SCW and the limits of AGEOD engine

[Blancador]

When you read about the SCW a striking fact is that after a beginning period of high confusion where columns were able to perform deep strategic movements, the front froze and moved very slowly (except for the late offensive in Aragon that ended up in Vinaroz in early 38).
It never happens in the game (at least when you play against the AI, I didn't try against a human opponent). When you play the Nationales, it is not such a problem because you generally end up the war in the late 36 or early 37, but it is striking when you play the Republicans, you spent most of the time running after "huge" (15 to 20 000 men) armies, which performed fast and deep penetration to try to seize town deep behind your frontline. The later is easily pierced because you don't have enough ressources to have armies of 10000+ men in each territories along your front (and need to keep huge reserve in second line town which attract a lot of your manpower). It doesn't make a real danger because you just form big armies in strategic cities and keep one or two huge manoeuvring ones which concentrate artillery guns and tanks. So it more a nuisance but it sounds pretty un-historical and kill a bit the feeling. I wonder if there is a solution to have a sticky front. Maybe historical scenarii staring later could make it. Or a bigger difference in movement speed between friendly and unfriendly territories. Any idea/suggestions?

[ERISS]

It seems some control simulation is missing.
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?32738-2-other-issues&p=293358&viewfull=1#post293358

[Leibst]

I believe there still room to add some changes to makes things better, but work and test in AI issues takes lot of time even for a small gain.
In a mid-war scenario it is possible to make things different, with a defined front, armies and corps all along the front. Using the control zone.
But i have to see what makes Athena in such situation, maybe she wants to join several stacks in a huge stack and again creates holes in the front line.

[Blancador]

That is a possibility. In fact this behaviour is OK with the musket era (for Rise of Prussia, it captured the right spirit of march and counter-march) or even for the Russian civil war. Maybe you should have a look in the WWI version of the engine. I played it before the gold version and I didn't have this felling but it was so bugged that I get bored and un-installed it.

[caranorn]

That is a possibility. In fact this behaviour is OK with the musket era (for Rise of Prussia, it captured the right spirit of march and counter-march) or even for the Russian civil war. Maybe you should have a look in the WWI version of the engine. I played it before the gold version and I didn't have this felling but it was so bugged that I get bored and un-installed it.

WWI is not using the Age engine, so no use looking at it to fix something in Espãna...

[GlobalExplorer]

Haven't played the Nationalists yet but the Repulican campaign was pretty easy. It ended in early '37 by moral check.

You can go right away to re-capture Zaragoza with the anarchist units from Barcelona. All you have to do is send a three star general and also put Durruti into the stack.
I also got lots of precious equipment that way.

In the south, the Nationalists can be stopped at Almeria, again, all you have to put up a capable general in command and use the (regular) troops available in Cartagena and Valencia.

Another stack around Madrid, will stop the Nationalists.

The troops north of Malaga can destroy and disrupt the railroads.

In the North, simply defend the major cities and purchase the Asturian units.

From then on, the AI was rather helpless and had no plan.

I think it has to with the fact that most units are not locked. The only way to make the campaign more interesting would be to put in more restrictions (locking stacks to a city). And alternative starts of course that make the game more challenging.

[Durk]

Fellows, you have to remember all games are made for human to human play. Even the very best AI does not read history books. AI emulates 'best play.' Humans find the anomalous openings and stratagems a computer could never find, even with MIT programers. If you are this far along in your understanding of this excellent game, find a human with the same passion.
Just saying.

[caranorn]

Fellows, you have to remember all games are made for human to human play. Even the very best AI does not read history books. AI emulates 'best play.' Humans find the anomalous openings and stratagems a computer could never find, even with MIT programers. If you are this far along in your understanding of this excellent game, find a human with the same passion.
Just saying.

I must say I actually found the game against the ai challenging (not to the point of not winning, but to the point where I had unexpected set backs etc., kept scaling up difficulty from game to game). But I have little to no knowledge of how the SCW was actually fought...

[GlobalExplorer]

Fellows, you have to remember all games are made for human to human play. Even the very best AI does not read history books. AI emulates 'best play.' Humans find the anomalous openings and stratagems a computer could never find, even with MIT programers. If you are this far along in your understanding of this excellent game, find a human with the same passion.
Just saying.

Playing the Reds in RuS was more challenging than the Republicans in SCW, and most importantly, it was a much longer campaign. I won RuS close to the historic time frame, whereas I won SCW in early 1937, after what was hardly a civil war.

The challenge in RuS had to do with the way the game keeps bringing up new problems and challenges (mostly by clever use of events and locked units).

Also what you say may be true, but alternative start dates in '37 and '38 would be a great way to provide successively "harder" entry points, at least for one of the two sides (Republican?).
This worked well in AACW where April 1861 was the easiest for the South, whereas 1863 was a completely different affair.

[Blancador]

Fellows, you have to remember all games are made for human to human play. Even the very best AI does not read history books. AI emulates 'best play.' Humans find the anomalous openings and stratagems a computer could never find, even with MIT programers. If you are this far along in your understanding of this excellent game, find a human with the same passion.
Just saying.

Basically you are right, but real life doesn't allow you to find an opponent on due time (and the slow pace of PBemail is dull). An historical feeling event against AI is still a very important part of a computer simulation. Again, this "big army" maneuvring deeply in ennemy territory suit very well to SYW, American or Russian civil war and even when the IA do stupid things in this games, it is stupid things that make sense in the context. I wonder what will be your feeling in a game that allow the German (or the Allies) to perform big march and counter-march on the western front in 1917? The problem is exactly the same in Spain in 1937-1939. The armies (except maybe the CTV, I insist on the "maybe") just do not have the logistic to do it and Spanish geography do not allowed it on large part of its territory. So, the fact that is possible is already a limitation (I will not discuss the fact that human opponent will also do the same, it will bring me too far). Again, it is not a critic against the game, I am happy that is exist but I do think that it can be improved in order to increase the simulation. If not what will be the point then ? We can continue to play at Civilization....

[PJJ]

Fellows, you have to remember all games are made for human to human play. Even the very best AI does not read history books. AI emulates 'best play.' Humans find the anomalous openings and stratagems a computer could never find, even with MIT programers. If you are this far along in your understanding of this excellent game, find a human with the same passion.
Just saying.

Yet the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of people never play against anything but the AI. Therefore every effort must be made to improve the AI. It's a challenge, yes, but challenges are made to be conquered. Our niche hobby will never make much progress if the AI is always given only second thought, because it's only seen as a practice opponent before starting the "real" human vs. human games.

This front issue could be a great opportunity to test the AI for future development efforts. Who knows, maybe we'll get an AGEOD title about WW1 or WW2 some day.

[Blancador]

Yet the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of people never play against anything but the AI. Therefore every effort must be made to improve the AI. It's a challenge, yes, but challenges are made to be conquered. Our niche hobby will never make much progress if the AI is always given only second thought, because it's only seen as a practice opponent before starting the "real" human vs. human games.

I am completely in line with you

[Durk]

Are you fellows kidding? I would play against myself before I play against AI. AI in any game is fine for learning the game, but then a new challenge is needed. The best AI in the best game ever is not equal to a human opponent.

One challenge better than AI is playing both sides, usually a nice way to learn. However, unless you take on a live human, you never know how much you do not know.

I am pretty sure the overwhelming majority of people play against other humans. I actually have no basis for saying this, but I wonder your basis for saying players rarely reach out to play humans. Playing only AI would get so repetitive so quickly.

Just saying

[Durk]

Basically you are right, but real life doesn't allow you to find an opponent on due time (and the slow pace of PBemail is dull). An historical feeling event against AI is still a very important part of a computer simulation. Again, this "big army" maneuvring deeply in ennemy territory suit very well to SYW, American or Russian civil war and even when the IA do stupid things in this games, it is stupid things that make sense in the context. I wonder what will be your feeling in a game that allow the German (or the Allies) to perform big march and counter-march on the western front in 1917? The problem is exactly the same in Spain in 1937-1939. The armies (except maybe the CTV, I insist on the "maybe") just do not have the logistic to do it and Spanish geography do not allowed it on large part of its territory. So, the fact that is possible is already a limitation (I will not discuss the fact that human opponent will also do the same, it will bring me too far). Again, it is not a critic against the game, I am happy that is exist but I do think that it can be improved in order to increase the simulation. If not what will be the point then ? We can continue to play at Civilization....

AI cannot mirror a live player or history. It can only follow a set of guidelines. In so many games I have played, AI is basically so predictable that it becomes easy to beat. This game has reasonable AI. A a player you must make good decisions, while AI can bring some surprises.

As to ahistorical play, isn't that something games explore? We would not love human opponents if they only followed history.

I do understand your point about the slow play of a single PBEM. I live in a place where a live opponent just does not happen. A solution, several games where one turn a night is a part of playing many others. No program I have ever seen, even excellent chess programs, can be better than a real person.

[GlobalExplorer]

I am pretty sure the overwhelming majority of people play against other humans.

No. The majority wants to play, not wait for the opponent to send another turn.

Besides, PBEM and AI are two separate topics. PBEM has no place in discussion about AI.

What is true however is that people doing multiplayer are more vocal and have persuaded many developers to disregard AI and singleplayer, usually paying a high price for it.

[Ebbingford]

I am pretty sure the overwhelming majority of people play against other humans. I actually have no basis for saying this, but I wonder your basis for saying players rarely reach out to play humans. Playing only AI would get so repetitive so quickly.

Just saying

See this poll result, OK not many voted but it's probably a fair reflection on the community. http://www.ageod-forum.com/poll.php?pollid=10&do=showresults

[PJJ]

Forums seem to be populated by the most active PBEM people. This is understandable, because they use the forums to look for other players. This can easily give you the false impression that the majority of people are like them. But that isn't the case. Most people simply don't play against other people, for various reasons. Lack of time is perhaps the most important one.

Now a good AI is not impossible to create. There are good examples of that. Perhaps the best AGEOD AI can be found from Clovis's Fatal Years mod for RUS. But if the devs don't even bother trying because the vocal PBEM minority convinces them that it isn't worth the effort, that the AI opponent is simply a practice tool before starting the serious human vs. human matches, then it's no wonder that wargames don't sell well and there's not much in the way of AI development taking place.

Ignoring the majority is simply a bad way to approach this business.

[Templer]

...The majority wants to play, not wait for the opponent to send another turn...

This is a fact, and will remain a fact, no matter how many polls we make – period!

If I take my time on weekend at 17:00 pm for 1 hour continuous play then I want to do it at 17:00 pm, I want it here and I want it now!
And if the AI gives me a good fight, I might also play more than 1 hour.
Then I say, what a great game, what a great fight.

Playing via email is a great and can be great fun, but I just can not play then when I want to, and I can not play several turns continously.

For absolute fans of multiplayer gaming, there are numerous browser games out there on the internet world.

For me, the priority to improve the AI is on the same level as the elimination of bugs!

[GlobalExplorer]

See this poll result, OK not many voted but it's probably a fair reflection on the community. http://www.ageod-forum.com/poll.php?pollid=10&do=showresults

It's a reflection of the people who participated in the poll (~250). Personally I think the number of people who play only a little, and exclusively against AI, is much, much higher, somewhere in the thousands to ten thousands.

[Carnium]

The main "problem" here is that PBEM players (only a small fraction) are here to stay, while the wast majority that play vs AI only will come and go if they are not satisfied with the AI. Not many people want to re-play a game that they can beat at the first attempt or where the AI is unable to win. I am not talking about Espana 1936 here, but generally about the AI in today's games. All the newest games have great trailers, but they fail to show the AI...

[GlobalExplorer]

But sales-wise?

[Carnium]

But sales-wise?

Fancy graphics and good marketing sells more of course

[Durk]

Well, I am a monkey's uncle. Really, you would rather play AI than yourself of other players? Makes no sense to me. Wow. I guess I am totally in the dark.

[Franciscus]

Well, I am a monkey's uncle. Really, you would rather play AI than yourself of other players?

When I had time to play ? Yes, absolutely...

[Carnium]

Well, I am a monkey's uncle. Really, you would rather play AI than yourself of other players? Makes no sense to me. Wow. I guess I am totally in the dark.

I am pretty much like Templer as when I play it I want it NOW. No time or nerves to play one turn, zip it and send to other player and wait for his response...
Two-three turns per day? I would rather ditch playing games than playing like that
With all this in mind, for me the AI and re-playability is rather very important!

However I did play a few PBEM AGEOD games with two great players and it was very enjoyable experience as I got crushed like a complete newbie

[Leibst]

I was an AI player some time ago. But one day i try a pbem, after that playing against the AI is not much interesting for me.
I can add that if what you want is to enjoy an hour or more of a good game each day pbem is the key.
If you need more time to play you just need to have several games at the same time. Its true that when you see the turn execution and after that you give your orders you cant execute the turn because you need the enemy orders.
But giving orders in a pbem game can take you one hour in some games like AACW and that hour and the execution of the previous turn is for me a better experience than playing against AI.
Probably pbem players are few but i recomend the rest of players to try a good pbem game.

[Blancador]

I think PBEM and to play against AI is two different things and are not mutually exclusive. By the way, you cannot denied that a majority of player are playing against AI and that is one of the main interest of computer wargaming (if I play against a human opponent I still prefer a good old box or miniature wargame). You also have to keep in mind that you not always have the possibility to PBEM. In fact, most of the time I play computer wargame when I am travelling by plane or I am in remote place without internet access and I guess I am not the only one.
The argument that it is better to play against oneself than against Ai because Ai is too predictable is quite schizophrenic so I will not develop on it.
But in fact here the problem is not so much about Ageod engine. Again, I have to say that I think it work not so bad when the theme require deep strategic movement (like Seven Years War, Russian or American Civil War, etc...). It is not a huge challenge, but at least you can test some strategic principles against it. The problem is that this strategy is possible in SCW because it is completely unrealistic and therefore kills the gameplay. I complained originally against the IA because I just didn't think about doing it myself, but in fact a human adversary can do the same and doesn't seems to be a loosing strategy.
I still continue to think that something need to be done in order to increase the simulation value of the game. If not, no matter how much accuracy you put in the BO, parameters taken into account, etc... It will not be a simulation of the Spanish Civil War but just a strategic game with some Spanish flavor. It is not a shame by itself (for example Risk, Diplomacy or Panzer General are also very good games, but they are not simulations), but I have the feeling that your ambition is to tend toward an actual simulation.

[Pocus]

To have more sticky fronts, patrol value can be increased for all units.

[Leibst]

Yes, increase patrol value and also is needed high loyalty level in the regions, but in España:1936 great Campaign we start with a 50% loyalty in most of the regions. In a mid war scenario this is much easy to do. What will help a lot is to make slower the movement in enemy controlled regions, specially in 100% enemy MC, but i think this needs changes in the Exe file.

[caranorn]

Just to add one more voice concerning ai vs. pbem...

I almost exclusively play Ageod games against the ai, much for the same reason others have given. When I play, I like to play a few turns each day, with a reliable pbem opponent you can get that kind of turnaround if you get lucky. Yes, even with a reliable pbem opponent it can be an issue of luck, he might just have gone out to grab something to eat the moment you send your files over, or maybe you go to bed because you think your opponent has done so too not having received his turn for the past hour while in fact he's only been delayed. And it's exactly the time spent waiting between turns that's so annoying with pbem. You can't plan your day that way, if your out of luck you might not get more than one turn processed on a day, other days you might be jogging along at a rapid pace while others yet you won't be playing at all because your opponent is away or has other plans...

Of course there are also advantages to pbem. One of them is a much more realistic approach, that is taking fewer risks (the pbem opponent is much more likely to surprise you than the ai), using less agressive stances, doing serious reconnaisance (I recall checking playback multiple times for each turn to see what my cavalry screen had found out about enemy moves and army composition in RoP) etc. Only extremely good ai could duplicate that kind of behaviour. Back in the day, when I myself had much more time, I was a strong proponent for ai (back when the computer version of World in Flames was still only a dream I was among those opposed to inclusion of an ai that could never be satisfying, I even maintained that opinion during the original beta and the start of the current beta (no longer in the team) as working on the ai seemed like a waste of time). I even did some Napoleonic battle tournament pbem's (Battleground Waterloo, Quatre Bras and NiR) for a while which was very satisfying. But today I just don't have the time for that kind of playing...

In short, quality ai is quite important. I wouldn't even say that it's only pbem players that stick around here. I've been on these forums for quite a while now, my activity is largely determined by whether I play games at all or not, not whether a new game is out (though I can claim I've bought every Ageod game so far (except CW2 ;-) , but guess I will buy that one sooner or later when I feel like playing that game) etc. Currently I've stopped playing again, but keep looking into the forums to give feedback in some game topics, but also to keep up to date on development of the game engine as I've just de-mothballed a mod/game idea of mine (actually started from scratch as I lost all my old research).

P.S.: Can't seem to find the post mentioning playing solo best working with board (or figurine) wargames rather that computer. I have to agree to that, while I played a lot of solo board wargames, I have very rarely done that with computer games. It just doesn't seem to be practicable to me. But maybe that's also a matter of having the time to do it slowly, my best solo games were when I could take a hour's break between playing sides, essentially emptying my mind to analyse the situation at hand and ignore my plans for the other side's next move. Indeed a bit schitsophrenic (sp.)...