Matrix Games Forums

I think many of us hoping for a decent Napoleonic wargame made a foray into the fast-clicking world of Cossacks...only to be disappointed by the game itself. But heck, it was a diversion, and it's server was a great place to find opponents and whack out some quick gaming.

I'm really enjoying this game, but I can't imagine waiting for a week to see what happens next. Honestly, I think this game has too much going on for PBEM. And, the AI just does too many foolish things, like marching an army or two of a few hundred thousand men with no depots in their wakes through mile after mile of country so the troops disappear by starvation, to make it challenging in the long run.

So, Matrix and or Western, could you please grant us a tcp/ip server like Cossacks had? A place where a warmonger can go and find others around the globe without the neccessity of making dates and plans. A place where you can find opponents despite the time zone you're in. This game is so great for instant gratification. I can't imagine that a server like that could do anything but bring up sales and popularity.

Anybody else with me on this?

I will never rush myself into finding opponents across broadband or via email, as long as the majority (if not all) of significant and annoying anomalies in the game stick on. Nonetheless, I trust the programmers will put them right not long after.

ORIGINAL: Naomi

I will never rush myself into finding opponents across broadband or via email, as long as the majority (if not all) of significant and annoying anomalies in the game stick on. Nonetheless, I trust the programmers will put them right not long after.

I've never seen a team of developers who have put so much into answering and addressing our concerns. I'm certain that in a short time, this game will be everything that we Napoleonic wargame lovers could desire.

I am sure the AI problems will get tweaked as time progresses. Writting a decent AI takes allot, and ussualy you have to make mistaces to learn from them.

It amazing to see that the question was about a tcp/ip server and the answers about .... AI !
I think it's called "off-topic" ....

Actuly it was a loaded question, the question was about the server, duo to the shortcommings of playing the computer AI. It left itself open to both subjects.

ORIGINAL: ahauschild

Actuly it was a loaded question, the question was about the server, duo to the shortcommings of playing the computer AI. It left itself open to both subjects.

It's a sign of how we are obsessed with AI.

Wouldn't an additional folder called "online players wanted" work as well when combined with the Matrix chat?

I've said this a bunch here abouts, but I really think it bears repeating.

The quest for "good", "solid", "decent", "challenging" or whatever undefinably vague term you care to use A.I. is a chimera, at least in the short-term. For the here and now we're doomed, I fear, to an endless cycle of gamers hoping against hope that THIS one will be the challenge they've so long wanted, only to be again disappointed as, yep, humans prove "smarter" than the machines they program. I think this is vainglorious on the part of the humans -- some of whom take great pride in posting their devastating wins over a demonstrably inferior opponent -- and wildly unfair to the developers trying to give us new thinking-toys in a market where thinking is not a particularly coveted commodity.

The PBEM I'm in is a real hoot. A very cool experience indeed. It is made so a) by the HUMANS with which I'm playing and b) by the game that makes our interface possible and regulable (probably on a word, that.)

I should note that Matrix has set aside an "Opponents Wanted" folder at the top of this very forum. Still, I find it hard to imagine folks playing this TCP/IP if they're not in the same room. I'm just getting too old to wait for the "other guy" to crank out his turn and THEN resolve his detailed combats.

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

Hi, IN TCP/IP all the player give orders at the same time. When the last player is done the turn runs. It is faster then hotseat or PBEM.
After a rather long (for all players) turn 1 the game zooms.

The quest for "good", "solid", "decent", "challenging" or whatever undefinably vague term you care to use A.I. is a chimera, at least in the short-term. For the here and now we're doomed, I fear, to an endless cycle of gamers hoping against hope that THIS one will be the challenge they've so long wanted, only to be again disappointed as, yep, humans prove "smarter" than the machines they program. I think this is vainglorious on the part of the humans -- some of whom take great pride in posting their devastating wins over a demonstrably inferior opponent -- and wildly unfair to the developers trying to give us new thinking-toys in a market where thinking is not a particularly coveted commodity.

While all this may be true, it certainly doesn't seem "vainglorious" to expect the A/I to not do certain foolish things that ensure it is defeated: attacking madly with unsupported cavalry; continualy attacking a strongly defended territory with the same army that is smaller and smaller each time; never forming any kind of mutually supporting battle line to make use of the period's combined arms tactics, etc...

Folks don't need A/I that is as smart as a human, but folks do need A/I that is fun to play against.

I think most will agre with that point. There is certain levels of AI we expect. We dont expect the Novel price AI, we do expect that simple basic fundamendal things are done correctly.

Just alone the fact when they route or disorder. It seems to me they are doing a random dance in front of my units. When in fact they should pick a direction away from the enemy, that will hopefully take them out of line of sight.

The examples are plenty. But I do believe they will try to improve it, so I am content to wait for it at the moment.

@Malagant: It's interesting. I have no quibbles of note with the first paragraph of your post. I'm not a big "against the A.I." guy, but those suggestions you make all seem like reasonable tweaks -- although I freely confess to not having the first notion how to actually make that happen. It's this that bothers me:

Folks don't need A/I that is as smart as a human, but folks do need A/I that is fun to play against.

"Fun" according to who? Me? Someone significantly better at this game than me (like, ya know, most everbody [:)])? Fun according to someone familiar with this period? Fun to the general public? Fun to the person who knows the number of buttons on a valtigeurs topcoat (1802 uniform)? "Fun" is just another term like "competent", "tough", "fair", etc., that really can't be defined but are used to beat up games that don't deserve it. I admit I'm carrying baggage hear re: Rome: Total War. I've seen more than my share of people brag about how "weak" or "74/\/\3" the A.I. is when, truthfully, they're really just tired of playing (after dozens of hours of enjoyment) and they want to brag a while. This, more than anything, motivates my charactization of these people as vainglorious. What I never want to see is this sort of attitude discourage gaming innovation, as I fear it could.

Also, I put it to the house, is there a game like CoG that has "good" (again, useless word) A.I.? I've played more than my share of games and can't think of any.

Maybe I am just saying I look at computer games like board games I can play with friends when I can't go over to their homes.

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)