Campaign Game - Thoughts

[Bern]

As you are preparing to address the position of France AI in the camapign scenario versus the Coalition, I wonder if I can offer some thoughts - a bit nervously .

First I agree with the posts in another thread on the question of manpower. Hopefully you are looking at this.

More importantly, maybe, I believe the initial set up of forces puts France in a very difficult position. The naval set up means that the Royal Navy is most likely to destroy the French navy within a couple of turns, thus removing a potentially crucial naval element from the game. This may have been done for historical reasons but it does hurt the balance. It also means that an invasion of England is almost a dead issue and brings into question the initial deployment of powerful forces around Brussels. Should not the RN be tasked with finding the french fleet before bringing it to battle?

If we assume that the strategy for France is to take Vienna and crush Saxony and Prussia at an early stage, and IMO this is really the only way a French AI can give a meaningful game, then the initial set up makes this very, very difficult. In addition to the troops with Napoleon, there are strong units in Brussels, which I mentioned above, Lyon, Marseilles and Paris itself. Could not consideration be given to using some of this strength to bolster the effort in central Europe?

I think I would go a little further and add one more attack-minded leader to assist in the early stages.

Hope you don't mind the suggestions.

Bern

[taggan]

As you are preparing to address the position of France AI in the camapign scenario versus the Coalition, I wonder if I can offer some thoughts - a bit nervously .

First I agree with the posts in another thread on the question of manpower. Hopefully you are looking at this.

More importantly, maybe, I believe the initial set up of forces puts France in a very difficult position. The naval set up means that the Royal Navy is most likely to destroy the French navy within a couple of turns, thus removing a potentially crucial naval element from the game. This may have been done for historical reasons but it does hurt the balance. It also means that an invasion of England is almost a dead issue and brings into question the initial deployment of powerful forces around Brussels. Should not the RN be tasked with finding the french fleet before bringing it to battle?

If we assume that the strategy for France is to take Vienna and crush Saxony and Prussia at an early stage, and IMO this is really the only way a French AI can give a meaningful game, then the initial set up makes this very, very difficult. In addition to the troops with Napoleon, there are strong units in Brussels, which I mentioned above, Lyon, Marseilles and Paris itself. Could not consideration be given to using some of this strength to bolster the effort in central Europe?

I think I would go a little further and add one more attack-minded leader to assist in the early stages.

Hope you don't mind the suggestions.

Bern

Agree with you except the AI in the campaign game is broken, I like this game but am starting to realize that it was released premature. I am France turn 68 and have difficulty settings all the way right for allies, any less and its a joke, but still I can do anything I want and the AI just sits there. I had 20 russian units facing me for 8 turns and they do nothing, I leave them openings to take smolensk and they sit there, totally incapable of taking any action whatsoever. So all I do is pick them off one at a time, like shooting bottles and the rest just sit there until there all gone and I walk into Moscow. The only aggression I have seen is right after portugal joins the allies, they land one line infantry on the coast north of Paris surrounded by 3 of my line infantry, they didn't see them? Ridiculous. The navy? Ya your right about Gibralter, starts off real good there, but move your ships into the English channel. I have not put any resources into my navy and yet my 3 ships of the line can sail up and down channel with no enemy attacking except Nelson in his ship of the line which I damaged 30 turns ago and it comes sailing up to my port as a level 4 after it passes 5 of its ports where it could have ramped up to ten but the AI is so poor that it doesn't bother. It just lets me get 2 ships up close, injure Nelson and he is gone for 29 turns? Again, ridiculous.. I started this game with an open mind and it was fun until I saw that the AI is so staganant its worthless. Sorry Slitherine but you new what shape the AI was in and still released the game, typical...

[taggan]

Oh, whens the patch?

[Bern]

As you are preparing to address the position of France AI in the camapign scenario versus the Coalition, I wonder if I can offer some thoughts - a bit nervously .

First I agree with the posts in another thread on the question of manpower. Hopefully you are looking at this.

More importantly, maybe, I believe the initial set up of forces puts France in a very difficult position. The naval set up means that the Royal Navy is most likely to destroy the French navy within a couple of turns, thus removing a potentially crucial naval element from the game. This may have been done for historical reasons but it does hurt the balance. It also means that an invasion of England is almost a dead issue and brings into question the initial deployment of powerful forces around Brussels. Should not the RN be tasked with finding the french fleet before bringing it to battle?

If we assume that the strategy for France is to take Vienna and crush Saxony and Prussia at an early stage, and IMO this is really the only way a French AI can give a meaningful game, then the initial set up makes this very, very difficult. In addition to the troops with Napoleon, there are strong units in Brussels, which I mentioned above, Lyon, Marseilles and Paris itself. Could not consideration be given to using some of this strength to bolster the effort in central Europe?

I think I would go a little further and add one more attack-minded leader to assist in the early stages.

Hope you don't mind the suggestions.

Bern

Agree with you except the AI in the campaign game is broken, I like this game but am starting to realize that it was released premature. I am France turn 68 and have difficulty settings all the way right for allies, any less and its a joke, but still I can do anything I want and the AI just sits there. I had 20 russian units facing me for 8 turns and they do nothing, I leave them openings to take smolensk and they sit there, totally incapable of taking any action whatsoever. So all I do is pick them off one at a time, like shooting bottles and the rest just sit there until there all gone and I walk into Moscow. The only aggression I have seen is right after portugal joins the allies, they land one line infantry on the coast north of Paris surrounded by 3 of my line infantry, they didn't see them? Ridiculous. The navy? Ya your right about Gibralter, starts off real good there, but move your ships into the English channel. I have not put any resources into my navy and yet my 3 ships of the line can sail up and down channel with no enemy attacking except Nelson in his ship of the line which I damaged 30 turns ago and it comes sailing up to my port as a level 4 after it passes 5 of its ports where it could have ramped up to ten but the AI is so poor that it doesn't bother. It just lets me get 2 ships up close, injure Nelson and he is gone for 29 turns? Again, ridiculous.. I started this game with an open mind and it was fun until I saw that the AI is so staganant its worthless. Sorry Slitherine but you new what shape the AI was in and still released the game, typical...

Okay I can see your point and have had similar experiences. Possibly some of the issues could have been identified during beta test and fixed. However, on the plus side, I would have to say that this is the most stable game I have played in a long time so kudos to the developer and the beta testers there.

The question of AI is tricky. It has to be looked at as a whole. Generally it is not possible just to fix one area in isolation because any changes could well have ramifications throughout the program. It is for that reason I was nervous about making any suggestions at all. Just to take one example - imagine if, as I suggest, the naval set up was changed so that the two fleets are not in sight of each other. Think then of how much the coding of the naval activity would have to change to accommodate this eventuality.

Although on the surface this looks quite a simple game, it is, in fact, very complex in its interaction and has a wide scale. I don't think that we could have expected a strong AI at the first time of asking. It's a game which needs to be played by a large range of folks who can provide feedback. I do believe that the developer will be working hard to make some improvements - but this may take a good while. I'm happy to wait.

Bern

[Happycat]

Again, ridiculous.. I started this game with an open mind and it was fun until I saw that the AI is so staganant its worthless. Sorry Slitherine but you new what shape the AI was in and still released the game, typical...

Far be it from me to nominate myself as a spokesman for Slitherine, but I think that your charge that they released the game prematurely is not well-founded. A fair amount of work was put into this game in its development, and by the time I saw the first beta, it was already a fairly well functioning game.

The AI possibly is not as good as could be hoped for, but neither is it as bad as you make out. I have yet to see a wargame that has AI which would make me consider giving up PBEM.

I also don't know what your comment at the end means ("typical"). If you mean that all games require more work and patching after release, I would agree. But if you are singling out Slitherine, that seems most unreasonable.

To me, the ultimate test of whether a developer is worth buying from on a repeat basis is how well they support games after they are released. If they continue to produce patches, support a modding community, and are very "visible" on the forums to answer questions and respond to comments, that is what works for me.

Slitherine has released six patches for CEAW, for example, and a seventh is imminent. More importantly, the people behind Slitherine are supportive when it comes to mods, and are willing to explain how something works so that modding can be as effective as possible.

Criticism is ok, constructive criticism would be so much better

[Happycat]

As you are preparing to address the position of France AI in the camapign scenario versus the Coalition, I wonder if I can offer some thoughts - a bit nervously .

First I agree with the posts in another thread on the question of manpower. Hopefully you are looking at this.

More importantly, maybe, I believe the initial set up of forces puts France in a very difficult position. The naval set up means that the Royal Navy is most likely to destroy the French navy within a couple of turns, thus removing a potentially crucial naval element from the game. This may have been done for historical reasons but it does hurt the balance. It also means that an invasion of England is almost a dead issue and brings into question the initial deployment of powerful forces around Brussels. Should not the RN be tasked with finding the french fleet before bringing it to battle?

If we assume that the strategy for France is to take Vienna and crush Saxony and Prussia at an early stage, and IMO this is really the only way a French AI can give a meaningful game, then the initial set up makes this very, very difficult. In addition to the troops with Napoleon, there are strong units in Brussels, which I mentioned above, Lyon, Marseilles and Paris itself. Could not consideration be given to using some of this strength to bolster the effort in central Europe?

I think I would go a little further and add one more attack-minded leader to assist in the early stages.

Hope you don't mind the suggestions.

Bern

I think these are good ideas. In particular, I am uncomfortable with EVERY campaign game opening with a "turkey shoot", where the French fleet is wiped out.

At the same time, there are many people who would enjoy alternate history, achieved by variable set-up of forces at start of game.

Since is not possible for players to do a "free setup", a simple solution would be for Slitherine to copy over all of the files that make up the campaign game, and then change the starting position for the French fleet. Perhaps change a couple of the other things that Bern mentioned too.

Name it "1805 Campaign Game--alternate setup" and everyone wins. Not a lot of programming work, and we get to try something different to see if it helps the French or not.

[firepowerjohan]

To be accurate, we have release 3 patches for CEAW. the 1.02 , 1.04 and 1.06 were the patches, others were just beta patches that were never released. 1.07 beta is the latest one and this if going well could be released as is which would mean 4th patch.

Some of the patches received hotfixes afteerwards if ppl had technical problems but for gameplay it is 3 patches to this date still

[Happycat]

To be accurate, we have release 3 patches for CEAW. the 1.02 , 1.04 and 1.06 were the patches, others were just beta patches that were never released. 1.07 beta is the latest one and this if going well could be released as is which would mean 4th patch.

Some of the patches received hotfixes afteerwards if ppl had technical problems but for gameplay it is 3 patches to this date still

True enough, my counting is inaccurate. But it doesn't alter the fact that the game HAS been well supported. At some point, games do have to be released, and we then rely upon the developer to keep supporting with patches. Slitherine is not the first company to do this, nor will it be the last.

[Redpossum]

I'm going to add my voice to Happycat's here.

I have been a happy Slitherine customer for about 3 years now, and over that time they have always demonstrated outstandingly high levels of customer support and just plain caring. Their presence on the forums to answer questions is just amazing, and these are the real designers, in many cases the big boss and founder himself, not just an underling hired for the forum tasks. We not only get answers, we get answers from the real source.

Although I contributed little, I was a beta tester on CNAW, (and CEAW before that), and I would politely but firmly dispute the charge that CNAW was released too soon.

If you must blame someone for the AI problems, blame us beta-testers; we have big shoulders

As Happycat said, the game will continue to be developed and supported. There will be ongoing development and patches, and things will improve. But no AI is ever going to replace a human opponent in any genre but RTS or maybe FPS (yes, I have played some Q3 bots that kicked my ass royally).

[IainMcNeil]

Thanks guys - the problem with AI is that you can test it and test it, tweak one setting and suddenly all sorts of issues crop up. This appears to be what happened. By continually trying to improve it Johan changed a setting that had unforseen effects and caused issue in the 1805 scenario which was hard to detect because its so long.