J Von Zeppelin

I am probably a lot like you here. Although, I prefer to play a friend than to spend the time talking to myself. But I think it is true that the market requires AI. I am primarily building this game for myself anyway... but I always want to keep my options open.

When I play as Germany I take the perspective of the Commanding General(s). I pretend to leave the decisions on who to go to war with to the politicians. Then I as the Commanding General have to make the best of a none-ideal situation. This gives playing Germany a greater challenge. I often enjoy 1944 type scenarios. The Allies have (or are about to) landed, Africa is lost, Italy has left the Axis, and the German Army is in retreat in Russia. Like I said, making the best out of a bad military situation. For me this is much more fun and challenging than to see how quickly and efficiently Germany can "conquer the world". It also usually means I lose, but it still a lot of fun. Something about fighting to the bitter end I guess. But that is just me.

Sorry JerseyJohn... you have to face up to the fact that if neither USSR of USA enter the war anytime soon then there is no more war (After fall of France) unless germany declares war on them. If I was leader of Germany in late 1940 I would have been tickled pink with all that had been conquered. And because I, as leader, have 20/20 hindsight (as you do) I would have consolidated my gains and called it a war. The war would be more or less over, the US and USSR would never get involved (maybe a decade later but then that would have been an entirely different war). I would have also never allied Germany with Japan. So there really would not have been a WORLD War II... only the German-European war of 39/40. But as many have pointed out, Hitler was a "nutter". Primarily because of Hitler (aligning with Japan and declaring war on US) did the US join the war. Entirely because Hitler was obsessed with destroying the USSR did this country enter the war. If you take away Hitler and his "less than sane" ideas and decisions WWII would not have been WWII... and this is a WWII game. It REQUIRES Hitler-type events or it would not be a WWII game, because WWII "required" Hitler for it to become what it did become. Have a WWII game without Hitler and Hitler-esque consequences is like having America without the American Revolution. We would not even be making all these computer games about WWII. As EMINEM says "that's my 10 cents - my 2 cents are free."

For the last year or so I have been writing a strategic wargame. The main goal being to balance simple game play with some level of realism. Let me tell you, this has been a lot of work. I am finishing up hot-seat play first. Then I am hoping to implement multiplayer (TCP/IP etc.) I have thought about AI and the task seems very daunting. It would be difficult to write a functional AI, never mind a challenging one. So I must admit that this puts a severe (self-justifying) bias on my dislike of AI. Just so you know where I am coming from.

The reason I ask is the following. Would anyone really miss the AI in a strategy game. I usually use the AI for "tutorial" purposes only. That is when a game is new I play the AI to figure it out. Once I know how to play the game I can usually beat the AI pretty soon after. If I want to enjoy a game for longer I need to play another human being. This is the only way I get any longevity out of a game. So would anybody really cry if a strategy game was purely multiplayer (with no AI)?

Other than deep blue for chess, has anyone found a truly challenging AI opponent for any strategic level wargame? AI's that use the compu-cheat method of just building 10x the normal number of units do not count in my eyes (this just chages the game to the point where it is not the same game) I sadly have not! Even more sadly, the best I have seen (for a "strategic level" game) is for RiskII. The AI can actually hold its own for a few turns. On occasion I have come close to losing to it. but this really is a VERY simple strategy game.