gekkoguy82 wrote:I for one enjoy playing the ai, because obviously I can do it whenever I want, and all things considered I really think athena puts up a pretty dang good fight, at least for me. I haven't had an occasion where I've steamrolled her in the first couple years. But maybe that's just me being boneheaded, which is not nearly as stressful when I'm just playing her Then I'm the only one who knows what a dumb thing I did, and she'll always come back no matter how much I stink at it!
Pocus wrote:Putting more efforts on a theater (in offensive or defensive) can easily be done with the AI commands exposed to modders. Again, the WIA community did an impressive job with them.
Omnius wrote: The solution is for more companies to follow AGEOD's lead in allowing players to turn off the AI and play solitaire like in the good old days of board wargames.
Omnius wrote:Let's not forget that AI stands for Artificial Ignorance when it comes to computer opponents, well in the case of AACW it's Athena's Ignorance. The best feature of AGEOD games besides WEGO is the easy ability to turn the AI off. I gave up on playing AI's except early on and now just turn off the AI. I grew up playing old Avalon Hill and then SPI board wargames and played them mostly solitaire. Now I've gone back to my roots and play computer wargames without the AI. Yeah it's a little more work playing both sides but you can have lots of fun setting up cool big battles you can't get playing an AI.
The one big failing of AI's is the industry-wide fallacy that busy AI's are good AI's. All busy AI's are are annoying as they just don't do smart things like forming up Corps in AACW or resting units when they've become exhausted. In the demo I've noticed how the Union AI runs around huge armies in the dead of winter and the cohesion of those armies is horrible.
There is the button for allowing the AI more time to think that helps very slightly. Actually it reminds me of the old George Carlin joke about television, there's a knob for brightness but no matter how much I turn it it never makes the tv any smarter.
There's a limit to what can be done with an AI while we have PC's sitting on our desks. Maybe someday someone like IBM might make a truly supreme AI the way they did with Big Blue for chess. Until we're all having Cray supercomputers on our desks and an IBM doing a massive AI project we just have to grin and bear it with inferior AI's. The solution is for more companies to follow AGEOD's lead in allowing players to turn off the AI and play solitaire like in the good old days of board wargames.
Gray_Lensman wrote:I can follow most of your logic, but unless you can come up with an actual source for this part of your statement I'm afraid I'm gonna have to leave my skeptic hat quite firmly in place, especially since they haven't even determined how much matter yet exists in the universe. (re:dark matter for example)
Granted there are a lot of move combinations in chess, but does anyone really believe that "Man" can invent anything with more combinations than all the "electrons" in the universe?
GraniteStater wrote:Now compare such a complicated game to chess, which is relatively simple:
This is not directed at the poster.
No, it's the opposite. AACW is child's play compared to Chess, Go, or Bridge, and I mean that literally. The rulesets of the three above are much shorter than almost any computer game out there, but that is not a measurement of simplicity. Checkers is now solved, but not until recently and it took a quintillion some odd branched search tree to do it.
Consider this fact (it is a fact): the number of possible chess positions is larger than the number of electrons in the universe.
That's not 'atoms', boys and girls, that's 'electrons'. Now, in reality, the two numbers are largely indistinguishable (because of the overwhelming preponderance of hydrogen), but still...
Chess , Go, and Bridge are short rulesets and very complicated games. This means that actually, they're not hard to program; they're very difficult to program well enough to give Masters & Grandmasters a significant challenge. It took Deep Blue to give Kasparov a hard time.
AACW is a much simpler game that is harder to program because it has such a large ruleset. Any modelling of reality tends to show this. Chess, Go and Bridge are their own realities and model nothing. A game that models something not only needs to have a coherent and consistent ruleset but also needs to emulate conditions defined outside of the ruleset.
Thus, the difficulties in the programming. Bear in mind that it's also a commercial product and needs to please a market. Much harder than hooking up a CRAY and brute-forcing your way through a World Champion's repertoire.
Although the game is simple, really, compared to Chess, Go, or Bridge.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests