Which game has the better AI ?

Post advice on tactics and strategies here; share your experience on how to become a better wargamer.

Moderators: ralphtricky, JAMiAM

Post Reply
User avatar
KarlXII
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:17 pm
Location: Stockholm

Which game has the better AI ?

Post by KarlXII »

Ok, this is controversial and depends on type of game and so on. But it would be interesting to know which of these games (and why) has the better AI. I have played all of them. It would be nice to see all these strengths into a single game.

- TOAW III
- Korsun Pocket (and that the titles following in that line)
- Uncommon Valour (or War in the Pacific)

Norm Koger, Gary Grigsby, Roger Keating....which one is the best in computer AI ? Or who is good at what ?

It would be nice to see some reflections on this. I know that probably no-one could win such a "fight" but it would be interesting to know the strengths/weaknesses of their games and themselves regarding computer AI. Personally I have always loved Gary Grigsbys "Second Front", "Western Front" but also "Ardennes Offensive" (roger keating).

The more specific a game is the better AI in general I suppose. TOAW III is so generic so it is perhaps not fair to compare it with, say, Korsun Pocket but were talking the best AI in overall here and what strengths/weaknesses it has.

I am sure you more experienced players have played most of their games and could give some interesting feedback on this.
Värjan måste göra det bästa, ty den skämtar intet

Been playing strategy games since 1987 and the Commodore 64 days
User avatar
Industrial
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 5:24 am

RE: Which game has the better AI ?

Post by Industrial »

TOAW doesn't really have an AI, it has a PO, which stands for programmable opponent. So, how good the computer player reacts really depends on how good the scenario designer scripted him.
Thats why some scenarios are great for solitary play while others only work as PBEMs.

I don't really know how the other games work, but it probably will be unfair to compare the underlying game system based on how they react in a specific scenario, because as I said, the PO can be horrible in one scenario and really convincing in another one [:)]
"The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

Henry Alfred Kissinger

<--- aka: Kraut
User avatar
golden delicious
Posts: 4145
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: London, Surrey, United Kingdom

RE: Which game has the better AI ?

Post by golden delicious »

TOAW's AI is pretty good tactically. As Kraut said, the PO then depends on what objectives are set. But there is a limit to how well one can get the PO to work even with the best planning and testing in the world.
"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."
User avatar
Captain Cruft
Posts: 3741
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: England

RE: Which game has the better AI ?

Post by Captain Cruft »

The "AI" in UV and WitP are well known as being in a class of their own in terms of utter uselessness. Or at least it's well known to me [;)]

I wasn't impressed with Korsun Pocket, but apparently things have improved in later release of the DB series.

TOAW's Elmer I have not played, and probably never will. There are good reports of TOAW 3, but that's not Norm Koger's doing, if you're really interested in a "names" competition.
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”