Slitherine

I don't expect the AI to play at a human level but how reliable is the AI and whether or not there are improvements on the AI in the new version?

I don't think it is very good. whether it is better or worse than the AI in the original FOG I couldn't say at this stage. It is OK to use to learn the basics of the game but then you need to move on to multi-player really.

stockwellpete wrote:I don't think it is very good. whether it is better or worse than the AI in the original FOG I couldn't say at this stage. It is OK to use to learn the basics of the game but then you need to move on to multi-player really.

Bummer. Multiplayer has always been something I never tried to dive in to. I might dive in to it once they iron out the new version. Oh well, I hope there will be some AI improvements in the future. I just want to make armies and let it battle against eachother.

That's one birds opinion. Don't just take his word for it wait for some other reviews both pro and users. Remember there are a lot of haters online these days and they would try to ruin any game they can.

Igorputski wrote:That's one birds opinion. Don't just take his word for it wait for some other reviews both pro and users. Remember there are a lot of haters online these days and they would try to ruin any game they can.

Really? Did you just imply that Pete is "a hater"?!...

NikiforosFokas wrote:Really? Did you just imply that Pete is "a hater"?!...

I wouldn't worry too much. Here is Igorputski writing about AI in April this year . . .

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 78#p603578

stockwellpete wrote:

NikiforosFokas wrote:Really? Did you just imply that Pete is "a hater"?!...

I wouldn't worry too much. Here is Igorputski writing about AI in April this year . . .

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 78#p603578

And I never said take "my opinion" as fact either buddyBOY! I'm just telling the dude to not take any one post as foremost truth. There are a lot of haters online and that's a fact! HUH!? TROLLS too I see. (Nik)

Igorputski wrote:And I never said take "my opinion" as fact either buddyBOY! I'm just telling the dude to not take any one post as foremost truth. There are a lot of haters online and that's a fact! HUH!? TROLLS too I see. (Nik)

Can you stop being so offensive please?

If someone (let's name him the X person) believes that a person who is moderator in a forum of the game he loves, i.e. the same person who organizes the leagues and the cups of the same game is a hater who has the target to ruin the same game he surely is not more clever than the new FOG Al. So no suprises when the accuser go mad when someone tells him that the AI is not good. That it s all.

NikiforosFokas wrote:If someone (let's name him the X person) believes that a person who is moderator in a forum of the game he loves, i.e. the same person who organizes the leagues and the cups of the same game is a hater who has the target to ruin the same game he surely is not more clever than the new FOG Al. So no suprises when the accuser go mad when someone tells him that the AI is not good. That it s all.

I think if I was to enter the AI (of either version) into my FOG Digital League tournament then it would probably not win a game and would finish bottom of the lowest division. That tells you how strong it is really. The older version AI did not know how to support its skirmishers so they were easy to capture and it tended to leave any "poor" units up by its camp. Its army selection was also bizarre at times with a 20 unit army having an "inspired" leader and two other "field" commanders. Really an "inspired" leader, or a "field" and "troop" leader would be enough and the other army selection points should have been used on purchasing more units. The size of an army is very important in FOG.

stockwellpete wrote: I think if I was to enter the AI (of either version) into my FOG Digital League tournament then it would probably not win a game and would finish bottom of the lowest division. That tells you how strong it is really. The older version AI did not know how to support its skirmishers so they were easy to capture and it tended to leave any "poor" units up by its camp. Its army selection was also bizarre at times with a 20 unit army having an "inspired" leader and two other "field" commanders. Really an "inspired" leader, or a "field" and "troop" leader would be enough and the other army selection points should have been used on purchasing more units. The size of an army is very important in FOG.

Yes you are right.

stockwellpete wrote:

NikiforosFokas wrote:If someone (let's name him the X person) believes that a person who is moderator in a forum of the game he loves, i.e. the same person who organizes the leagues and the cups of the same game is a hater who has the target to ruin the same game he surely is not more clever than the new FOG Al. So no suprises when the accuser go mad when someone tells him that the AI is not good. That it s all.

I think if I was to enter the AI (of either version) into my FOG Digital League tournament then it would probably not win a game and would finish bottom of the lowest division. That tells you how strong it is really. The older version AI did not know how to support its skirmishers so they were easy to capture and it tended to leave any "poor" units up by its camp. Its army selection was also bizarre at times with a 20 unit army having an "inspired" leader and two other "field" commanders. Really an "inspired" leader, or a "field" and "troop" leader would be enough and the other army selection points should have been used on purchasing more units. The size of an army is very important in FOG.

Danm! Are you talking about me or the AI? Maybe we're twins.


Best Wishes

Mike

Mike if YOU complain i have to suicide At least that way many Byzantines will be free from the torture to have me commander

No need for that, Kostas, you're regularly beating me now, so you've definitely got one up on the AI.


Best Wishes

Mike

I think we can definitively dismiss any assertion that Stockwellpete is a Hater or a Troll, considering he is one of the few people who has posted a thread in the forum saying "Yeah, but there are SOME good things about the UNITY version"...

I haven't noticed any recognizable change in the performance of the A.I. so far, but I've honestly only played a couple test games.

What I did notice, and was very curious about, was a detail on the screen for setting up DAG battles against the A.I.
I'm not sure its implemented yet, since I didn't seem to be able to click on it at all, but it would appear there is at least a plan to have more than one "level" of A.I. ability (I noticed a button that was set on "Average"). Also, there was a historical name to the right of that setting, which suggested that they intend to, at some point, have A.I. "personalities" that will use different tactics...some being more aggressive, some more defensive, etc, etc. I've seen systems like this used in other games to produce A.I.'s that were capable of surprising moves and offering an actual challenge for those of us with more modest ability!

bloodphoenix wrote:I think we can definitively dismiss any assertion that Stockwellpete is a Hater or a Troll, considering he is one of the few people who has posted a thread in the forum saying "Yeah, but there are SOME good things about the UNITY version"...

I haven't noticed any recognizable change in the performance of the A.I. so far, but I've honestly only played a couple test games.

What I did notice, and was very curious about, was a detail on the screen for setting up DAG battles against the A.I.
I'm not sure its implemented yet, since I didn't seem to be able to click on it at all, but it would appear there is at least a plan to have more than one "level" of A.I. ability (I noticed a button that was set on "Average"). Also, there was a historical name to the right of that setting, which suggested that they intend to, at some point, have A.I. "personalities" that will use different tactics...some being more aggressive, some more defensive, etc, etc. I've seen systems like this used in other games to produce A.I.'s that were capable of surprising moves and offering an actual challenge for those of us with more modest ability!

Aye! If Pete hated the game then he would have driven every single person away from the board by telling them how much the game sucks but he is actually helping out when someone asks a question and compiling the problems found in the new version in order to make it easier for the dev(s) to know any issues and possibly fix all of it in the future.

As for the DAG option, I am hoping there will be AI improvement since I feel that in DAGs, even when I did some very stupid stuff, the AI doesn't punish me for it. The only time I lost was when I played armies with very low quality troops against armies with high quality troops. I am curious as to what the AI will be able to do once the level,personality and handicap options are unlocked. I just want to put an army together and battle it against eachother and endlessly do it. For someone who never plays multiplayer, a good AI will make me very happy.

I lose MP battles because practicing vs the AI don't make me a good player. Hope it gets improved. All he best to the dev.

And sometimes we want to finish a battle in one sitting. Multiplayer takes some time.

That said, I still play this game quite often now.

jomni wrote:I lose MP battles because practicing vs the AI don't make me a good player. Hope it gets improved. All he best to the dev.

And sometimes we want to finish a battle in one sitting. Multiplayer takes some time.

And that is why I love the Sengoku Jidai AI. If I get too complacent and move without thinking, it punishes me. Also that is the reason why I hate multiplayer. I don't want anything that relies on another person. I want to be able to play a lot when I want to and never play at all when I am not in the mood.

A decent AI should be a necessary feature in every PC game but FoG doesn't have one, alas!
The only way to make tha AI looks challenging is to play using a lot pts. less than the AI in building your army and anyway trying to field the same number of units (i.e. playing with very low qualities BGs vs superior enemy units).

But this is neiteher nice nor historically accurate and I don't like it!

While I've been trying to get used to the Unity version, and studying how things work, I've been playing against the A.I.

As I mentioned, it appears that there is a plan at some point to have different settings for A.I. "personality" or play style, and difficulty? We seem to be locked on "Average" right now? I truly hope that is the plan, and that it does get implemented at some point, because the A.I. right now is just abysmal. Maybe its no different than it was in the original game, and its just been long enough since I played it that I've forgotten how bad it really was? Maybe some of the small changes to how things play out in Unity are just too much for its pea-size brain to allow for...but it actually seems WORSE.

I might be wrong. But I just played Baecula (sp?) as the Romans...its the 2nd Punic War scenario where Carthage is deployed on a wide plateau-like height. The A.I. actually attacked me, coming down off the heights, engaging Heavy Infantry with Mediums on level ground, when they could have fought me from a higher position while I was crossing a ravine. I usually favor the Punic side in that conflict, and it was painful for me to watch. Light Cavalry charged steady heavy units in the rear (I'm not even sure how they managed that) even though it meant turning their own rear to the Triarii coming up in the next line. Because of the changes in the way Light Infantry evades (the direction changes) my advancing Italian Allies couldn't help but devour his lights, unit after unit. He was half-way to his army's break point before I lost a single point. Just sad.