AI question

[Ron Saueracker]

I heard that the AI is rather novel for this title. Been my biggest disappointment with every wargame I've purchased or played. Can someone explain the AI to me, please? Thanks.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

I think only Frank Hunter could explain the game's AI properly.

As a player, I've found that the game makes a weak opponent, suitable only for learning the mechanics. When you know how to play, then you try for real opposition: playing a human by e-mail.

Example: in one of my games against the program, I was playing the French, and sent one corps sneaking along the bottom of the map. It was never intercepted, and reached Vienna without encountering any opposition. The Austrians concentrated their forces in the centre; they outnumbered me but somehow managed to lose the fight in the centre too.

I don't think I've lost a game yet, though I've had one or two draws. The scoring system seems rather bizarre and could maybe do with re-examination. I think the trouble is that it counts score each turn and adds everything up at the end; it would be more conventional and intuitive to look only at the final result and score that.

For instance, if we have a big struggle in the centre of the map, which ends up with the enemy completely defeated, shattered, and running away, this can be counted as a draw or a marginal victory, because not enough progress was made in the early stages.

Maybe there is some historical justification for this, but I'm sceptical.

To put this in proportion, I'm talking here only about the AI and the scoring system; the game itself seems to work fine. However, if you're looking for good AI, I'm afraid you won't find it here.

Good AI must be very hard to do without cheating; and Frank doesn't believe in cheating. Neither do I, so I have sympathy for him on this.

[Jim H. Moreno]

I can't say there's much AI in here, mostly a mathematical formula or algorhythm that governs combat. That stuff is over way over my head. But, I still think the game mechanics work well, does what it is designed for. At least it's more than a rock-paper-scissors style, or the 'tank rush' mentality.

[FrankHunter]

I'm sure I did a write-up on th AI, either a ways back on this forum or on the old Adanac forum. Anyway, getting the AI to play a decent game within the rules against a human is pretty tough, no question. In a nutshell the AI has several different plans it chooses from and tries to implement. What I was satisfied with as far as this AI goes is its ability to run its logistic system, and execute grand maneuvers while sticking to the principles of mass and mutual support and staying within the same constraints as the human. Doesn't mean it doesn't make mistakes, it does.

As for the scoring system its a "rolling" calculation I made up to try and drive home the point that winning a big battle early and then chasing down your opponents broken forces is more decisive than playing cat and mouse most of the game and then winning a big battle at the end. Neutrals looking on I figure would be more impressed by the former and may have even joined the war against the French in the case of the latter.

[FrankHunter]

Oh, as far as game play goes there are some good after-action reports earlier in this forum. Around May-June I believe.