The defining quality of the game (in my view)

lesthesarge · Post by **lesthesarge** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:41 pm

Ok, I have the moronically simple, and the moronically complicated in this hobby of ours.

Simple is good, but sometimes historically realistic takes a pounding.

Complicated is ok if you are looking for hyper accurate, but, to use an example WitP is almost work to play.

On a scale of 1 to 100, with 1 being Risk and 100 being War in the Pacific, I am thinking that you will find Commander is somewhere close to the 40-60 range (depends on if you are playing solo vs the AI or against a human). Keep in mind this is my view only.

My idea of the defining quality of this game is in the ease of just playing it.
If you have played Strategic Command from Battlefront, you'll understand when I say, the interface is very friendly.
The game has a very Panzer General like look to it. But it's grand strategy of course, and there is a lot more game going on than what was happening in PG.

This game will require some playings before your game play is stellar, but, it won't require you invest several months to get that first game in. If you are an aggressive throw caution to the wind type gamer, then on a good sunday afternoon you likely can whack out a full game.
And I think that is what is going to make this game great. Many players will be playing many games, developing many strategies, and kicking some major butt in human to human competition.

I think you are going to really enjoy your time with this one.

lynx · Post by **lynx** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 3:27 pm

I am very happy that You say that

freeboy · Post by **freeboy** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 7:21 pm

your opinion of the IA?

lesthesarge · Post by **lesthesarge** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:58 pm

I will assume IA is AI artificial intelligence.

My view is mixed.

I have watched the AI do repeated attacks on Poland on turn 1. I am constantly asking myself, "ok that seemed dumb" and then you go a few more moves, and you end up wondering, "ok, did it know that might happen?". Because some moves seem inexplicable, until a 3rd or 4th movement in a sequence seems to benefit from an earleir not so stunning looking move.

The trick is, you have to be able to watch a full turn, then mentally recall everything it did, and then go and play that side yourself, and do everything it did, so you can look at all the combat odds and know what the conditions were basically.

I would have to say, my thoughts on the AI are guarded at this time, but, I am optimistic. The games combat calculations are detailed enough under the hood, that the AI has a lot to work with. I'm not though, going to go with my somewhat usual stance on AIs, that being that they are all slightly clever morons. This game's AI will need a lot more opinions before you can feel comfortable making a statement. I don't think I have a full enough opinion yet to offer one.

Sorry

I have not seen it do invasions much (been busy with other aspects). And Invasions is always a big issue.
I'd have to request you ask for some additional input from other beta testers on their opinions of invasion capabilities of the AI.
I have been mostly looking at the AI's armour use technique.

freeboy · Post by **freeboy** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:44 pm

fair enough thanks

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:52 am

Although the AI is never going to be as intelligent as a human opponent it does offer a good challenge. There are also a number of difficulty settings that mean even the best players will find a level where the AI is tough to beat.

Rather than make the AI units tougher on harder difficulty levels, we've given the AI a production bonus which means it can produce more. I've always thought it irritating when AI's get better units than me. However, I don't mind being outnumbered

lesthesarge · Post by **lesthesarge** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:49 am

Some of us (me for instance) although not all of us, will in a lot of cases only use the AI when admittedly bored and simply indifferent to whether the AI is sufficient.

If I want a great game, I play it solo against myself. Not ideal in all cases, as some games require that you simply not know what you are up to with say submarines.
But any wargamer serious enough about their wargame, will invent reasons to supposely "not know" what they were doing with the other side

Whether or not Commander has the industry's most kicking AI or not will never be relevant to me (this much I know). What is relevant, is when I sit down to take over the world, which game will I be doing it with. And that DOES matter.

I won't be doing it with Strategic Command 2. I won't be doing it with GGWaW AWD unless I am in specific need of fully global perspective. I won't be doing it with anything Hearts of Ironish. I might be fiddling with Making History if I want to change the look for the day.

I will be considering Commander as my number 1 choice if I wanted to play a grand strategy wargame of European WW2.

MorgTzu · Post by **MorgTzu** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:25 pm

As long as the AI is reasonably aggresive...can John or Iain comment on the AI's use of invasion in the current build?

ungers_pride · Post by **ungers_pride** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:38 pm

An AI can always be made tougher provided the following is available:

1) Can the AI do invasions well - randomly and consistently?

2) Can the AI defend key capitals and high value objectives?

3) Can the AI maneuver well to block human player?

4) Is there a good editor for editing existing and new scenarios?

5) Can unit settings such as experience, movement rate, strength, morale, etc be edited?

6) Can settings such as technology, production points, etc be edited to give one side an advantage?

If most, or all, of the answers to the above questions are "YES", then the AI can be made to be very challenging.

MorgTzu · Post by **MorgTzu** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:45 pm

What he said...especially the part about the AI manuevering, being able to bring combined arms to bear on one point or schwerpunkt.