May Update

[Marshall Ellis]

Hey guys:

Not much to report except that we're PBEM testing and I'm refining the AI to be more of the "I". I realize these updates are redundant and boring so I've decided to add a little spice ...

I've enclosed a picture of our AI generator for the game. Now before you go crazy, WE WILL NOT BE ADDING THIS IN THE GENERAL RELEASE. We may add an abbreviated version later on but I wanted to show you guys how many variables we can tweak and change the game. The AIGEN program loads a project file and allows you to change / add / delete strategies without affecting the code so theorectically the possiblities won't end for our AI companions. The list of strategies are scanned each time a game is started and a strategy is randomly selected based on the nation and difficulty. Strategies can be changed in the middle of the game if the selected strategy is not working.

Enjoy...

[Sonny]

Pretty cool.[8D]

[philjones62]

Thanks for the insight - though France as preferred ally and mortal enemy could get confusing.

[Marshall Ellis]

philjones62:

I was wondering who might catch that LOL! Actually in EiA that's the beauty of the game, Alexander and Napoleon were buddies (At least Alexander thought so) for a while then obviously Alexander became cold towards Napoloen (Another bad joke). I'm, actually experimenting with ways to emulate this (still haven't got it yet) but my point is that in this game, your enemy at the beginning is not always your enemy at the end and the reverse is also true! This is slightly problematic for the AI since most AIs deal with absolutes in the fact that "The Germans are always the enemy to the end". I'm not sure I'll ever be able to properly emulate this dynamic???

Thank you

[philjones62]

I guess if the two are strictly positive, then you could have factors that affect each one and when the difference / ratio reaches critical points, there is a switch (with some randomness). [Have Friends and Enemies of Carlotta.)

Alternatively there could be a second dimension - deepseated emnity that doesn't go away and short term benefits.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

This is slightly problematic for the AI since most AIs deal with absolutes in the fact that "The Germans are always the enemy to the end".

That doesn't sound like AI at all. If it is always one way then where is the I?

As far as the AI is concerned, couldn't care less. I would have prefered you work on TCP/IP instead of an AI, but I understand you need it to sell the game to the masses.

How long does it take to debug this thing? ARGH!!!

[Scoted01]

It would appear to me that the simplest way to handle the AI switching away from one country to another would be to base it on how well the current ally is doing. If they are close to attaining victory I expect you'd want the ally to become nervous and plan on switching to bring them down a peg or two so that they can't win the game, for my experience in the game that is what seems to happen when you have players involved. I expect that would be simple to code, within 10% (or random generated number) of victory level look to switch allegience to known enemy of that country?

[Marshall Ellis]

Neverman:

I would like to be finished as well and it is funny that you ask the question, I would say about 2 years. We will have been testing about that long here soon!

It became apparent after out first testing report that I had bitten off alot. This game is a wolf in sheep's clothing. What does that mean? Well there is only 47 pages in the rule book but every line in every page has several interpretations which creates a programming / testing nightmare.

I seem to remember a saying ... "You cannot feed just one pigeon" which is SOOOOO true here!

I here you loud and clear Neverman, and I'm trying as hard as I can ... just ask my wife

Thank you

[eg0master]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
[...] just ask my wife
[...]

Dear Mrs Marshall Ellis,
Please file for a divorce.
We don't want Mr Marshall Ellis do have anything else but EiA to think about.

Regards
All who wait on the release

[NeverMan]

I understand this game is very complex. I also understand that you guys bit off more than you can chew. The rules for EiA are not exactly cut and dry. I do think you could have simplified things A LOT by waiting to put in EiH or have just made it as an Expansion Pack or something. I mean, if you made EiA as EiA and charged a reasonable 50 for it and I played it and loved it, I wouldn't mind throwing down another 20 or 30 to see some serious additions/subtractions and rules changes (scenario modifications), things like that. I am not sure why you guys didn't consider that an option.

Egomaster: Keep the Wife Marshall, she probably keeps him sane!!

[Pippin]

If they are close to attaining victory I expect you'd want the ally to become nervous and plan on switching to bring them down a peg or two so that they can't win the game, for my experience in the game that is what seems to happen when you have players involved.

I agree. Reminds me back in the day when I used to play with these so called RISK expert players. Every time they would only target the weak, and let the strong guy just grow bigger for some rediculous reason. When I asked why they played in such an odd manner, I was told in RISK it is expert play to go after the weak players and knock them out. Foolish I thought since the weak are not your main concern at all when the guy holding Europe is doubling his size every round. Well they just would not hear anything from a newbie like me. Of course I understand it is a slight advantage to kill someone and grab the cards he is holding but...

As you can maybe guess, the big guy just keeps getting bigger while everyone else squabbers around trying to wipe out the little guys thinking the lesser the players there are, the better chances they have of winning. Yet every time this happens, the big guy at the very end just goes and cleans everyone anyhow. WHAT IS THE POINT!

I am just too stupid for RISK I guess, I adapted to Axis & Allies after that which, while still has its own problems, seems to be quite more stable. And things do not often get explodingly out of control so crazy after round 3 and 4.

[NeverMan]

RISK is for people who want to roll dice and move pieces, I am sure it's fun but it's not for me.

A&A is fun but another silly game. A&A is about having quick fun and chucking A LOT of dice into a box, which generally makes for great fun.

Yeah, I don't understand why in EiA if one player was so close to winning why someone (or hopefully a coalition of someones) wouldn't try to do something about it. That's silly. If someones wins the game ends and it's over.

[ioticus]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

This is slightly problematic for the AI since most AIs deal with absolutes in the fact that "The Germans are always the enemy to the end".

That doesn't sound like AI at all. If it is always one way then where is the I?

As far as the AI is concerned, couldn't care less. I would have prefered you work on TCP/IP instead of an AI, but I understand you need it to sell the game to the masses.

How long does it take to debug this thing? ARGH!!!

Here's my take: do not ship the game before you have a decent AI. If the AI sucks then I won't be buying it. I play computer games so I can play vs. the computer, not vs. a human. If I wanted to do that I'd just play a board game instead (which are much better than computer games for that anyway). If you have to hire another programmer who knows how to program a strong AI (like Roger Keating from SSG), then do so.

[donkuchi19]

Risk and A&A are both fun for one afternoon with a small group. When you want to get serious though, you can't beat EIA.

[ardilla]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Yeah, I don't understand why in EiA if one player was so close to winning why someone (or hopefully a coalition of someones) wouldn't try to do something about it. That's silly. If someones wins the game ends and it's over.

Well, in other boardgames may make no sense...but EiA is different!!
More than one player can win, so if everybody goes against someone is close to winning, then you may have more time to reach the VP needed to win also...

Thats one of the important thinks in a good diplomacy playing, since if someone is far ahead of everybody else can contribuite to change the mind of other players and go for him.

Is excatly what happened in my actual boardgame, GB was far ahead, until reached a point that had more ships than the rest of the map and decided to stay safe at his island, no risking troops in europe vs france and all the rest got mad with him!!

[Hanal]

ORIGINAL: ioticus

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

This is slightly problematic for the AI since most AIs deal with absolutes in the fact that "The Germans are always the enemy to the end".

That doesn't sound like AI at all. If it is always one way then where is the I?

As far as the AI is concerned, couldn't care less. I would have prefered you work on TCP/IP instead of an AI, but I understand you need it to sell the game to the masses.

How long does it take to debug this thing? ARGH!!!

Here's my take: do not ship the game before you have a decent AI. If the AI sucks then I won't be buying it. I play computer games so I can play vs. the computer, not vs. a human. If I wanted to do that I'd just play a board game instead (which are much better than computer games for that anyway). If you have to hire another programmer who knows how to program a strong AI (like Roger Keating from SSG), then do so.

What he said.........

[celebrindal]

I agree. Reminds me back in the day when I used to play with these so called RISK expert players. Every time they would only target the weak, and let the strong guy just grow bigger for some rediculous reason. When I asked why they played in such an odd manner, I was told in RISK it is expert play to go after the weak players and knock them out. Foolish I thought since the weak are not your main concern at all when the guy holding Europe is doubling his size every round. Well they just would not hear anything from a newbie like me. Of course I understand it is a slight advantage to kill someone and grab the cards he is holding but...

As you can maybe guess, the big guy just keeps getting bigger while everyone else squabbers around trying to wipe out the little guys thinking the lesser the players there are, the better chances they have of winning. Yet every time this happens, the big guy at the very end just goes and cleans everyone anyhow. WHAT IS THE POINT!

I am just too stupid for RISK I guess, I adapted to Axis & Allies after that which, while still has its own problems, seems to be quite more stable. And things do not often get explodingly out of control so crazy after round 3 and 4.

Hey I used to be that guy holding europe all the time... shhhss don't give away my secret plan

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: ardilla

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Yeah, I don't understand why in EiA if one player was so close to winning why someone (or hopefully a coalition of someones) wouldn't try to do something about it. That's silly. If someones wins the game ends and it's over.

Well, in other boardgames may make no sense...but EiA is different!!
More than one player can win, so if everybody goes against someone is close to winning, then you may have more time to reach the VP needed to win also...

Thats one of the important thinks in a good diplomacy playing, since if someone is far ahead of everybody else can contribuite to change the mind of other players and go for him.

Is excatly what happened in my actual boardgame, GB was far ahead, until reached a point that had more ships than the rest of the map and decided to stay safe at his island, no risking troops in europe vs france and all the rest got mad with him!!

Sorry, can't tell if you think we are on the same page, but I am pretty sure we are.

GB is tricky, because you really need to plan ahead against him and have a strong naval coalition, or at least a mutual understanding. If GB gets too powerful in the seas and is riding high it's not a bad idea for him to consider sitting tight and Econ. Manipulate. Also, if no one wins then GB wins, which is nice for him. It's up to the other players to make sure GB never gets to that point.

[Pippin]

British players who just sit tight all game expecting to win on the draw, end up risking France obliterating Austria/Prussia/Spain early and finding out the hard way how hard it is to make a dent when it is too late. You also risk a mutual agreement between all players (even those at war with each other) not to trade with you. Suddenly you can not afford the upkeep for those ships out at sea, amoungst manipulation, and other things.

[NeverMan]

That's why you do just enough to make your allies happy, keep France at bay and still make sure that no one is doing too well. It's all in balance and, of course, the players playing the game.

Personally, I don't play GB like that. I always try to play to win. If I am playing Turkey I do a lot of Econ Manip, due to Turkey's low VP total.