HistWar (English zone) > Members presentation

Greetings to All

<< < (2/2)

Sidney77:
And you do it well, Mr. sandman. And not only in this thread, you are one of few here who are always ready to help anybody.

sandman:
Well, an expert finally spoke:


--- Citation de: zu Pferd le 11 novembre 2014, 18:21:20 pm ---single player vs AI

THEY DO: all scenarios in the depot and the ones that come in the game do in a fashion.
The AI plays a 'Napoleonic game' . Its not an overtly reactive AI (this version HW Napoleon
we have been promised a better one) Depending on the level you choose to play with and options,
the AI will draw up a plan for the side under his control.
Most players favored playing MP style games because the AI tends to be less 'all out aggressive'
it tends to keep a sizable force as a strategic reserve (see link to video https://vimeo.com/111103866)

The video of this scenario I designed I have the French defending the southern sector of the Battle of Nations.
AI controls the coalition. The video is speeded up for file size transfer.
As you can gather from watching  the action, the AI gathers up a force for an attack but keeps a force equal to
or slightly lower force as a strategic reserve: the AI does not commit all the army for the attack.
The scenario is built on a 6 km map so there is very little room to maneuver around the flanks and attempts
to incorporate :

Cavalry battle at Liebertwolkwitz 14 of October 1813
http://warfare.likamva.in/19C/Leipzig1813-TheBattleOfTheNations-ByHofschroer.htm

The Battle of Wachau and Connewitz, 16 October 1813
http://warfare.likamva.in/19C/Leipzig1813-TheBattleOfTheNations-ByHofschroer.htm

 'Total Allied losses were 80-85 officers, 2,000-2,100 men and 600-650 horses. Details of French losses are unreliable but were probably greater. It is known that they lost two generals and 96 officers as well as 800 prisoners to the Austrians.
   The battle itself ended rather inconclusively.' (the cavalry battle)

The AI does not know history when it plays the game against you ! You do !
It does not draw from the historical narrative to 're-create' the events, it simply works out a law of averages : it draws
up a force -not necessarily all guard all artillery ect but a force suitable for an assault, perhaps greater or of better
quality than the force arrayed before it...then the AI goes to work.

As I already mentioned ,the reason that the player often wins vs the AI is that its not very re-active to the
opponents moves or counter moves.
The AI plan is not open for scrutiny or programming by the player who wishes to input a better attack plan for the AI
to follow: the AI is not programmable in-game that is you can't assign an 'aggressive, defensive, cautious ' stances to it
but it does draw a little of that from the leadership in its army.

You can input by playing 'both sides'

You can adjust 'aggressiveness' and 'initiative' to each regiment in the OoB of the corps at your disposal, and the AI's...
prior to starting a battle example :
turn to middle stance (agg and ini) all 1st line troops and veterans , turn to low stance all landwehr conscript
and deserters, turn to high stance all guard and elites..for all arms of the army...this requires some research for each
regiment and the year it fought in...
the OoB stance assignment in HistWar are more then reliable, but the argument when it comes down to playing vs a human opponent is and always is : is the OoB balanced for both sides so no one has the upper hand, but the battle is fought
within the skill-set of each player.

a bit winded uh ?   :smile:

Cheers

zu

--- Fin de citation ---

zu Pferd:
 ;) at your service

Navigation

[0] Index des messages

[*] Page précédente