Strenght of AI in this game??

[Longstreet_slith]

This game looks fascinating with the emphasis on command. For those veteran players...how is the AI of this game? Is it good, reasonable, bad, dismal? I am hoping it is pretty good....

Thanks,
Longstreet

[Jonathan Palfrey]

Not very good, I'm afraid, as far as I remember. I haven't been playing it recently.

A pity, because the game is well designed and works well. But I found it failed to motivate me, partly because the AI doesn't perform well and partly because, when there's a battle, I don't really understand why I won or lost: the combat resolution is mysterious. I think it's Frank's personal philosophy that combat resolution SHOULD be mysterious.

[gazfun]

I beleive it is quiet adaquate, and far from a push over.
We use it in our group, for Campaign Game using RTS battle resolution
www.thegeneralshq.org

[barbarossa2]

I think the question of AI with this game is pretty moot.

I MUCH prefer playing against a human with adequate gaming skills. They simply pull off surprises that you wouldn't ever see a computer doing. And playing this game by email is easy enough and cheat proof enough, I don't understand why anyone would want to play against the computer, except for in one case...to practice for your games against humans. And for that the AI is more than adequate.

What I LOVE about this game is the supply system. It really forces you to think ahead, and commit to an area of operations or axis of advance. Moving somewhere not planned for a week or two in advance can catch you very flat footed.

I think Guns of August definitely NEEDS a supply system like this to have the feel of WWI about it. Stocking supplies weeks or months in advance of an offensive. Catching the defender off guard with supplies. It really is wonderful and one of the best supply systems I have ever played. Not overly abstracted. Not too complicated.