Yeah, I agree, strategy AIs are definetely harder to code than shooter AIs (hehe, but there are examples of extraordinary shooter AI that are just better than the AI in COD, Medal of Honour etc., look at F.E.A.R. or Far Cry, way harder opponents than in these newer shooters). Shooter AI is better in games where the opponents really work together in teams, try to flank you, use group tactics etc. You don't really see that in Call of Duty. A good example for a good AI in an Indie strategy game is AI War. This has one of the hardest AI's in an RTS ever. But they have far more support from the community, worked together with them to improve the game even before it was released (extensive open betas etc.). And it constantly gets new updates. I don't see that in WS. Another example is Armada 2526 by Neutronium Games. It was made by R.T. Smith, the guy behind the Total War Series, who quit Creative Assembly to found his own independent company. Armada has way better AI than WS (except in the real time tactical sequences). They didn't release too much patches but got their product working pretty good, I think. Malfador simply must do something to improve the game, otherwise it will be a total disaster for them.
I'm starting to get the feeling that Malfador doesnt really take this game seriously.......it seems like its a side project or something.
I did have a lot of respect for Malfador, given their past,....but the lack of communication from them, the shape this game was released in, and how this game needs a major overhaul which from the silence doesnt appear to be happening,........ I am starting to doubt I will ever buy another product from Malfador, unless at some point they start doing something to show us they are serious about fixing this game up and that their customers are important enough to them that they actually tell us something,...ANYTHING,..... about the future of this game.
I've been playing an old game I've had awhile called warzone 2100.
The computer beats me up again and again while playing the AI.
WS is a game where I win again and again. The AI is a cream puff.
Now It's interesting that Shrapnel can come out and say that "multiplayer quirks have been addressed" and yet nobody
is actually testing multiplayer.
Very true. I first started complaining about the AI with Beta v.18, and it went up to v.22 before 1.0 was released, so there was plenty of time to try to fix the AI after the financials were fixed. The AI was more difficult, or at least took forever to defeat, prior to the current financial model.
What were the differences in the beta-versions? I got this game after beta state, so I'd be interested in that. Was the AI better in the beta versions? Hehe, I think even the AI in TripleA (freeware Axis & Allies clone), where the developers admit that it doesn't have a good AI yet, is better than in World Supremacy. The WS developers could definitely draw some inspiration out of A&A to improve the combat system (retreat option!).
Another great example for a good AI in an Indie strategy game are Castle Vox and Lux Delux by Sillysoft. Just check them out, I've almost never won against the strong AIs in Castle Vox.
WS simply needs a better AI to be fun!
It's simply boring when you win all games.
Alright here are some highlights, and I've attached the full Beta history in a .txt.
v.10 - Initial Beta Version; Had a Never ending AI turn that made it impossible to test beyond 3 turns.
v.11 - Never ending AI turn supposedly fixed, but continued until v.14.
v.12 - Range Check errors during AI turns fixed, unknown cause, but probably the AI trying to purchase too much. Dead players still taking turns was fixed.
v.13 - Game Over window did not actually end the game until this version. Bombardment loophole was fixed; prior to this version, you could fire as much as you wanted until the 2nd missile actually hit, because the movement point was not deducted until impact. Holding shift when clicking the left/right arrow buttons on the selection window to get increments of 10 was added; prior to this, only available increment was 1.
v.14 - Alt-Tab functionality was added. Endless AI player turn finally fixed.
v.15 - Purchases window takes current form; in prior versions Purchases took up most of screen. City cost increased to 100. Bombardment fixed again, this time to restrict it to adjacent (highlighted) territories. All unit costs doubled. Cities restricted to 4 per territory. Supply Cost added to most purchases; prior to Supply, money was never deducted from your total, regardless of how many units you already had or were purchased. Purchases split into Air, Land, and Sea selections; prior to this, it was all in a single list.
This was the major turning point in AI difficulty. Prior to adding the Supply Cost, the AI was harder to defeat because it could always purchase a sh!tload of units. Afterwards the AI would not build enough cities to support the units it built, and rapidly started to lose money. All you had to do was survive the initial rush, and the AI would not be able to build enough units for defense, nor would the AI ever attack a territory not on the front line.
v.16 - AI will now always build a Fabrication Complex if it doesn't have one.
v.17 - Combat Order List added to the top of the Combat window.
v.18 - Popup help text added for all controls. Double-clicking finally added to Purchases window; prior to this, you always had to click the Add button after selecting where and how many.
v.19 - Nothing changed regarding game play.
v.20 - Fixed: Selected Units List help text would display even after window was closed.
v.21 - Random error where I was able to move a unit to a territory beyond its remaining movement may have been fixed; may have been related to border drawing, where it looked like two territories were not adjacent. (see Illegal Move.JPG)
v.22 - Fixed: AI would only land one plane at a time from over enemy territory.
Last edited by usmcrave99; February 24th, 2011 at 09:34 PM..
Reason: Grammar
So you were a beta tester? How did you get to do this? I'd surely have joined the beta if possible. Did this in Gratuitous Space Battles, and the game shaped out great (although it's a rather limited strategy game). I made some suggestions before final release and many after release, reported bugs etc. Tried to do this here, too. You should simply try to help improving the games you spent money on especially if they're from little developers. Man, hopefully they'll finally listen to our suggestions.
Just getting the AI to use nuclear weapons against humans would improve things quite abit.
Yes, but it should also expand more agressively to be able to buy nukes in the first place. And it should respond more aggresively to nuke attacks. This inability of the AI to use nukes is pretty annoying, you're right. You can simply take their nukes and use them against them. But it'd also improve the balance if nukes were made more expensive, and nuclear subs and mobile launchers shouldn't have unlimited ammo like they have now. They should be able to load nukes, or maybe have a nuke building option like a factory, so that you have to buy each nuke they fire (but they should be a bit cheaper than the "ICBM"s (hehe, which they actually aren't now, as you sure have noticed).
I made a list of easy rules changes that would make the AI more competitive too. I mean at the moment, the player can do so many more thing that the AI does not do. Why not changes the rules a little bit to help the AI?
So you were a beta tester? How did you get to do this? I'd surely have joined the beta if possible.
They posted for it on their website back on August 2nd. It's still on there, about halfway down, under "What's New." I just submitted the form to their email address. A week later I found out I was one of the 16 selected.
Re: pretty quiet in the forum lately
Re: pretty quiet in the forum lately
Linear Mode
