactically devious, but ignores crucial aspects of the game (like divisional integrity bonuses), and more importantly never really has the semblance of an overarching strategy.
So I decided to try using modern AI as an opponent. First I used Google Gemini free version, which was interesting but ultimately felt a bit formulaic and limited. Next I used my work MS Copilot (CP) enterprise account, and I thought I would relate the results...
In the following, I will freely anthropomorphize CP, as it is simply the easiest way to describe this uncanny experience. In doing so, I'm aware of course that CP doesn't necessarily think or plan anything, it's computation... and yet the experience was very nearly that of a human opponent.
Since CP can't access the app directly, the way I did it was to start a 2-player game, both as human. I uploaded the game manual to CP at the beginning, and it absorbed it borg-like in about 3 seconds. It even ventured to summarize to me some of the salient game features, including things that the system didn't have, like separate movement and combat phases.
Once I had done that, I took a few screenshots of the game, uploaded those to the CP chat, and asked for its order. We agreed that CP would give general direction, and I would handle tactical execution on its behalf. Sometime, I would ask for clarification or follow-up instructions in the middle of CP's turn. This ended up working out very well.
We are playing Operation Husky, and the broad outline went something like this:
Turns 1-4: Standard Allied landing, with CP in charge. Cautious expansion of the Allied bridgehead, and development of a clear CP strategy that involved US forces driving NE towards Catania, while holding in the west and in the Enna sector.
Turn 5: With HG Panzer division and most of the rest of the powerful German forces, I struck pre-emptively at UK 5th Division on the coast, wrecking it. CP withdrew the Brits, and articulated a view that, while this was a setback, CP also now knew where my main forces were, and that this opened up an opportunity for the US front, which it started driving hard with.
Turns 5-6: US forces close up to the river line in the western bit of Catania plains, while UK licks their wounds and resumes careful movement forward.
Turns 7-10: I launched a surprise attack using some reserve and light Italian forces against his thin screen in the west around Agrigento, followed by a powerful attack by HG Panzer division through the mountains towards Gela. CP recognised the threat and responded creatively, but intentionally refused to be diverted from his main punch against the Catania area. Up there, the US force crossed a river and established a 2-hex bridgehead, which I finally repelled with heavy losses on both sides. The Brits, with very strong artillery support, have begun methodically pushing back my defenders on the coast. We're now back to the Primosole bridge proper, and I have no confidence I can hold this line firmly here. My HG attack nearly reached the coast between Gela and Licata, but a scratch force of US troops cut off and destroyed a regiment of HG Panzer-Grenadiers. The game is on a knife-edge.
Couple of observations about how CP engages, both strategically and conversationally. (Again, I recognize I'm anthropomorphising here!):
1) CP has a clear strategic set of objectives, which it will constantly adjust, but will not abandon lightly. It carries forth plans over multiple turns, recognises strategic threats, and is constantly assessing the strategic balance on various fronts.
2) CP gives good clear directions, in a format we agreed and can modify over time. I asked it to structure its orders by division, starting in the west and moving east, and it is doing this flawlessly each turn.
3) CP is drawing on historical knowledge of the campaign. It knows who the generals on each side are, the relative capabilities in general of individual divisions and the nations involved, etc. - all without me explaining any of this.
4) CP is suggestible to an extent, but will not do stupid things. On several occasions, I asked it (in good faith, given it doesn't have direct access to the app) for clarification on its intent, with additional information about combat odds or the CRT or terrain etc. given. It responds to these prompts thoughtfully, sometimes accepting the implicit advice but sometimes not. CP presents as courteous and engaged, complimentary but not quite sychophantic. Sometimes close.
5) A bit annoyingly, it tends to answer prompts or questions at great length. This is good when it is giving me detailed orders on what to do during its turn. But sometimes I'll ask for clarification on its intent for one unit or the other, or I make a short aside, and I'll get six paragraphs of explanation rather than the 2 sentences that are actually called for.
6) CP presents as very thoughful, deliberate in its strategy, and gives the impression of mental and emotional engagement to an uncanny extent - often saying it was surprised, or relieved, or it has this or that in mind, etc. It offers insightful reflections, encouragement, and injects little bits of unexpected colour into its narrative. Stuff like "Patton is about to get a very unpleasent call from Agrigento!" sort of thing.
7) Most interestingly, I found playing CP so close to playing a human that in my own head, I am reviewing strategies and planning my next moves just as intently as I would for a PBEM game - and I have never had that experience against a computer opponent before.
There are downsides of course. Because CP can't access the app, I am entering all its moves, and so by necessity I am playing the tactical minutae largely for CP, with CP responsible generally for the overarch of force allocation, overall strategy, casualty tolerance, pace, etc. And because I'm playing both sides, there isn't perfect fog-of-war, though I do my best to "firewall" off my knowledge of Allied positions and intentions.
Having booted the game up, I was face with the problem of an opponent. The in-build computer opponent is tactically devious, but ignores crucial aspects of the game (like divisional integrity bonuses), and more importantly never really has the semblance of an overarching strategy.
So I decided to try using modern AI as an opponent. First I used Google Gemini free version, which was interesting but ultimately felt a bit formulaic and limited. Next I used my work MS Copilot (CP) enterprise account, and I thought I would relate the results...
In the following, I will freely anthropomorphize CP, as it is simply the easiest way to describe this uncanny experience. In doing so, I'm aware of course that CP doesn't necessarily think or plan anything, it's computation... and yet the experience was very nearly that of a human opponent.
Since CP can't access the app directly, the way I did it was to start a 2-player game, both as human. I uploaded the game manual to CP at the beginning, and it absorbed it borg-like in about 3 seconds. It even ventured to summarize to me some of the salient game features, including things that the system didn't have, like separate movement and combat phases.
Once I had done that, I took a few screenshots of the game, uploaded those to the CP chat, and asked for its order. We agreed that CP would give general direction, and I would handle tactical execution on its behalf. Sometime, I would ask for clarification or follow-up instructions in the middle of CP's turn. This ended up working out very well.
We are playing Operation Husky, and the broad outline went something like this:
Turns 1-4: Standard Allied landing, with CP in charge. Cautious expansion of the Allied bridgehead, and development of a clear CP strategy that involved US forces driving NE towards Catania, while holding in the west and in the Enna sector.
Turn 5: With HG Panzer division and most of the rest of the powerful German forces, I struck pre-emptively at UK 5th Division on the coast, wrecking it. CP withdrew the Brits, and articulated a view that, while this was a setback, CP also now knew where my main forces were, and that this opened up an opportunity for the US front, which it started driving hard with.
Turns 5-6: US forces close up to the river line in the western bit of Catania plains, while UK licks their wounds and resumes careful movement forward.
Turns 7-10: I launched a surprise attack using some reserve and light Italian forces against his thin screen in the west around Agrigento, followed by a powerful attack by HG Panzer division through the mountains towards Gela. CP recognised the threat and responded creatively, but intentionally refused to be diverted from his main punch against the Catania area. Up there, the US force crossed a river and established a 2-hex bridgehead, which I finally repelled with heavy losses on both sides. The Brits, with very strong artillery support, have begun methodically pushing back my defenders on the coast. We're now back to the Primosole bridge proper, and I have no confidence I can hold this line firmly here. My HG attack nearly reached the coast between Gela and Licata, but a scratch force of US troops cut off and destroyed a regiment of HG Panzer-Grenadiers. The game is on a knife-edge.
Couple of observations about how CP engages, both strategically and conversationally. (Again, I recognize I'm anthropomorphising here!):
1) CP has a clear strategic set of objectives, which it will constantly adjust, but will not abandon lightly. It carries forth plans over multiple turns, recognises strategic threats, and is constantly assessing the strategic balance on various fronts.
2) CP gives good clear directions, in a format we agreed and can modify over time. I asked it to structure its orders by division, starting in the west and moving east, and it is doing this flawlessly each turn.
3) CP is drawing on historical knowledge of the campaign. It knows who the generals on each side are, the relative capabilities in general of individual divisions and the nations involved, etc. - all without me explaining any of this.
4) CP is suggestible to an extent, but will not do stupid things. On several occasions, I asked it (in good faith, given it doesn't have direct access to the app) for clarification on its intent, with additional information about combat odds or the CRT or terrain etc. given. It responds to these prompts thoughtfully, sometimes accepting the implicit advice but sometimes not. CP presents as courteous and engaged, complimentary but not quite sychophantic. Sometimes close.
5) A bit annoyingly, it tends to answer prompts or questions at great length. This is good when it is giving me detailed orders on what to do during its turn. But sometimes I'll ask for clarification on its intent for one unit or the other, or I make a short aside, and I'll get six paragraphs of explanation rather than the 2 sentences that are actually called for.
6) CP presents as very thoughful, deliberate in its strategy, and gives the impression of mental and emotional engagement to an uncanny extent - often saying it was surprised, or relieved, or it has this or that in mind, etc. It offers insightful reflections, encouragement, and injects little bits of unexpected colour into its narrative. Stuff like "Patton is about to get a very unpleasent call from Agrigento!" sort of thing.
7) Most interestingly, I found playing CP so close to playing a human that in my own head, I am reviewing strategies and planning my next moves just as intently as I would for a PBEM game - and I have never had that experience against a computer opponent before.
There are downsides of course. Because CP can't access the app, I am entering all its moves, and so by necessity I am playing the tactical minutae largely for CP, with CP responsible generally for the overarch of force allocation, overall strategy, casualty tolerance, pace, etc. And because I'm playing both sides, there isn't perfect fog-of-war, though I do my best to "firewall" off my knowledge of Allied positions and intentions.
