Carl Deppen Posted October 13, 2002 Share Posted October 13, 2002 I was reading another thread in which Eden Smallwood posted this: quote: _________________________________________________ I played Citadel a hundred times with Partial. Then when I saw everyone in this forum ranting about EFOW, I changed to EFOW. I'll tell you something nobody else seems to have noticed- it's EASIER to beat the AI with EFOW than with Partial. Notice that part of what this implies is the the AI plays a "fair" game- it's EFOW for you, it's EFOW for AI. I think that fogginess makes it more difficult for the AI to "guess" the right thing... I guess. _________________________________________________ Now, I'm wondering could this be true. This deserves further discussion. Thanks Eden for bringing this to our attention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted October 13, 2002 Share Posted October 13, 2002 It's my understanding from CMBO that the computer operational/stategic AI does not get any benefit what-so-ever in playing with partil or no FOW. The only thing that changes is for the human player(s). I do not see anything that changes my mind about this in CMBB so far. I think the original poster was mistaken or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Smallwood Posted October 14, 2002 Share Posted October 14, 2002 Originally posted by Dirtweasle: It's my understanding from CMBO that the computer operational/stategic AI does not get any benefit what-so-ever in playing with partil or no FOW. The only thing that changes is for the human player(s). I do not see anything that changes my mind about this in CMBB so far. I think the original poster was mistaken or something.Ah yes, but it would not be at all "easy" for you to see this! I'm basing this suspicion on playing Yelnia and Citadel many many times with those two different settings. I find a slight but noticeable difference. I'm not supposing that this is *directly* coded... if (EfowIsOn()) then Easiness = Easiness + 1; ...rather, like I said, I'm supposing that the AI plays a "fair" game, and with EFOW on, it is simply too difficult for the AI to make the really good decisions. The *benefit* that you get is only that there are limits to what the AI can do, and EFOW pushes on those limits more than Partial. Well it seems reasonable anyhow; maybe BFC will volunteer some inside dope, but it hardly matters much- does anyone not play with EFOW?? Eden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted October 14, 2002 Share Posted October 14, 2002 Originally posted by Eden Smallwood: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dirtweasle: It's my understanding from CMBO that the computer operational/stategic AI does not get any benefit what-so-ever in playing with partil or no FOW. The only thing that changes is for the human player(s). I do not see anything that changes my mind about this in CMBB so far. I think the original poster was mistaken or something.Ah yes, but it would not be at all "easy" for you to see this! I'm basing this suspicion on playing Yelnia and Citadel many many times with those two different settings. I find a slight but noticeable difference. I'm not supposing that this is *directly* coded... if (EfowIsOn()) then Easiness = Easiness + 1; ...rather, like I said, I'm supposing that the AI plays a "fair" game, and with EFOW on, it is simply too difficult for the AI to make the really good decisions. The *benefit* that you get is only that there are limits to what the AI can do, and EFOW pushes on those limits more than Partial. Well it seems reasonable anyhow; maybe BFC will volunteer some inside dope, but it hardly matters much- does anyone not play with EFOW?? Eden</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted October 14, 2002 Share Posted October 14, 2002 Eden, I have not played any games against the computer without E-FOW so cannot comment on a degree of difficulty. I do not believe thjogh that even with FOW off the computer can "see" you troops - though you can see the computer forces. So are you saying that with FOW off the computer plays a better game? I'm having a tough time understanding how that can be possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted October 14, 2002 Share Posted October 14, 2002 I think what he means is that humans are better at making good inferences about what they can't see than computers are. And since both AI and human can see less with EFOW, the human (assuming the human is a good, experienced player) will benefit through his greater inferencing skills. It's an interesting point.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Smallwood Posted October 14, 2002 Share Posted October 14, 2002 Originally posted by Dirtweasle: Eden, I have not played any games against the computer without E-FOW so cannot comment on a degree of difficulty. I do not believe thjogh that even with FOW off the computer can "see" you troops - though you can see the computer forces. If that's true, that the computer always plays with EFOW, even when the User is Partial, then my reasonable seeming hypothesis is Routed, and I would only be able to plead Bad Science. It goes without saying, I think, that I am merely reporting what I've experienced- I haven't poked through the code with a hex editor... So are you saying that with FOW off the computer plays a better game? I'm having a tough time understanding how that can be possible.Yes, that's what I'm saying. If the AI is always in EFOW, then perhaps there's some other thing which affects it's game, or perhaps it's an inadequately controlled experiment. One thing which strikes me- if the AI is always in EFOW, it doesn't seem even remotely possibly that it could put up a fight when the User is on Partial!! I never tried None, but Partial can't be much different- I seemed to find out just about everything I could possibly want to know about the enemy, right down to how much ammo he has!! Anyway, the manual says that EFOW is the most realistic, and I'll never use anything else again anyhow. And YOU have never used anything else, right?!? Instead of None and Partial and all that, maybe we would get more mileage out of different shades of EFOW...? Eden [ October 13, 2002, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Eden Smallwood ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted October 14, 2002 Share Posted October 14, 2002 Eden, someone from BFC/BTS can give a 100% answer. My understanding though is the computer AI never sees your troops unless detected through normal means. Even with partial or no FOW the computer is still has to "find" your units through the normal means. No FOW is used to play test scenarios, or at least that's how I've used it. I wanted to see how the AI would react to certain stimulae. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voidhawk Posted October 14, 2002 Share Posted October 14, 2002 I'm not supposing that this is *directly* coded... if (EfowIsOn()) then Easiness = Easiness + 1; You are right; it probably is: if (EfowIsOn()) { ++Easiness; } Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted October 14, 2002 Share Posted October 14, 2002 Try placing a unit in a patch of woods. Give the enemy several FOs, play with FOW off. Notice how the arty boys will not call down fire even though you can see all of them with FOW turned off. Conclusion the computer always plays with FOW on irrespective of the FOW you play under, the question is does it play at full FOW (CMBO) or were BTS able to force it into EFOW [ October 13, 2002, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Smallwood Posted October 14, 2002 Share Posted October 14, 2002 Originally posted by voidhawk: if (EfowIsOn()) { ++Easiness; }Yes++, I had that originally (without braces for a single expression!) but didn't want to get a Huh? response. Now why won't this forum ware respect my indentations? Indenting a paragraph has worked for the known history of English, no? Ah well. Eden [ October 14, 2002, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: Eden Smallwood ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts