What if this was only PBEM?

[barbarossa0067]

Thanks for taking the time to answer. I am moving this to another location.

[epicat]

I find the computer to be a lot more reliable than a PBEM opponent. So, the AI is important to me.

Epi

The edit was just for punctuation.

[Jabberwock]

It would probably be about 1/3 of those currently planning to buy it. Half the customers play solo exclusively, most of the remainder want a chance to learn before they venture into multiplayer, but some of those would buy anyway. That is my guess.

[barbarossa0067]

Thanks for the input.

For those of you posting... I do know that AI is preferable. But would you BUY or not. What do you think. Yes or no?

And what if a version without AI cost 1/2 as much? Would that change things?

[epicat]

Thanks for the input.

For those of you posting... I do know that AI is preferable. But would you BUY or not. What do you think. Yes or no?

I might skip it then. I'd at least consider buying it.

[runyan99]

I play wargames almost exclusively against other humans, but I seem to be in the minority.

[barbarossa0067]

I personally may not buy Napoleon. Perhaps I would wait for another "AI included" Napoleonic title.

However, if AGEOD were the only people allowed to make a Napoleon game and I knew I would not be able to play Napoleon campaigns any other way, then I would probably buy anyhow. Even at full price. Almost certainly.

[lodilefty]

QUESTION 1: That is... would you buy without AI, yes or no?

No

QUESTION 2: And what if it cost half as much without AI? Would you buy in this case, and would this change your decision? Yes or no?

No

QUESTION 3: Now, what if you had to email your turn to another location where the AI was processed and a file were returned to you? Thoughts?

No. I value the ability to play 'sans Internet'. My provider can be a bit 'spotty', ya know?

QUESTION 4: What if AGEOD were the only game company allowed to make "Napoleon" campaign games, and you knew you would never be able to play Napoleon's campaigns in any other way? Thoughts?

No. Napoleonic warfare is not one of my favorites. If it were ACW, then I might buy, but only with some form of AI.

I find human opponents too fickle. Some (not all, please no generalizing now...) get wrapped up in their shorts about the nuts and bolts of the game mechanics and they don't just PLAY. It's a GAME. Enjoy the GAME. I can be sure I'll enjoy the game with a good AI (like Athena..... )

That's my opinion, and I'm stuck with it....

[Sol Invictus]

I almost exclusively play against another Player, so yes, I would buy the game if it were only PBEM.

[denisonh]

I only play against human opponents, but believe the AI to be a somewhat important part of good game design.

It is critical for having the comuter handle and manage tasks "competently" so the player is not required to micromanage. This allows depth to the game without undue complication.

On the flip side, I would NOT buy a game unless it had PBEM capability, as the PBEM aspect adds replayability to the game. The approach to your 5th PBEM game is much different than start of your 5th game against the AI. Stays on the hard drive longer.

[Rafiki]

QUESTION 1: That is... would you buy without AI, yes or no?

No, I play significantly more single-player games than multi-player

QUESTION 2: And what if it cost half as much without AI? Would you buy in this case, and would this change your decision? Yes or no?

No

QUESTION 3: Now, what if you had to email your turn to another location where the AI was processed and a file were returned to you? Thoughts?

The computers I play on are usually connected to the net, and the gaps between being online are small. I'd find an arrangement such as that to be a bit peculiar and probably more cumbersome than having the AI on your own machine, but it wouldn't disqualify the game outright

QUESTION 4: What if AGEOD were the only game company allowed to make "Napoleon" campaign games, and you knew you would never be able to play Napoleon's campaigns in any other way? Thoughts?

Though I prefer historically themed games to be anchored in actual history, and I have immense respect for the knowledge and the work that lies behind games such as AACW and NCP, it's the game I'm playing, not the history. I'll always prefer a good game with bad historicity over a bad game with good historicity, and to me personally, a game without an AI (and adjoining single-player mode) is a bad game. But getting both gameplay and historicity is of course what i prefer

[Hobbes]

I find the only decent opponents are human but the AI is good for learning the game.

Cheers, Chris

[GShock]

Already expressed my opinion...now after resigning in 6 months i know that AI is a good sparring partner but no match for a human player. leure:

...and i got to tell to all of those who've never tried a pbem that you're really missing the best part of this game!

[Alias]

I find the only decent opponents are human but the AI is good for learning the game.

Completely I agree.
If you want to became a strong player you must to play against human player.

All my games I play only PBEM, it's more funny

[jhdeerslayer]

I always prefer both. AI for practice and PBEM for challenging play.

[Syt]

I play most my games against the AI, with the occasional PBEM against people I've known for a while. So without AI I would only buy the game if I was sure I would find opponents in my playing strength (I am somewhat sucky at wargames, though I love them) and if there was a "guaranteed" player base for years to come.

[NAPY]

I would by only if AI is with game .

[Uxbridge]

This may seem strange, but after some consideration I arrived at the conclusion that I would be even more tempted to buy a game that was designed without the AI than one with it. Yes, learning would surely be a bit trickier, but too many game designs have a lot of historical or technical compromises to allow the AI to function properly. A good game-designer, working with a PBEM-design from start to finish, could probably come up with a splendid game!