Another first-impression post.

[TaoJah]

Here are some first impressions about SCII after three games as Axis at hardest setting.

In general I can sum up my remarks saying : the AI is HORRIBLE. Absolutely horrible. This game is simply not worth playing against the computer, sorry to be so harsh, but it's true.

1. I win the battle of the sea every time : once I got Antwerp, I move my three subs and two cruisers and just start attacking the UK fleet and kill it off two by two. The ships near Manchester don't come to help the others, he doesn't send the meditarian fleet to the mainland's rescue and he spends every other turn repairing it's two airplanes from 9 to 10.

2. The AI can not hold a line (except the Maginot). It keeps shuffling troops back and forth in France and in Russia. In ALL three games I could just walk past the French border because he always retreats his troops and loses entrenchement. And it's the same in Russia.

3. If an airplane is treatened, he moves it ONE single hex, also in reach of my troops. The AI does that with the French air unit, with the British after Sea Lion and with the Russian aircrafts. This happened to me with at least TEN planes in the three games I played.

4. The US never, ever sends troops to Europe. What's up with that ?

And two non-AI related remarks.

A. I manage to conquer the UK in EVERY SINGLE game. IMHO the amphibious transport is waaaay too powerfull : I can load up ten units in the ports and all land them in ONE SINGLE turn at in the UK.

B. Why does the weather have a double effect at standard settings ? Winter turns are longer AND untis can't move around. That's too much, IMHO. I just switch it off, but since the game will be played by 95% with the default settings, this is a bad, bad standard feature.

[Blashy]

1- Is already being adressed.

2- Also being adressed.

4- Also being adressed.

In regards to Sealion, this is an AI issue. Versus a player who knows what he is doing you will loose if you try a Sealion.

As for weather, it is actually SHORTER, 1 turn is one month, while summer one turn is one week, how would you like to be stuck in snow for 4 times longer if winter turns were one week.

As well, don't expect to move around much in Winter, see WW2 logistics history on how winter = no mobility (fyi, only airfleets can't move around), mud/fog is the same but less severe.

Weather effect is IMHO one of the best feature of SC2.

[Timskorn]

I agree, the seasons add a lot to the game, particular the war in Russia as it should. As winter comes, as the Axis, you really have to press your attacks before you bog down. As Russia you pray for the winter to come to slow the Axis advance, and use that time to dig in and bring up reinforcements.

[Ike99]

In general I can sum up my remarks saying : the AI is HORRIBLE. Absolutely horrible. This game is simply not worth playing against the computer, sorry to be so harsh, but it's true.

Yeah but A.I.'s always are bad. Read this thread...

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=34;t=001003;p=1

[ASHBERY76]

Are you saying the A.I is bad in CIV4 or Galciv2? they are both beatable but offer an interesting game.Have you played the demo for Take Command: 2nd Manassas, now that is a tactical game that was only programmed by one guy,it has good A.I,much much better than the big budget game like RomeTotalWar.You can have A.I that offers an interesting game.No excuses.

The CM games do have bad A.I.I hope Hubert makes the game interesting for SP gamers,ie the majority.

[SeaMonkey]

So did we all want to wait an additional 6 months for HC and betas to tweak the AI?

[Blashy]

I would say no, because the game IS playable, especially for MP, it is fully functional.

The AI as Hubert stated was a work in progress as the game went gold and IS a work in progress as is.

I see a bonus with people like Edwin itching to improve the AI with the available tools, it can only help.

[jon_j_rambo]

Seriously guys, Blashy is right, trust the expert.

[TaoJah]

There are several very good AI's out there, so excusing this AI with saying "all AI's are bad" or "play mulitplayer" just isn't gonne do it. Plus, the AI could have been better with more/better scripts if they took the time to write them and test them.

I don't know the numbers, but it would be intresting to know

a) how many copies off the game sell.

how many people play only against the AI.

c) how many people will install the AI-patch.

IMHO more then 90% of the buyers will only play the AI. And of those, most won't download the patch when it comes.

That means that alot of people will be stuck with this AI. People that you won't hear from on this boards, but they're the majority nonetheless.

Bottom line : the game should not have been released with this AI, it should have been fixed.

[vveedd]

Originally posted by TaoJah:

A. I manage to conquer the UK in EVERY SINGLE game. IMHO the amphibious transport is waaaay too powerfull : I can load up ten units in the ports and all land them in ONE SINGLE turn at in the UK.

I agree. It should be considered much less range for amphibious transport and much more range for normal transports. Also German total research fond should be less. I had in 1942 tanks on level 5, air fleets on level 4, subs on level 3, motorization on max, infantry weapons on level 3 etc. Too unbelievable.

[ April 15, 2006, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

[Moon]

TaoJah... those are some wide sweeping assumptions. And you're comparing apples and oranges anyway. An "open" game like SC2 cannot be compared with some of the canned and very restricted (and heavily scripted) games out there.

But even if you'd be right about the percentage of people who or don't do something, the ability to script the AI is right there in reach for everybody, without needing to download anything. It's built into the editor and allows everybody to tweak and improve to AI to his liking. That's no coincidence, but a very deliberate design decision.

The calls for a scriptable AI have been made very frequently, both in this forum here and in others. It makes sense, too, because no AI can be as good as a human opponent. Humans can learn from frequently playing the same campaigns over and over, but the AI can not.

Well, in fact, in the way that SC2 is handling AI, actually now the AI can. By adding more scripts, it can be adapted and finetuned until it will be a very formidable opponent. Since everybody has different ideas about what the AI should and shouldn't do, user-scripting and exchange of such scripts is very much part of the design here.

It goes without saying though that Hubert will be making "official" changes, too, i.e. adding scripts and coding through official patches, so there will be no need for people to hunt for scripts one by one. So with this design and with a ton of compromises to be made in order to not spend another 2 years in development, releasing the game with a solid base AI for the casual player is very much justified. That some of the hardcore SC1 guys slap it all over the place is no surprise at all, but interestingly enough the fact that now the AI can be scripted is the only possibility that the AI will be able to hold up even to them eventually.

Martin

[Sombra]

@TAOJah I do not care playing much against the AI (Though I am new category) Nearly online player only. Still I share your concern regarding the range of the amphib. transports. They feel simply wrong the range etc. My suggestion is: Reduce range to 5-6 squares and make them slightly cheaper.

Pro:

You can´t launch D-Days all over the -Germany , Denmark, etc. the number of possible landing spots would be reduced to a realistic level. (Normandy, Brest, Brussels)

Same goes for Germany its not quite believable to be able to send these kind of transports (short range transport ships) as far up the English coast without problem.

-It feels kind of gamey right now nearly no possibility to test it against humans but the AI is helpless against "landing swarms.) I think this will be more or less a game breaker for human vs human although.

- Blashy I think you commented a few months ago that the introduction of amphib transports was a means against the pirate syndrome of SC1 one. Right now I think its gotten worse.

- What are the arguments pro long range amphib. transports?

+ As in Sc1 show in the report screen the number of troops if suddenly the strength of the ships sky rocks something is up.(connect it perhaps with intel. level...and counter intel.=

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by Moon:

TaoJah... those are some wide sweeping assumptions.

That's true, the % are indeed assumptions. Feel free to give out the real numbers if you have them. But I don't think they're far off : I bet you a cookie that more then half the players only play the AI and never patch.

Originally posted by Moon:

But even if you'd be right about the percentage of people who or don't do something, the ability to script the AI is right there in reach for everybody, without needing to download anything.

Solving the AI problems with scripting is not the same as a good shipped-AI IMHO.

And that's a fourth number I'd like to see : how many players will use the editor.

My wide sweeping assumption ? Most people don't bother with the editor or AI scripts, it will be played mostly as is comes out of the box.

Originally posted by Moon:

So with this design and with a ton of compromises to be made in order to not spend another 2 years in development, releasing the game with a solid base AI for the casual player is very much justified. That some of the hardcore SC1 guys slap it all over the place is no surprise at all

That is indeed a good and honest argument : the game is released with a AI that is good enough for most casual players and the hardcore players will have to wait for the challenging AI.

That's probably good business decision and I appreciate the honesty.

[Moon]

That's true, the % are indeed assumptions. Feel free to give out the real numbers if you have them. But I don't think they're far off : I bet you a cookie that more then half the players only play the AI and never patch.

I don't have the numbers either, because even surveys (there have been several on these forums in fact) only reflect a small fragment of the overall situation, as only small percentage of all players frequents here (and even fewer post, and yet fewer post regularly). I am with you on the percentag of people who prefer to play against the AI, by the way. Maybe not 90%, but defnitely the majority. I don't think you're right about patching, though. Patches are, unfortunately but such is life, so common for games, that by now I bet the majority is accustomed to it. When I look at our patch download stats, I see pretty high percentages when compared to the number of games sold.

That's probably good business decision and I appreciate the honesty.

It's actually more than just a business decision if you think about it. There is a very big benefit for the gamer, too. I am not talking about the fact that I bet a lot of people here prefer to play the game now rather than in two years. What I mean is that there is a limit in how good any programmer can make an AI for a game, no matter how much time he spends refining it. There is simply a difference between what a beta team can come up with and what the game AI has to endure when tested by thousands of players over and over again.

There is a point of diminishing returns in AI development, which is why you see so many games with very very bad AI out there (you said it yourself: there are *some* games with good AI, but this implies the contrary - that most of them suck) because most publishers/developers prefer to spend more time on more visual things. Hubert made a very wise decision to turn this into a strength of SC2, in that he, purposely, made the AI user scriptable. While there might be some people who never patch and never use the editor and don't frequent these forums, I bet that he made a LOT of players very happy with this decision. Personally, I think it's a much better route to go in any case than some *other* games, which release without any AI at all

BTW, for some of the people out there, there won't be even a need to patch. We are updating the release versions regularly anyway, i.e. it's always the newest version that goes into production. Keep in mind also the with the exception of Germany and soon Russia and France, the only way to get the game is to order it from us. This means that an unusually high percentage of people have access to and know about the source for new versions and user made content to start with. This is something else than putting a box onto the shelf.

The AI is doing all the basic things as is and has been designed to be continually improved, which is a big plus over the traditionally hard-coded AI you see in most games.

Martin

[Desert Dave]

That is indeed a good and honest argument : the game is released with a AI that is good enough for most casual players and the hardcore players will have to wait for the challenging AI.

TaoJah,

The "hard-core" players will quite likely

Have a SOLO game they can play,

[... at Intermediate: + 0.5 ... ]

With certain difficulty in winning

Playing either side,

And they will have it soon,

Of this I am REAL confident.

I have already done it.

**[... no, NOT with AI scripting, which

I'll do later, maybe, AFTER Hubert has

had his better shot at it... but

with the many myriad OTHER ways to balance

the two sides... if you really look

you can find ALL of them; if you, or anyone

cannot, just post a thread and ASK; I bet

you will get many replies, including mine]

So that I have what I want, and no matter

That I have been testing

And learning as I go,

It is just not that hard

Once you... set your mind to it.

And, they'll have that SOLO game

Within a matter of weeks,

If not days.

I bet some have ALREADY begun

Doing it.

I'll bet a few are almost done.

(... keep in mind, those so-called

"casual players" are easily able to become

"dedicated players" BECAUSE they CAN

use that fantastic Editor to have

EXACTLY the game they want... they may

have initial "fears" that they cannot

manipulate the Editor, but soon as they

realize, and read all about

how others are doing it,

well, what's to stop them, then? Or,

even,

from simply using those maps, scenarios,

icons, sprites, and mods that others

who ARE very good at it, have ALREADY

made?)

Solving the AI problems with scripting is not the same as a good shipped-AI IMHO.

Well,

We all have different opinions

On just about ANY matter,

Thank the Stars for that,

So I'll provide you mine.

Game players "on-line" generally KNOW

How to DL patches.

And do.

Full well realizing the tremendous potential

For SC-2 Blitzkrieg,

To finally become

THE VERY BEST WW-2 ETO GS game,

Well,

Why would they be discouraged?

So very easily?

One day Fury/BF may release to retail,

But you can bet yer cookie

And the whole cookie-making

Shebang, besides,

That WHEN it is,

It will THEN be mostly finished, so,

No need to worry FOR them.

I say "mostly" because folks

WILL be playing this game in 10 years,

Yep, I know I will be,

Whether still affiliated with

These truly straight-up

And VERY supportive 2 companies, or not;

And I am pretty doggone hard to please,

Since,

I've been looking for JUST THIS GAME

For 40 years.

For now, and ONLY for a short while,

I know a little bit more about

The over-all game and its possiblities

Than the Average Joe.

That won't last much longer.

And so.

No need to worry, IMHO, about someone

Being denied an IMMEDIATELY oustanding!

AI.

All will eventually have PRECISELY

The HvsH and SOLO game they prefer.

Of that I am ABSOLUTELY convinced. :cool:

[ April 15, 2006, 05:50 AM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[Desert Dave]

vveedd, not alone in this concern:

I agree. It should be considered much less range for amphibious transport and much more range for normal transports.

For now,

As you await first patch,

Which,

As I understand it,

Is ALREADY well into construction

(... to include that one item where

Air does not retreat far enough)

Well,

How about going into Editor,

And click on

1) File -> Open

2) '39 Fall Weiss

3) Campaign

4) Edit Country Data

5) Edit Combat Target Data

6) EACH Nation in the game, one by one

7) Amphibious transport

8) Action Points

9) Up-down arrow: change to 4 or 5 or whatever you would prefer.

Then,

Play it out awhile,

Come back,

Tell us what you find,

Present argument as to WHY your idea

For having lower Amphib AP's

Is BETTER THAN what we have now.

Enough folks do this kind of thing,

Well,

It would be seriously considered

As a POSSIBLE change,

For that next patch, which,

Like I say,

Is not too far away. :cool:

_____________________________________

BTW, and FYI,

That is how Hubert asks us to do it.

Try things out.

Report back.

Make convincing argument

For your proposed idea.

Then,

He thinks about it.

Lets us know.

Just now, he is taking a break,

About time IMHO,

And then back to AI scripting.

Meanwhile,

All us testers do the above routine,

Trying out something else new.

Repeat.

Defeat?

No problemo, try again.

It's how EVERYTHING gets done IRL, yes?

[ April 15, 2006, 06:40 AM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[Blashy]

Originally posted by vveedd:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TaoJah:

A. I manage to conquer the UK in EVERY SINGLE game. IMHO the amphibious transport is waaaay too powerfull : I can load up ten units in the ports and all land them in ONE SINGLE turn at in the UK.

I agree. It should be considered much less range for amphibious transport and much more range for normal transports. Also German total research fond should be less. I had in 1942 tanks on level 5, air fleets on level 4, subs on level 3, motorization on max, infantry weapons on level 3 etc. Too unbelievable. </font>

[Liam]

I hear all this ranting about the AI, there are two Play by Modem Leagues and hundreds if not thousands of potential opponents going to arise in the next few months. Who cares about Improving the A.I. Seriously. Computer follow Setups the Progammer gives them, they're pure stupid. Just like SC1, you could win every scenario if you spend a few days at it((create your own setup in the editor give the Allies or Axis 15 Xs your Equipment all over the map, invade Russia after Poland, I've done that b4 and still beat the AI on hardest in SC1)), you'll do the same in SC2. There is no challenge unless you give the Computer Much more equipment than yourself and even then you can figure out how to crack it within a few hours...

Competition comes from a human best all hours and programming should focus where it is better spent. That's why the game is made for IP and PBEM. Try playing Axis & Allies AI or any RTS game AI. They're all easily beatable... The only way they beat you is by sending 10-20Xs the production at your faster than you can create it even then there is a trick to it... AIs that were created by 50 software developers..

Personally do any of you play the AI? I don't. God that's boring... in WAW you had no choice I guess that's why I sold it. Civilization 3, sold it for the same reason, I wish the Multiplayer feature worked in the Multiplayer pack. Civ4, I'm keeping it for a little while, but still the computer has to be on one of those "uberoverproduction" settings to beat me. You run into 150 Tanks and 200 SAM Infantry before you hit the Industrial Era working damndest.

[Blashy]

Liam, even I like to play the AI, because pbem takes time and tcpip I pretty much never have time.

The AI in SC2 can become very challenging with time (as I've said before). WITHOUT simply giving it moer of everything, but through innovative scripting.

And AI players probably make more than half (if not more) the people who will purchase this game and so they are JUST as important as non AI players.