Louis Posted August 7, 2002 Share Posted August 7, 2002 http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/aug02/strat_command.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloid Posted August 7, 2002 Share Posted August 7, 2002 Sad, the reviewer should have done a search on AI to findout what the effects of +1 and +2 are. He says it's cheats, which is incorrect. I agree on research, where investment is not in effect over time (see comments in the Jet Research thread). This guy blew it, as far as I'm concerned. Aloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted August 7, 2002 Share Posted August 7, 2002 It's a mixed bag. He begins very good and then somewhat blows it at the end with his own suggestions. I like that he explicitly points out how fun the game is. I more and more tend to agree that the research model should be overhauled, and his comment that *sustained* research in an area should bring the most benefit is surely something to be considered (even if I do not know exactly how to implement this). Other suggestions of his would have catastrophic consequences,though: for example the Allies sharing technology and the proposed boosting of the US economy would simply unbalance the game in an unbearable way (apart from that the initial 180mpps for the US can also very well be rationalized: it is not the *whole* economic potential, but just what is initially *used* for the West yadayadayada ...). Maybe with "unless you let the AI cheat" he just means that the higher difficulty levels give the AI more mpps, though his comment unfortunately is really quite misleading here. Straha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloid Posted August 7, 2002 Share Posted August 7, 2002 But the AI actually does more at a higher level of difficulty. Perhaps this is because it has the forces to... but it doesn't cheat. Aloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sol Invictus Posted August 7, 2002 Share Posted August 7, 2002 I thought he was overly harsh on the AI. It is really dificult to program an AI for a historical wargame since the gamer has a good idea of what to expect through 20/20 hindsight. The leaders in WW2 didnt know what we know. Overall, I think it does a very good job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les the Sarge 9-1b Posted August 7, 2002 Share Posted August 7, 2002 I think you guys are reading to much into the phrase as he stated it. To give the AI something that you the human player don't have, is technically called cheating regardless of the manner of implimentation. To use a play balance mechanism regardless of justification is cheating, even if the cheat is officially recognised in the framework of the design. Playing an AI or playing a grade school kid, with no modification to the game though, will yield the same game normally. Giving the kid the option or the AI, it's all the same. But whooping the AI time after time is just not anyone's idea of fun. Any more than beating a grade scholl kid regularly. Perhaps, the solution is to just set the default difficulty automatically in favour of the AI in the first pace. After all a human can always out think a machine (we just don't do math as fast). This will annoy players that are lame strategically speaking, but then practice the art more and you gain the experience some of us take for granted now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloid Posted August 7, 2002 Share Posted August 7, 2002 You're right in a sense... I read into his statement that the AI gets an advantage by knowing too much, seeing more than it should in FOW, etc. Many games fall back on this, while SC does not. So I guess it's this interpretation I'm defending. And I wish it would have been clarified in the review. As it stands, it's still to harsh on the AI, IMO. Aloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale H Posted August 7, 2002 Share Posted August 7, 2002 The way I look at it: if I lose, the AI cheats & if I win, the AI is pure as the driven snow. Who gives a hoot about the reviews, as long as the game is fun to play? I've been playing Civ3 lately where the AI is, allegedly, a notorious cheat. I still enjoy playing but I would like to be able to play on a level playing field. I will probably buy the PTW expansion for Civ3 so I can play against myself & enjoy it more than I do now when I know the AI is loaded. There is no reason for the AI to cheat in Strategic Command. I suspect the reviewers are under considerable pressure to publish quickly & probably haven't given SC a fair trial but only a test drive. I've played the Strategic Command demo enough to have faith in the AI & the game. Who cares about the critics? Lets have some fun. Dale H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody's Hero Posted August 7, 2002 Share Posted August 7, 2002 Not to mention the game is modestly priced at 25$. Well worth it compared to all the other budget priced trash out there and even most of the 50$ stuff. BFC should really try marketing its games harder their products are more appealing to the average gamer than they probably realise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willgamer Posted August 7, 2002 Share Posted August 7, 2002 To give the AI something that you the human player don't have, is technically called cheating regardless of the manner of implimentation. Can't agree with that one. To give an advantage to one side to play balance (especially between a weaker and stronger player) is called handicapping. Really... it's done all the time! Furthermore giving a pawn advantage in chess, or a stroke advantage in golf does not make the recipient a cheater. HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les the Sarge 9-1b Posted August 8, 2002 Share Posted August 8, 2002 I suppose it's all semantics. "Cheating" as a term automatically conjures up strong emotions, while "balancing" or "handicapping" doesn't. I wasn't implying the game did something "foul", I am merely stripping away the rhetoric, and stating that the game is being allowed to do, what you yourself are not, that being, to modify the game in its favour. If I was to modify the game in some way, to allow me the player to get those + mods, I am sure someone would call it "cheating" eventually. Me personally, I crush newbies. I don't partonise my opponents. When you beat me in a game, it's done honestly and with the same conditions I have. There is nothing more satisfying when I beat you in chess (because I suck at chess). I would be offended if you said "ok I will take off two pawns your choice before we begin", it would mean I wasn't good enough, the victory wouldn't mean squat to me after that. I remember playing Magic the Gathering for like 6 months before I was worth a damn (and my friends had no problem kicking my worthless butt either). I eventually became known as a scurge though because I bought 4 of each Dual Lands mana card (a very wise choice for the time), and played with decks that allowed me outrageous combinations casually. It was all perfectly legal, just brutally effective. I was never tournament grade, but I was the guy in the store you had to beat if you wanted bragging potential all the same. When I play a wargame it's the same way. I never hand out handicaps. Earn your victory from me or get crushed. A Handicap is a polite way of saying, "I am sorry for being so much better than you, perhaps if I play with this disadvantage, you might have a chance against me". I would myself find that intolerably insulting, if done to me at least. That's why I say, make the AI as competent as is possible, after that, if its easy to beat, either the programer doesn't know much about AI design, or you truely are smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts