CEAW: Enthusiasm rate falling quickly...

[Ryben]

I´ve finally managed to play a couple of full campaigns but now i fear i´m starting to quickly lose interest in the game.

The game flows nicely, it´s easy to learn and, while not graphically sophisticated it really didn´t matter. All previous post complaining about the unit icons aren´t really that important. You always want to play "just one more turn". Really amusing.

Till you attack.

I had a lot of fun defending France (and inevitably lose it) and trying to deal with the massive German attack on Russian soil. It was challenging and exciting. Germany didn´t mess with UK. I expected some strategic bombing against London but nothing happened. Well, they are fully focused on the East front so it´s OK.

Meanwhile i started to build a bomber fleet in UK to attack German PP´s. Then things started to get weird. No reaction to my attack, not a single fighter defending the Reich. Then i decided to launch a small scale invasion on France. What did the AI would do? Well...errr...nothing. EEUU and UK troops were spreading along France through Germany and the AI still trying to reach Moscow despite being encircled and beaten.

Then things get boring. I found myself regulary clicking on the "next turn" button and moving my units to Berlin. I didn´t pay attention to buy anything else or develop new technology. Why bother? The read to Berlin is open...the game is over. Yawn!

I understand the high rates for this game. I loved too. What i don´t understand is why people keep playing after found such an inept AI.

Playing with a human player would be awesome but i doubt i would play again against AI. I could make it more difficult but that would only give AI more and better units, not a clever reaction system. I think i´ll leave CEAW in its box for some time. I expect this AI issues would be fixed in a future patch and the game would (again) be interesting.

Sorry for being so critic. It´s just i expected so much from this game...but don´t get discouraged! Keep up the good work! After fixing this the game would be awesome again.

[firepowerjohan]

I would also be bored if I played the game on a too low difficulty setting, the "small advantage" or even "medium advantage" should be about right for experienced wargamers

The normal difficulty is practically without any bonuses or cheats for AI and meant to be played by newcomers to wargaming. As with any other wargame since the birth of computers and probably also 20-30 years into the future, a level terms wargame of this complexity cannot be win by an AI against a experienced wargame. A majority of players have the same problem as you and me and the only solution is to allow difficulty settings which we have 7 levels of them in CEaW

[Ryben]

Thank you for the quick response!. I´ll try to play again on a more difficult setting.

In any case i´ve seen more complains against the lack of Germany defence and too much focusing on the Russian front.

Do you have any plans to fix that? A few infantry units as a permanent garrison in germany, maybe one or two armoured units and fighters (to avoid impune bombardments) would do the trick.

[lesthesarge]

Some games will ONLY shine when you actually put them in the right light.

If I had to offer a single title that was capable of offering a sufficient AI, I'd come up empty handed.

But some games don't have the choice of turns, so they can't play hotseat so they can't be played human vs human.
And frankly those games ain't worth my time for the most part.

CEAW though, well it can be played vs the AI if that's all you want, and if you hadn't noticed, science hasn't made any revolutions in thinking machines recently. So your experience is going to be what it SHOULD be. Not quite enough eventually.

On the other hand, if you play CEAW as if it was a great board game, and played both sides if you had to, well it can easily compete with any of our pasts more famous board games. Granted, playing a game solo will never be any more thrilling than it ever was. A computer just makes it easier to set up.

Now if CEAW had stacking like Advanced Third Reich does, well I think I could gladly sell my board games

[KarlXII]

Why can´t anyone accept the fact that the AI in this game is not good enough ? No one has asked for an AI superior to any other turn-based strategy game that has ever been produced. But the expectations must still be that the games AI is average at least. I fully agree with the thread starter. CEAW:s AI is its major flaw right now unless future patches fixes that.

When did the AI ever move its Italian fleet units ? I´ve never seen it. Did Italy respond to my allied attack from Egypt into Tunisia ? No! Nothing happens. Do the Axis respond in the West ? No! I mean. These things are major faults and cannot be defended with "the machine cannot beat the human yet" story.

Yes the game interface and gameplay is very good as well as playing it against another human. But face it. That´s it!. I never knew this game was from a board game. I don´t expect the AI to be lacking because of that. For me the single most important feature of a strategy game is the strength of the AI. Bad AI and the game is unsuited for single player mode and then it doesnt matter wether it has good interface, graphics or sound. The challenge is to make a good AI.

To give me a challenge I should not have to play against a computer that does not conform to FoW, that gets bonus units, bonus production points, superior technology advances etc etc
I am right now playing the Allied with the Axis at second best advantage. And Yes, the Axis overwhelms my Russian troops that hasn´t a chance. But that is because pure strenght in quantity and with superior Tank technology which I am unable to match. One Single Axis panzer destroys my full strength Level 10 T-34:s in one hit, while I don´t even harm them. I am even having trouble against their infantry with my tanks and yet I´ve put everything I got into Tank technology.

[Ryben]

It´s not an easy task recognize the defects or your loved ones. I think that´s the reason.

You got the point. I wasn´t saying that the AI should be able defeat a human player or become the best programmed of all computer wargames but at least should make pretty basic decision. Like defending. Or moving. Or something.

I remember the veteran Panzer General series and how the AI was quite challening. Always trying to flank you, attacking where you were more weak, trying to destroy damaged units and capturing undefended rear locations. A game created more than 10 years ago.

Sorry but i don´t see much of that here. Enemy units just stand there like sitting ducks. You could leave cities without a garrison, they wouldn´t care. You could drive from Cherbourg to Berlin, nobody would stop you.

BTW i´ve seen the Italian fleet move. Running in the opposite direction of my Carrier 5, Carrier 4 and Cruiser 3 mighty fleet. The german Battleships never leave port.

Sorry for all this crititicism but i´m upset. It´s not usual for me to buy original games and i spend 40€ because the reviews were possitive but no one mentioned this problems we are talking about. I´m going to sell my game elsewhere (but i´ll keep a copy for myself, just in case the game improves as i REALLY like the game mechanics)

[lesthesarge]

I feel sorry for people that can't accept, that the bland, graphically dull, entirely simple games of the 90s and earlier had less trouble with an AI than the games of today.

Sorry, but the games get more complex, and as a result, the challenge of an AI becomes that much more troublesome.

I was glad when CEAW was released. Frankly I want the AI to be all it can be, but I'm simply not such a loner, that I MUST have a game I can play without another human involved.

Sorry that's the way I see it. If you can't find a human opponent, for any of the usual tired already heard them reasons, you have my pity. Yes pity. All you have is your computer, no friends to play with because life has made you probably get older and your job interferes and you have a wife and kids that need you and there's no time for your wargame.

CEAW is a great game. Advanced Third Reich is also a great game. One is a program on a computer, and one if a board game. If neither had an electronic oppponent, I wouldn't care less.

Wargamers need to stop being the whiney little loners they are, and either get a human opponent, or find something to do that doesn't require an opponent.

[Ryben]

If i want to play with a human opponent i would gladly call my friends on weekend set up a game of "Axis&Allies" or any other of the many boardgames i have. We would have a good time, laughing, making jokes and cursing around the table while moving gaming pieces. I don´t talk with my computer nor i´m a loner, a geek or a nerd. Let´s not discuss about our personal lives, ok? I don´t know you and you don´t know me.

And yes, games are more complex. Maybe "Hearts of Iron II" is quite complex, maybe "Making history: the calm& the storm" too or even "Strategic Command 2". Not CEAW, which is quite simple and doesn´t have much things to mess with. Basically you have units, production centers and convoys. No special zones, no diplomacy, no research centers...

So, i´ll explain again:

I just want AI reacts to my attacks. Just-like-any-damn-computer-wargame-since-computers-were-created. Just that. Now the game feels like a boardgame nicely setup where you are the only player.

Grrr...i don´t want to be a whiney. Just pointing defects in order to be corrected so everyone would be happy. The game would be better, it will sell more, the developers are happy and gamers too. Everyone wins.

[lesthesarge]

Why does anyone assume I would assume I knew them?

Of course I don't know you. And by extension I don't have the slightest clue about you in any fashion.

Now it's interesting that you can be familiar with HoI, Strategic Command, and Making History to name 3 well known titles. And yet you can't realize that they are all essentially grand strategy titles, all WW2 based settings where politics, production, research as well as military operations are simulated. And while I personally like CEAW more than the other 3 titles, it's all about taste, and has nothing to do with their respective AI capacities.

HoI is real time, and I think it's an idiotic notion to make a real time grand strategy design at any level of complexity.
Making History I actually don't have as much trouble with. But I have a thing for hex based maps.
Strategic Command 2, well it's mostly the hexes, otherwise it is likely a good enough game.

I would be lying though, if I thought the AI in any of them was truly acceptable.

So essentially what you are complaining about, is an inadequacy brought about by an insistence on doing the unreasonable.
Forcing wargame makers to provide an adequate AI is like demanding a 25th hour in the day.

And when the solution is to just play both sides, if you can't actually get the other human. Well I always wonder about what sort of person defiantly insists that a artificial person measure up to a human intellect. It's ridiculous, it's absurd.

I'm not interested in YOUR personal life by the way.
But I will say it again, the weakness of the game, is not the game, it's your insistence on you not wanting to play the game against any other than a machine. If you will ONLY play the AI, well, enjoy your experiences, but, at the end of the day, there are simply NO AIs out there thinking. And you will be disappointed in all you next games too.

[Ryben]

Well, in all those games i´ve mentioned the road to Berlin is not wide open and undefended, as it is in CEAW.

If you read the previous replies (and other posts in the forum) you´ll notice that this is what we are discussing about. Of course the AI is nothing but a list of parameters and conditions, nothing really like a real intellect. I assume that.

It´s just a flaw in that parameters that leaves Berlin undefended, making the game too predictable and easy once you reach certain point. If the developers could fix that, then the game would be awesome again. Very simple, we don´t demand anyhing else.

Let´s try not to make this post a Flame war, right?

[joe98]

The AI should be used for learning game mechanics.

I only play games against humans.
-

[KarlXII]

It doesn´t seem people understand what the topic is about.

"Forcing wargame makers to provide an adequate AI is like demanding a 25th hour in the day. "

Ehh...And I thought that was the reason to even make it on the computer in the first place. Why bother else ?
Otherwise perhaps wargame makers should keep producing table board games only and not move it to the computer ? It seems a lot of the players for CEAW have a long background in playing table-top military games, which is fine. But I have only played strategy games on computers from the the end of the 80:s to todays date and I have seen a lot of good and bad strategy games regarding the ability of the AI since then. Both Gary Grigsby and Roger Keating have made some quite good AI in some of their games.

For me it sounds that the defenders of the AI in CEAW reasons like "if CEAW AI cannot handle it, no other strategy game can handle it". And that is of course a sad and narrow perspective.

"And when the solution is to just play both sides, if you can't actually get the other human. Well I always wonder about what sort of person defiantly insists that a artificial person measure up to a human intellect. It's ridiculous, it's absurd"

Who has ever asked for an AI that can match a human player ? No one. And answer Rybens question why it is impossible for the AI to defend Berlin ? Why ? What is it that makes the AI able to do pretty much anything else but fails to defend Berlin and react to the invasions in the west or actually care for the Mediterrenian ? Why is it impossible ? If the intention never was to give the game a good solitaire experience then perhaps that should have been stated somewhere.

"But I will say it again, the weakness of the game, is not the game, it's your insistence on you not wanting to play the game against any other than a machine. If you will ONLY play the AI, well, enjoy your experiences, but, at the end of the day, there are simply NO AIs out there thinking. And you will be disappointed in all you next games too."

I wouldn´t give any statement if this was my first strategy game ever played on the computer. I just know it could be improved since I´ve played other games which manages fairly well without being perfect. But you seem to be unable to understand that. Every criticism of the AI is met with "It is impossible to make a human thinking AI" as if it was
impossible improvements in the AI we want to see.

[lesthesarge]

I should mention, I was part of the team that originally beta tested the game.

I have not been active in topics recently, but that is not to say I am new to the design.

That said, I want to point out that being on a computer implies absolutely nothing. Over at the Schwerpunkt web site you will see this philosophy enshrined in company policy actually.
http://www.ghg.net/schwerpt/index.htm
Ron Dockal has the belief, that computer wargames actually should look and feel like the board games they are emulating.

A computer is a tool.

This notion is further supported by the existence of programs such as Vassal and Cyberboard which exist solely to allow an interface so the user can play an actual board game via a computer linkage, with another board game equipped wargamer in a distant location.

In that vein, the computer is not "playing" the game, the user is, and the computer is just a means to allowing it between two humans.

Now if CEAW had been released as a no AI at all computer wargame, where nothing happened if there was no humans to play both sides, I'd still have wanted it. Wouldn't bother me a bit.

But I recognize that I am a minority. Wargamers have been a minority since they have been an identifiable group though. It doesn't bother me if my viewpoint is exceedingly limited in numbers of supporters

On the subject of good AIs. Actually, a "good AI" is often a reflection of a game with simple parameters that was not difficult to deal with. This explains why you can code a Chess game easier than a wargame. Chess has a fixed number of pieces that always get set on the same places, and the pieces are always the same selection and their capacities never alter. It might be hard to beat a good Chess player, but it's not so hard to write a Chess program.

The more "thinking" the game has to pretend to be doing, the more "stupid" the AI will seem when compared to a simplistic game.
And grand strategy is basically the greatest level of "thinking" in wargaming. Because in tactical games, it's not the same dynamic.
The further you go from tactical, the further you go from arcade action, where reflexes rule, not considered thought.
This is why tactical games can appear like a "challenge". All that's being challenged is your physical reflexes.

[KarlXII]

There is definititely a clash of different backgrounds of wargaming here and while I respect the ones that have moved from board wargames to computer wargames the majority of players is probably only playing strategy games on the computer. I know very well that it is hard to implement a good strategic AI. But there is a very wide span between a AI considered Good and a AI considered Bad. I only want the AI to at least be in the middle. Since it doesn´t matter for the board game playes if there are any AI at all, why then even bother to defend it ?

In my opinon all of these games have a better "reactive" and complete AI, so why couldn´t the AI in CEAW be improved ?

Korsun Pocket
Ardennes Offensive
Panzer General 2
Steel Panthers series
Second Front
Crown of Glory (quite good strategically)
The Operational Art of War III (very good operationally)
Europa Universalis III (quite good)
Galactic Civilizations II (very good)
Uncommon Valor

BTW I also read Schwerpunkt Design Philosophy which says:

"Create a Computer Artificial Intelligence (AI) that is realistic, challenging and aggressive, but not predictable. "

....we don´t ask for anything more than that.