Lack of PO intelligence

[Martin Schenkel]

In designing scenarios for PO play, would giving the PO a benificial and constant shock value offset some of the lacking competitiveness of the PO?

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Martin Schenkel
In designing scenarios for PO play, would giving the PO a benificial and constant shock value offset some of the lacking competitiveness of the PO?

Hm... what is it that the PO cheat function does, exactly?

Giving the PO a constant shock bonus would just make all its units stronger. Sure, given a high enough shock bonus this could "balance" certain scenarios... but it's a fairly blunt tool.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by Ben Turner
Giving the PO a constant shock bonus would just make all its units stronger.

It would give more combat rounds too.

Basically the AI is so dumb, that there´s no point in making PO work, IMO.

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti
It would give more combat rounds too.

True- though I'm not 100% sure how this effect works. Managing combat rounds should be something the PO can handle.

[Dan Neely]

it does, but the PO should be equally vulnerable to getting screwed by an attack that runs longer than it's expected to. higher shock makes that less likely.

[Grant]

It's a huge pain in the ass to do, but probably the best way is to use multiple objective tracks. IIRC, there's a way to copy one objective track onto another. By doing that, you can more easily program simple deviations.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I´ll correct myself a bit: Programmed Opponent can be a decent opponent, when a scenario is designed for solitaire play only. If one tries to make a scenario good for both PBEM- and solo-play, it usually leads to debilitating design compromises.

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti
I´ll correct myself a bit: Programmed Opponent can be a decent opponent, when a scenario is designed for solitaire play only. If one tries to make a scenario good for both PBEM- and solo-play, it usually leads to debilitating design compromises.

Depends what scenario you're talking about. Very large ones are more difficult for the PO- take for example a scenario covering the whole East Front- the player might decide to shift the weight of his offensive to a different sector that historically was tried- the PO won't redeploy units to block this move.

Worse still are scenarios like Europe Aflame. German PO's response to a raid on the Atlantic Wall would be the same as to a full-scale invasion. That sort of effect makes the PO utterly helpless for multi-front scenarios.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by Ben Turner
Very large ones are more difficult for the PO-

Naturally.

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti
Naturally.

Well, more to the point, certain scenarios the PO can handle. For example a North Africa Campaign- the battle tends to be rather linear. Certainly the PO won't play any worse than Graziani.

[Bob Cross]

Originally posted by Ben Turner


Well, more to the point, certain scenarios the PO can handle. For example a North Africa Campaign- the battle tends to be rather linear. Certainly the PO won't play any worse than Graziani.

Perhaps. But it will play much worse than Rommel.

My experience is that the PO plays best when both the unit density and formation density are very high. Low density affairs with lots of open space tend to trip it up in a hurry.

And North Africa (except for El Alamien) tended to be low density. Most PO vs. PO games I've run on CFNA eventually start to look like the forces have reversed sides, with more Axis units east of most of the Commonwealth units than west of them.

And unless you can put an objective on every hex on the map there will be a tendency for the PO to do that. The problem is that once the PO has ejected that enemy unit from the objective it was holding, it forgets about it and moves on. This results in a lot of units left in its rear and a lot of backtracking.

If we could somehow get control of the PO code, there's one thing I would change: I would require the PO to always leave at least one unit in any enemy ZOC it occupies. That would improve its play a lot by increasing the chances of surrounded unit eliminations and decreasing the number of units left in its rear.

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Bob Cross
Perhaps. But it will play much worse than Rommel.

Sure, but that's not saying much- so will a lot of players.

If we could somehow get control of the PO code, there's one thing I would change: I would require the PO to always leave at least one unit in any enemy ZOC it occupies.

...when on the offensive. On the defensive the PO should be able to pull back if need be.

[a white rabbit]

Originally posted by Sheik Yerbouti
I´ll correct myself a bit: Programmed Opponent can be a decent opponent, when a scenario is designed for solitaire play only. If one tries to make a scenario good for both PBEM- and solo-play, it usually leads to debilitating design compromises.

..seconded..,

[Bdr.Mallette]

I am responding to general PO stupidity comments.

Its basically a program right!?
Run on a computer, right?!

Well, as well know,

COMPUTERS ARE VERY DUMB! THEY WILL DO NOTHING EXCEPT WHAT YOU TELL IT TO DO!
A.I. AS WE KNOW IT TODAY IS LAUGHABLE.

A.I. IS STILL SOMEONE TELLING IT HOW TO REACT UNDER CERTAIN SITUATIONS!
There is no learning in a computer(yet) and I think it may be best that way because if ya think about it, they would become very powerful. Why would we be needed anymore? really?

(Caps, just so you noticed)

We must plan as many events or anticipate possible probs as best we can.
Thats why it takes so much time, lots of little things, but without them, wuttayagot??????

I was searching for sumthin for scenario development and came across alot of comments about PO.
just thought i'd type it up!

L8R

Skhooter


PS--> our own developed scenarios are only as smart as we are!