Human vs. Human

[mkctanker]

I meant to bring this up in my first topic but thought I'd do it on another. The replies I got on the first were very helpful and thanks(NEW GUY) but most said I should play against humans not the A.I. I have many games, most of the tanlonsoft WWII games and most of the Panzer General series by SSI but never played against a human. Why? I started playing board games and even table top games many years ago, I found that most of the time was spent trying to interpret the rules, arguing over realism and generally haveing a miserable time. When computer games came along I was saved, the computer doesn't argue. Granted the early games had terrible A.I.'s as a general rule but it was better than nothing. The A.I in this game seems to be very smart so my question is what should make me want to play a human, can this game be used in such a way that the old problem of unrealistic play comes back? I mean no insult to anyone by this it's just that since I've never done a game on line it would take a commitment on my part to learn how and I just don't want to be disappointed by the reasons already described. Hope you understand. :confused:

[ev]

I feel much the same way you feel.

I addition to all you said, the AI is available whenever you want. ...got home from the gym, feel like playing five or six extra turns -who is there? just the AI.

I always end up playing the AI and one of the things I like most about this game is that it has a good AI.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by mkctanker:

The A.I in this game seems to be very smart so my question is what should make me want to play a human, can this game be used in such a way that the old problem of unrealistic play comes back?

Actually, it is quite easy to play another human. TCP/IP (... which we sometimes take for granted; not many have done it as well as Hubert has) adds a dimension that encourages daring gameplay, since you have to constantly react to things you've never seen before -- you are a Stranger in a Strange Land, over and over again.

PBEM is good too, though you do have to be more patient. In either event, you can use the ample chat space to get to know your opponent and that alone makes it worthwhile... resulting in more diplomatic and considerate exchanges instead of misunderstandings due to... "two-dimensional ignorance."

Solo play is also great fun, and no doubt there are AI strategies that can be easily circumvented, but the scenario mods that many have created enable you to try out different approaches.

I have played just about all the WW2 strategy games, both computer and board-games, and I have rarely had so much sheer FUN as with SC, and you know what? IMO, it's only going to get better. :cool:

[Yohan]

Go PBEM it is great and much more fun than against the AI...well at least if you are Germany

[I/O Error]

I'm not at ALL certain how you can be so against playing other humans when you say you've never tried it.

Even the AI in SC or CMBO/BB, excellent as it may be, will never give you as good a game as that which a human can provide. To be quite frank, this is probably something you should trust us on, because we have tried both AI and human players.

[JerseyJohn]

Playing against a human combined with the fog of war element is much better than playing against the AI or playing another person in a boardgame format. The AI is especially undesirable after you've had a few games against it and play becomes stylized.

An added bonus of going against a human is the wealth of free advice with each E-Mail .

[ November 25, 2002, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[mkctanker]

Thanks for the responses, you have peaked my interest. However not to kick a dead horse, I still would like to know if unrealistic play can be used. A friend of mine would play civilization on line then he told me he quit because it seemed the other players some how were advancing at a much faster rate, far faster than he thought possible. My experience in table top gaming came when my tiger tank was attacked by 20 M8 armored cars. They circled the tiger and though I killed 17 of them he kept making moral rolls till my tiger was dead. Now one of you claims he cannot be defeated, does he know something about the game the rest of us don't? I do not mean to say his skill isn't great, I just don't want the frustration of my former experiences. :confused:

[JerseyJohn]

There's always a way to make things unrealistic. In many of the other forums some variation on this these is always running!

[GDS_STARFURY]

Coming from a long history of wargaming on computers I can assure you there is always a bug, flaw or dicrepancy that can be used to make any game unrealistic. The best way to work around this is to play ppl that you know, respect and trust. The wargaming community in general has a abundance of standup folks. I think this comes from the demographic backround of most wargamers. If your buddy stopped playing Civ because of excessive gaminess then tell him to buy this and you 2 can play a honorable game all you want

[82ndReady]

Human vs AI ?????

IMO - Your right the "AI" is there 24 hours a day, but, once you have played against the "AI" 2 or 3 maybe 20 times by then you will have grown tired of it and you will! When this happens you will have developed the ability to beat the "AI" and understand its Strategies depending on your actions within your game play(by the way the strategies in SC are just set patterns within the "AI"'s algorithm and they will not learn nor gain experience from game play over time) . With this the "AI"'s ability to be competitive against you will grow weaker and weaker till it no longer interest you?? Therefore, you will hopefully develop a need to play against "Real Live!" opponents! and not some programs "AI"

Human play can pose a greater challenge than some realize (sometimes you get that jerk who thinks he's cute with his/her new Gamey strategy which really only works against the "AI" and not a Human opponent!!! :mad: )and because of this the skill level of each opponent you encounter will result in different strategies posed against you, this IMO will and should always outweigh your decision to play that of the "AI" overall, to think the "AI" will or can try new strategies with each new game play is well you know !!

There are many good players among the "SC" community each with there own strategies and with that I recommend to you that you at least try playing one or some of them out there by either TCP/IP or PBEM!!

Yes there are some out there that only want to put another notch on their game board but some truly want competitive game play like myself!

For those that have found the loop hole in the game, they should point that out to Hubert so that he may entertain the idea to correct it, but if you think that the game should be played Historically and not allow for the odd strategies that’s just Crazy, the whole Idea was to challenge all the possible "What if scenarios??" that could have happened in History!!!

Is that not why we play these games????

:confused:

[JerseyJohn]

All the previous entries say quite a bit :cool: and I agree with everything.

The only reason I'm making this one is to say there's a very good scenario editor; if you absolutely must play the computer instead of humans, you might try creating weighted scenarios -- ones that are in the AIs favor and aren't familiar situations so you won't know how the computer will react.

This Scenario is now being developed and discussed in Carl's Scenario Forum (a very good idea!) .

For example, I've been working on one for a while that assumes WW I ended in a stand-off with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk taking effect. The Austrian and Ottoman Empires are gone, broken up from both without and within. Poland is a German Territory, the Baltic States a German Ally and a big chunk of the Ukrain and Belo-Russia occupied by Germany (representing the short-lived German satellite of Ukrania).

All of that is very historically reliable. Up to the stalling of the Hindenberg-Ludendorff Offensive --

-- England and France were desperate for peace and were willing to acknowledge everything Germany had occupied in the east on condition that Germany pull out of Northern France and Belgium; they were even willing to restore the verly large African colonies German had lost. But, Kaiser Wilhem II (a.k.a. Willie the Fool) wanted it all -- and wound up with nothing.

The map is redrawn according to one I found in a 1938 book, Brest-Litovsk by John W. Wheeler-Bennett [how often to you find a hyphenated title by a hyphenated author! ].

The situation is Sept '39, truncated Russia, France and Britain are allies against Germany; Stalin wants his territories back and France wants revenge! The Allies have the first move.

I envision it as a War where the early campaigns are infantry oriented, so there are only a few armor units. I also see it as something that would have lasted the full six years, with Germany being on the defensive for the first year or even two years, then it would have been more like WW II.

I'm still working out the details, but I when I finally get to play it I'll have no idea how the AI will react.

Unfortunately, scenario creating isn't as easy as it seems and it requires patience and research.

I chose this subject in part because I didn't have to worry about accurately recreating an historical situation; this scenario is full of speculation. For example, I speculate that even without the Versailles Treaty the Kaiser's government would have been couped, so it makes sense that the Nazis are in power; for my own contentedness I imagine them being mellower, and less racist without the "stab-in-the-back" hate mongering associated with their malevolence -- call me a dreamer!

In other forums various players have posted their own scenarios, notably Martinov, dgaad and Carl von Mannerheim, who went the other route and made a 1962 hot war scenario. My apologies to all those whose names I didn't mention. You can download their efforts and see how they went about it. Most of their work is document in the download file.

Carl von Mannerheim has set up a forum to help players devolop their scenario ideas!

[ November 28, 2002, 04:57 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Flash Gordon]

The AI is good but humans can be VERY unpredictable.

I'm playing my first PBEM games right now and my opponent threw me for a loop during the initial turns and I believe I've thrown some curveballs his way and I believe this will have serious repercussions as to the final outcomes of the games.

[pzgndr]

by the way the strategies in SC are just set patterns within the "AI"'s algorithm

This should get enhanced for SC2. Even for human players, there are only so many patterns to choose from. Most of these could be defined and set in the AI algorithms and then be randomly selected. Not completely random to the point of being stupid, but weighted probabilities based on the game situation at the time. The basic grand strategy decision making process we all make now could be codified to some degree.

Some of the major AI weaknesses now are:

1. Lack of either Axis or Allied Med strategy, which can easily be exploited during solo play but not so easily against a competent human opponent.

2. Lack of early German Sealion strategy, even when Britain is obviously throwing everything into the Med and leaving the homeland woefully undefended.

3. Lack of Italian seaborne invasion of Greece strategy, which permits Britain to transport forces into Athens and hold Greece for the rest of the war.

4. Lack of either Axis or Allied Scandinavian strategy, although Germany occassionally goes after Norway. Failure of Germany to take Norway early deprives them of much needed MPPs and allows the US or Britain to easily take it later.

5. Lack of German U-boat strategy. The AI never buys U-boats and threatens the Atlantic, allowing the Allies unfettered use of their private lake.

6. Lack of German Spain/Turkey strategy, although Germany will occassionally attack Spain/Gibralter at the higher settings.

Humans will occassionally do any of these strategies while the AI generally does not, and this can be exploited during solo play. It is also why human opponents are so refreshing after playing the AI for any period of time. Perhaps a separate game setting for the AI strategy patterns could be considered; ie, normal (conservative), risky (less conservative), and random. Sometimes it would be nice to have the AI do something unexpected and be forced to deal with it.

[JerseyJohn]

Hicom had similar settings: I think they were standard, competant and reckless !

In SC II or even the next patch, I think the Italian opening OB should include corps in Sicily, Trieste and Bari, which would be more historical and would also eliminate the knock Italy out before she can do anything strategies, which shouldn't be possible.

[ November 27, 2002, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]