Warcraft II AI? Convince a C&C vet...
Kevin L Seachrist
I saw WC2 on the shelf at Electronics Boutique for $49. That's where I
left it. I finished C&C vs. the computer last week and am not in a hurry
to buy another game in which the AI is so extraordinarily inept. In the
last Nod mission, for instance, all the computer built was replacement
harvesters and (attempted) rocket tower replacements. Beating it was
almost sad.
I don't want another tactical game until I find one with a worthy AI. I'm
not interested in networking the game, as my play schedule is sporadic at
best, and damned tough to mesh with that of my computer game-playing
buddies, so I don't really care how much butt a particular game kicks when
playing against friends, I want one that presents a genuine challenge in
solo play.
Is WC2 the game? The features include an "incredible AI" (according to
the box and the web page) that can "learn" how its opponent conducts
himself. How well does it learn? How many tricks does it have of its own?
And will it fall, time after time after time, for the Warcraft missile
ambush? A fast knight and a pile of archers/spearmen was the surest path
to victory in WC1. A bike/hummer and a strong base defense worked darned
near as well in C&C.
So, gamers, does WC2 make the cut?
--Kevin
--
.
J. Box
>I saw WC2 on the shelf at Electronics Boutique for $49. That's where I
>left it. I finished C&C vs. the computer last week and am not in a hurry
>to buy another game in which the AI is so extraordinarily inept. In the
>last Nod mission, for instance, all the computer built was replacement
>harvesters and (attempted) rocket tower replacements. Beating it was
>almost sad.
Know what you mean, C&C got returned to the store after 3 days of
playing, I beat both sides and said "WTF". After Dune2 and Warcraft
C&C was a pathetic cry for help and not only a waste of money but of
my time as well. If C&C had a better AI and was different than Dune2
then I would of kept it but it had no replay value imho.
>I don't want another tactical game until I find one with a worthy AI. I'm
>not interested in networking the game, as my play schedule is sporadic at
>best, and damned tough to mesh with that of my computer game-playing
>buddies, so I don't really care how much butt a particular game kicks when
>playing against friends, I want one that presents a genuine challenge in
>solo play.
Good luck. Also depends on your style of play.
>Is WC2 the game? The features include an "incredible AI" (according to
>the box and the web page) that can "learn" how its opponent conducts
>himself. How well does it learn? How many tricks does it have of its own?
It does seem to catch on and do some interesting things, one person
posted how the computer sent a bunch of peasants into his front lines
and cause enough confusion to allow the computer to come in and cause
some serious damage. Hasn't happened to me yet, but it could be still
trying to learn. I constantly change my tactics and playing style,
had to for Warcraft multiplay. One thing that was pathetic is you'd
figure they'd have the AI be able to take care of people who still
play as if it was Warcraft. About the only thing different is it
hardly falls for the old bait and slaughter trap.
But if its suppose to learn then I want to know why it always falls
for the same thing during seas combat. I always take out its initial
destroyers, then its oil rig(s), then place one of my destroyers on
the closest oil spot. And then lay waste to all the tankers he sends
my way. The computer doesn't seem to bother looking for another
source of oil eventhough it has destroyers by most of them.
But then again I'm only on human 7 after a total of about 3.5 hours of
play over the past couple of days. I hope it gets harder, since it
seems it wasn't made specifically for Warcraft veterans so it still
has those initial learning missions.
>And will it fall, time after time after time, for the Warcraft missile
>ambush? A fast knight and a pile of archers/spearmen was the surest path
>to victory in WC1. A bike/hummer and a strong base defense worked darned
>near as well in C&C.
Nope, but it might send one guy in to check on you once in awhile to
get your guys to follow him.
>So, gamers, does WC2 make the cut?
So far a little easy for a Warcraft veteran, but I've heard it gets
really hard. Is it worth it, yes because of the levvel editor, you
can make your own missions or use someone elses. Sort of like the
Doom Wad method of replay.
JMODO
*-------------*-----------------------------------------------------------*
|Jason Box | "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. |
|bo...@rpi.edu | Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I |
| | watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser |
| <*> | gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like |
| | tears in rain. Time to die." |
| | --Roy Batty |
| | _Blade Runner_ |
*-------------*-----------------------------------------------------------*
Jay
>And will it fall, time after time after time, for the Warcraft missile
>ambush? A fast knight and a pile of archers/spearmen was the surest path
>to victory in WC1. A bike/hummer and a strong base defense worked darned
>near as well in C&C.
>
>
NOPE!!! Absolutely not. Hell, you can send one catapult (fully powered up)
and that will kill just about any one person. I shot a person, and then
just wait there. While all the computer units just enjoy the sights.
Wait till the catapult recharges, and fire at another unit... again,
the AI just waits there and enjoys the sights.
I also hate the 'only 9 selectable' units.... ARRGGG!!! that sucks.
And there's no 'unit grouping', which makes it hard during a battle
to select only the paladins to attack and make the wizards retreat.
-Jay
Tim Hardy
Well I can't comment on solo play, but I have seen the computer AI in
multiplayer mode, and it must automatically be set to "very hard." this is
preliminary (not much experience yet) and most of our playing was defensive
but here's what we saw. Me and a friend wanted to take on the computer, so
we tried 3 computer players and were slaughtered instantly. We tried two
computer players and were slaughtered a little slower. We then tried just
one computer player and were still slaughtered, even though it took awhile.
This was the first time we ever played this game, but we are C&C veterans.
The computer is very adept in multiplayer at setting up his industrial
base. He had more peons than me and my friend combined. If an attacker is
outnmbered and doesn't think he can kill at least one guy, he runs away (I
thought that was real cool). If a guy can't fight back against someone, he
runs away (air attack, etc.). Maybe our ingnorance of this game was to
blame, but I'd have to say that the computer did a very good job of
assaulting both me and my friend and just plain overrunning us both. There
wasn't much sea fighting though (no sea to speak of). For cooperative play,
this one's a keeper. I'll comment later on solo play, and, after Saturday,
I'll comment more on coop. I did finish Warcraft 1, and I have to think
that I must have been seriously doing something wrong last night, but I have
to say I was impressed with the way the computer beat us.
Tim
Raymond Ovanessian
writes:
>
>>Well I can't comment on solo play, but I have seen the computer AI in
>>multiplayer mode, and it must automatically be set to "very hard."
>>this is preliminary (not much experience yet) and most of our playing
>>was defensive
>>but here's what we saw. Me and a friend wanted to take on the
>>computer, so we tried 3 computer players and were slaughtered
>>instantly. We tried two
>>computer players and were slaughtered a little slower. We then tried
>>just one computer player and were still slaughtered, even though it
>>took awhile.
Yes, but is the computer opponent on the same playing field when you
set it to "very hard", or does it, as is usually the case, cheat by
either using more starting points,soldiers,gold,... than the human
player or uses units with better capability ?
Determining the quality of the real AI is not so easy, you can't
conclude that the AI is good just by noticing that it 'slaughtered'
the human player. I bet I too can beat Kasparov at chess if he starts
off with one or two fewer key pieces.
RayO
B Morphin
>
>>So, gamers, does WC2 make the cut?
>
>multiplayer mode, and it must automatically be set to "very hard." this is
>preliminary (not much experience yet) and most of our playing was defensive
>but here's what we saw. Me and a friend wanted to take on the computer, so
>we tried 3 computer players and were slaughtered instantly. We tried two
>computer players and were slaughtered a little slower. We then tried just
>one computer player and were still slaughtered, even though it took awhile.
I believe I read your post the other day. So I first tried 2 on 2 and yes it was ugly we
were pulverized. We tried 2 huminks on 1 and the first game we just lost ant the second
try we won easily. The biggest gripe I would have is that the CPU is
was to agressive, the games seem very short and you never get to
realize no-where near a full operation. I only tried 2 sceanrios like
this however. If anybody finds a really interesting fun scenario 2
huminks 1 or 2 cpu's give me a ring!
>I did finish Warcraft 1, and I have to think
>that I must have been seriously doing something wrong last night, but
I have
>to say I was impressed with the way the computer beat us.
If I'm doing something wrong I can't see it either. It's still uses a
lot of the basic principals of WC1. For some reason them Cpu'ers just
have more recources and such, it has to be, it's so out of balance it's
unreal.
BH
Nan Wang
: I saw WC2 on the shelf at Electronics Boutique for $49. That's where I
: left it. I finished C&C vs. the computer last week and am not in a hurry
: to buy another game in which the AI is so extraordinarily inept. In the
: last Nod mission, for instance, all the computer built was replacement
: harvesters and (attempted) rocket tower replacements. Beating it was
: almost sad.
Is the last mission that easy? I am forever stuck on the last GDI mission.
: Is WC2 the game? The features include an "incredible AI" (according to
: the box and the web page) that can "learn" how its opponent conducts
: himself. How well does it learn? How many tricks does it have of its own?
I just finished act 3, about halfway through the human missions. I have never
come close to not winning once. What the computer does well is run away from
fights it has no chance of winning, like 1 grunt against 10 knights and
rangers. However, it's base defense is incredibly bad, you can hammer hammer
his barrack with two ballistics and his soldiers who are half a screen away
don't even care! Turning fog of war off does not seem to help either. A
lot of times I see the computer mass a good sized strike group outside his
base yet he only sends about half them against you, and rarely does the
computer send his catapult against your base. Even if he does, he forgets
to send any escorts for the catapult.
The AI for naval battle is incredibly bad. The computer does not build enough
warships to guard its oil supply. The other day the computer send two
destroyers to my base, I had no ships so I had to use ballistics. Due to the
terrain both ballistics are very close to shore, yet the computer decided to
go after my oil tanker?! What's worse, once the destroyer was shot by a
ballistic it didn't even bother to move out of range. So far, any mission
which you can build ships is a easy win.
I guess the computer is still learning, but a very slow learner indeed.
: And will it fall, time after time after time, for the Warcraft missile
: ambush? A fast knight and a pile of archers/spearmen was the surest path
: to victory in WC1. A bike/hummer and a strong base defense worked darned
: near as well in C&C.
No, he doesn't seem to fall for this, at least it will flee.
: So, gamers, does WC2 make the cut?
Not so far, but there are still lots of mission to go.
Andy
: --Kevin
: --
: .
Scott VanderWeyst
Raymond Ovanessian <ray...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <4a9rr2$g...@cloner3.netcom.com> q...@ix.netcom.com(B Morphin )
>writes:
>>
>
>>>multiplayer mode, and it must automatically be set to "very hard."
>>>this is preliminary (not much experience yet) and most of our playing
>>>was defensive
>>>but here's what we saw. Me and a friend wanted to take on the
>>>computer, so we tried 3 computer players and were slaughtered
>>>instantly. We tried two
>>>computer players and were slaughtered a little slower. We then tried
>>>just one computer player and were still slaughtered, even though it
>>>took awhile.
>
>set it to "very hard", or does it, as is usually the case, cheat by
>either using more starting points,soldiers,gold,... than the human
>player or uses units with better capability ?
> Determining the quality of the real AI is not so easy, you can't
>conclude that the AI is good just by noticing that it 'slaughtered'
>the human player. I bet I too can beat Kasparov at chess if he starts
>off with one or two fewer key pieces.
>
> RayO
ell, according to Blizzard, the AI is modelled on some of their best
players. No Cheating invloved. Blizzard suggested that you create
a map, giving the compter only 1 peon, and yourself an ornithopter(?)
then fly over his base and just watch...
Scott V.
Haven't played it yet... just reading everything about it I can get my hands on...
Tyson Tu
kev...@chopin.udel.edu (Kevin L Seachrist) wrote:
>
>Is WC2 the game? The features include an "incredible AI" (according to
>the box and the web page) that can "learn" how its opponent conducts
>himself. How well does it learn? How many tricks does it have of its own?
>
missions by not planning my use of resources well enough. Those scenarios
were quite far into the human campaign, though. If there are only 14
missions in each campaign, I get the feeling that Blizzard spend too much
time on training missions. Of course, being a Warcraft vet (I remember the
good old days, they were so long ago...), I could have skipped the first
four or five missions easily, though it was nice to have some time getting
used to the strengths and limitations of the ships.
>And will it fall, time after time after time, for the Warcraft missile
>ambush? A fast knight and a pile of archers/spearmen was the surest path
>to victory in WC1. A bike/hummer and a strong base defense worked darned
>near as well in C&C.
>
Archers, IMHO, are not nearly as good as they were in Warcraft I. After the
first few missions, after I was able to start making knights, I pretty much
stopped using archers offensively. The old ambush trick definitely does not
work, but I've noticed that guard towers are a good substitute. The enemy
will most often attack the guard tower while ignoring your knights and
footmen, allowing them to beat the crap out of them while they happily chop
away at masonry. That and the fact that upgrading a tower to "archer"
status only amounts to $200 more than a knight while giving you the hit
points of three elven archers makes them a pretty good deal (they can see
further than most units too).
>So, gamers, does WC2 make the cut?
>
After Warcraft I, I'd say that this is a definite improvement, and the
differences in the units are interesting to say the least, but the AI still
needs some work (I once had ten peons carrying gold get stopped up in some
trees - took a while for me to notice I wasn't getting any gold, and
afterward, I had to keep a constant eye on them to make sure it didn't
happen again - I like the trees where they were, defense and all...) So far
I've finished up to mission ten in the human campaign, and two of the last
three were fairly challenging, though more on a resource management note
than on combat skill.
Tyson Tu ^ ^
t...@vax.cs.hscsyr.edu ( @ @ ) x------->
---your quote here--- ----,,,----'-----,,,----
Roger Books
> After Warcraft I, I'd say that this is a definite improvement, and the
> differences in the units are interesting to say the least, but the AI still
> needs some work (I once had ten peons carrying gold get stopped up in some
> trees - took a while for me to notice I wasn't getting any gold, and
> afterward, I had to keep a constant eye on them to make sure it didn't
> happen again)
So what you are saying is that there is some realism in the game. :)
Roger "Gotta Watch them Peons" Books
B Morphin
>
>Having finished C&C as well, I have to say that WC2, while tons of fun
>to play, is not nearly as challenging. It's gonna go something like
>this: C&C will become the 'serious' strategists wargame while WC2
>becomes the 'fun, playful, cute' strategy game. That's not a knock
>against either game, it just appears to be the case.
>
I can't say how serious you're talking, but turn based are way more
serious stradegy wise and for good reason, you have all the time you
need to make a plan. Realtime is more arcadish and less strategic but
more intense.
BH
B Morphin
(Brian Hacking) writes: (AND I AGREE VERY MUCH WITH IT)
>Computer strong points:
>
>1) Grows very efficiently.
>2) Launches deadly attacks early in the game if it happens to find you or
>you wake it up with an exploring unit.
>
>Computer weak points:
>
>1) Doesn't mass units very well.
>2) Doesn't coordinate attacks with stronger units.
>3) It does well in the early game and blows in the end game.
Honestly the way it's setup is somewhat dissapointing. To go over some
of the above again, the cpu has problems making massive forces, it
likes to make a squadron and send it out make a squardron and send it
out. After a while it's building peters out like it found out that it
was a computer and not a live being, it became angry knowing that and
decided not to try any more, wow that's smart AI!
You can make up some challangeing scenarios still but you know how
there gonna go about their stradegy. What I've found is since they have
problems with very large armies, that you have to compensate that by
adding more computer armies to the battle. But you also know there
gonna come early at you, so you have to make sure you start with a
barraks or two to hold off the early resistance. I find to start a good
co-op game start the huminks with a couple town halls and barracks and
a few grunts and peons and 3-4 cpu opponents with ample gold a couple
farms a town hall and 2-4 peasants per makes a good challange.
I'm also trying out supplying the cpu's with more gold/oil pre-built
farms to see if this intices larger cpu enemies.
BH
Brian Hacking
and I played against one computer opponent (2 versus 1). It beat us three
times in a row. Once one of us stumbled across it, it would send groups of
ogres against the unlucky victim until they were dead.
Just for grins I started a single player scenario versus the computer. I
turned off fog of war and turned on "see all of the map". The computer
started with one peasant just like I did. It built a town hall in exactly
the same amount of time. The computer didn't cheat in any way. What I did
notice was that it was slightly more efficient in growing than I was. At
first it was a peasant ahead, then a farm, then I matched it but it had an
extra building (lumber yard). The computer grew very efficiently and after
a while dwarfed my efforts.
It lauched several good aerial attacks with solo dragons. Once I built
enough archers to guard myself the A.I. fell apart. It didn't mass its
troops very often. I wound up sending 3 gryphons to camp out at a mine and
kill most of his peasants and the defenders that straggled in *one at a
time*. After that it was just a mopping up operation.
Computer strong points:
1) Grows very efficiently.
2) Launches deadly attacks early in the game if it happens to find you or
you wake it up with an exploring unit.
3) I wouldn't have done nearly as well if I didn't have knowledge of the
entire map.
4) In the campaign the computer gets extra starting stuff that helps to
compensate for its blunders.
Computer weak points:
1) Doesn't mass units very well.
2) Doesn't coordinate attacks with stronger units.
3) It does well in the early game and blows in the end game.
Potential strategy:
1) Grow your economy and defend yourself early in the game.
2) Don't go looking for the computer until you have a good offensive force
(12 archers aren't a good offensive force - trust me).
3) Hit and run his peasants. One blizzard spell or a couple gryphons can
even up the economics of the game very nicely thank you.
Jin B. Yong
Warcraft II AI? by Darryl Oka...@sr.hp.com
> > players. No Cheating invloved. Blizzard suggested that you create
> > a map, giving the compter only 1 peon, and yourself an ornithopter(?)
> > then fly over his base and just watch...
>
> etc., I think it does "cheat" by knowing your military strength. It may
> not know where you are, but it does adjust its strategy based upon what
> you have.
don't you think thats what those scout balloons the computers use are
for? i mean the computer should find a way to know your military
strength. if its really modeled after "expert" players, it shouldn't
just run blind sending in guys without assessing your forces first. Do
you know how dumb and easy the computer will be of it didn't do this??
Knowing your military strength is not cheating but good strategy-- any
human with any sense of startegy would do the same thing.
Kudos for Blizzard for doing this right.
Darryl Okahata
> don't you think thats what those scout balloons the computers use are
> for? i mean the computer should find a way to know your military
> strength. if its really modeled after "expert" players, it shouldn't
> just run blind sending in guys without assessing your forces first. Do
> you know how dumb and easy the computer will be of it didn't do this??
You are assuming too much on the part of the computer. Of course,
scouting is very important. However, the computer bases its strategy
based upon your strength, and THE COMPUTER DOES *NOT* USE SCOUT BALLOONS
OR ANY OTHER UNITS TO DO THIS (this is what I mean by "cheating"). It
is the same as if you or I were given some magic number that corresponds
to the computer's current strength. We would not know where the
computer is, but we would know how powerful he is; if he's weak, we
could just send large units out to scout and kill at the same time (if
he's weak, we don't need to do any scouting).
> Knowing your military strength is not cheating but good strategy-- any
> human with any sense of startegy would do the same thing.
Knowing your military strength by scouting would be a good thing --
IF THE COMPUTER DID THAT. HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT -- IT MAGICALLY KNOWS
YOUR STRENGTH, WITHOUT HAVING TO SCOUT, AND ADJUSTS ITS STRATEGY
ACCORDINGLY.
REPEAT AFTER ME:
THE COMPUTER KNOWS MY STRENGTH WITHOUT HAVING TO SCOUT.
THE COMPUTER KNOWS MY STRENGTH WITHOUT HAVING TO SCOUT.
THE COMPUTER KNOWS MY STRENGTH WITHOUT HAVING TO SCOUT.
I am not saying that knowing your military strength is bad
strategy; you are, of course, right in saying that it is good. What I'm
talking about is *HOW* the computer knows your military strength. You
or I would have to send scouting units to do this. The computer, on the
other hand, just "knows" it; it does not have to scout.
> Kudos for Blizzard for doing this right.
Kudos to Blizzard for a good game. However, I would not give them
Kudos for the AI; while it's "decent", it's still weak.
-- Darryl Okahata
Internet: dar...@sr.hp.com
DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not
constitute the support, opinion, or policy of Hewlett-Packard, or of the
little green men that have been following him all day.
Lyle J. Mackey
Darryl Okahata <dar...@sr.hp.com> wrote:
> REPEAT AFTER ME:
>
> THE COMPUTER KNOWS MY STRENGTH WITHOUT HAVING TO SCOUT.
> THE COMPUTER KNOWS MY STRENGTH WITHOUT HAVING TO SCOUT.
> THE COMPUTER KNOWS MY STRENGTH WITHOUT HAVING TO SCOUT.
Then, uh, what's that little green Eye of Kilrogg that keeps zipping
around my little human village?
What're those blimps that keep cruising past my perimeter defenses?
I hate to say "you're wrong", so I'll just say that the computer DOES
scout. Or at least puts forth the appearance of doing so, and as long as
he pays for those ogre-magi and blimps, that's good enough (and real
enough) for me.
-LjM
--
Lyle | les...@eden.com | 93 Kaw ZX-6E | Being a geek means | F Y H
James | Social Engineer | "Pinky" | means never having | E O E
Mackey | Cynical SOB | FSPA #001 | to ask, "Paper or | E U A
v1.0 | Beer Snob | DoD #587 | plastic, sir?" | D R D
Darryl Okahata
> ell, according to Blizzard, the AI is modelled on some of their best
> players. No Cheating invloved. Blizzard suggested that you create
> a map, giving the compter only 1 peon, and yourself an ornithopter(?)
> then fly over his base and just watch...
While the computer doesn't cheat by getting more resources, units,
etc., I think it does "cheat" by knowing your military strength. It may
not know where you are, but it does adjust its strategy based upon what
you have.
-- Darryl Okahata
Tim Chown
>Having finished C&C as well, I have to say that WC2, while tons of fun
>to play, is not nearly as challenging. It's gonna go something like
>this: C&C will become the 'serious' strategists wargame while WC2
>becomes the 'fun, playful, cute' strategy game. That's not a knock
>against either game, it just appears to be the case.
Possibly true, WC2 *is* very "cute". The one thing WC2 has which
C&C doesn't which makes C&C not so "serious" is fog of war. If C&C
had that, it would be so much better (certainly gameplay-wise).
It just seems a bit wrong to be able to see everything moving even
when you have no line of sight.
I know the comms centers give you a radar map of the area, and thus
you might expect to see units with that, but that's contradicted by
the fact you have to scout land before anything shows up on the radar
at all. Of course you can turn fog of war off in WC2, but it feels
a lot more realistic to have it on.
Then again, WC2 has no real line of sight, just a circular spotting
range which (for footmen) seems too short, and which allows units
to see through obstacles like woods.
Tim
Darryl Okahata
> In article <4anojt$8...@canyon.sr.hp.com>,
> Darryl Okahata <dar...@sr.hp.com> wrote:
>
> > REPEAT AFTER ME:
> >
> > THE COMPUTER KNOWS MY STRENGTH WITHOUT HAVING TO SCOUT.
> > THE COMPUTER KNOWS MY STRENGTH WITHOUT HAVING TO SCOUT.
> > THE COMPUTER KNOWS MY STRENGTH WITHOUT HAVING TO SCOUT.
>
> Then, uh, what's that little green Eye of Kilrogg that keeps zipping
> around my little human village?
>
> What're those blimps that keep cruising past my perimeter defenses?
They are *LOCATING* your units. This is different from *KNOWING*
the relative strength. It's one thing to "know" the approximate
strength; the AI still has to locate your units, and it does so by using
those eyes and blimps (or so we all imagine).
B Morphin
>
> THE COMPUTER KNOWS MY STRENGTH WITHOUT HAVING TO SCOUT.
> THE COMPUTER KNOWS MY STRENGTH WITHOUT HAVING TO SCOUT.
> THE COMPUTER KNOWS MY STRENGTH WITHOUT HAVING TO SCOUT.
>
>strategy; you are, of course, right in saying that it is good. What
I'm
>talking about is *HOW* the computer knows your military strength. You
>or I would have to send scouting units to do this. The computer, on
the
>other hand, just "knows" it; it does not have to scout.
>
In some scenarios it does send a flying scout unit around regularly.
But even a grunt attacking your base is a scout also, I have not
noticed what your selling here.
To anybody who thinks this game is to easy goto the editor and make it
harder.
During this weekend I'm gonna send 2 zip scenarios for co-op play. One
being the Circle of Death based around the Alamo, it's 2 humans vs. 4
CPU players. The other is called Little Countries Big War and is two
humans vs. 2 land CPU's and 1 sea CPU. At the moment I have Circle of
Death tweaked in pretty well, both scenarios are based around the build
the shit out of everything then attack. In the Circle of Death you
first need to defend before you attack.
BH
Allen J Klein
> the relative strength. It's one thing to "know" the approximate
> strength; the AI still has to locate your units, and it does so by using
> those eyes and blimps (or so we all imagine).
In the multiplayer game, when you select an enemy unit, it will tell you
that unit's level. Is this what you mean by relative strength. As the
person who responded to you before mentioned (you didn't quote him
enough) whether or not the warcraft AI cheats in determining the human's
strength, it pays enough "lip service" to the scouting thing to make it
fair. It pays for the zeppelins/ogre mage spells... that's good enough.
jk
--
0UY0T allen jamie klein S1HT0D yow! 3MT3LU0Y yan...@cmu.edu 0DYHW
Beowulf92
(Roger Books) writes:
>So what you are saying is that there is some realism in the game. :)
As much as can be expected in a game about Orcs, Elves, Dragons, Mages...
;-)
Beowulf92