Warcraft 2: Computer "Cheating"
Brian Coleman
Okay, this is another one of my little gripes.
I keep seeing people referring to the so called "cheating" that
is supposedly so blatant on the computer's side in Warcraft II; most of
these people are the ones that claim the AI is moronic. (Disclaimer:
Though I'm sure I'll be accused of it, I never said the AI was brilliant.)
My question is this: how can you say that the computer is
cheating? If you start a scenario with a flying machine and you go over
and watch the computer build, you'll see that it does everything by the
rules. It's just that it's perfectly efficient in collecting resources;
it never has peasants/peons standing idle while it's working on something
else, and it knows exactly how many to put on lumber and how many on
gold, and it knows exactly how many farms it needs, etc.
I have watched this more than once. If you watch what the
computer does and follow the method it uses, you can accomplish the same
thing it does.
How is this cheating?
Brian E. Coleman
--
............................................................................
: Duct Tape is like the Force. It has a light side and a dark side, and it:
: holds the universe together. The only difference is that "May The Force :
: be with you" sounds a lot nicer than "May you be covered in duct tape." :
:..........................................................................:
Joe Schlimgen
wrote:
>
> Okay, this is another one of my little gripes.
> I keep seeing people referring to the so called "cheating" that
>is supposedly so blatant on the computer's side in Warcraft II; most of
>these people are the ones that claim the AI is moronic. (Disclaimer:
>Though I'm sure I'll be accused of it, I never said the AI was brilliant.)
> My question is this: how can you say that the computer is
>cheating? If you start a scenario with a flying machine and you go over
>and watch the computer build, you'll see that it does everything by the
>rules. It's just that it's perfectly efficient in collecting resources;
>it never has peasants/peons standing idle while it's working on something
>else, and it knows exactly how many to put on lumber and how many on
>gold, and it knows exactly how many farms it needs, etc.
> I have watched this more than once. If you watch what the
>computer does and follow the method it uses, you can accomplish the same
>thing it does.
> How is this cheating?
Actually, I believe it does cheat a little bit. Case in point:
I was playing Human level 13 (destroy Blackrock Spire) and had wiped out
the northwest band of orcs and had control of the entire eastern edge of
the map. I had my paladins blocking the peons access to the trees and my
flying machines could see that they were just standing around. I also
knew (via flying machines and griffins) that *nothing* was close enough
to my paladins to be able to spot them.
Now, *as soon as* I moved a paladin to unblock the path, the peons
started (and I mean *immediately*) to move to the trees. There were no
ogre-mages casting those eye-thingies left, nothing around for *miles*
-- yet those peons knew immediately that the way was open. It worked to
my advantage, however, because I left the opening until the peons were
very close then closed it up and killed them all. :)
Unless the orcs have something that has a long range visibility (I
haven't played them yet) I'd say this is cheating (or a bug).
Dave Sailer
having my butt kicked in an even match....unfortunately, 100% efficiency is
tough to match by a mere mortal such as myself.....I seem to lack the ability
to calculate with perfect accuracy every needed piece of lumber or gold.
This gets even harder when you have several battles going on at once. The
computer playing a human with Paladins is a veritable healing force! Every
battle rings with the sounds of healing....on the computer's side, that is.
Fortunately, an actual human does have one advantage.....cunning.
Dave
DOYAMA JASON
Joe Schlimgen <mac...@xmission.com> wrote:
>On 16 Dec 1995 08:53:54 GMT, str...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Brian Coleman)
>wrote:
>
>>
>
>I was playing Human level 13 (destroy Blackrock Spire) and had wiped out
>the northwest band of orcs and had control of the entire eastern edge of
>the map. I had my paladins blocking the peons access to the trees and my
>flying machines could see that they were just standing around. I also
>knew (via flying machines and griffins) that *nothing* was close enough
>to my paladins to be able to spot them.
>
>Now, *as soon as* I moved a paladin to unblock the path, the peons
>started (and I mean *immediately*) to move to the trees. There were no
>ogre-mages casting those eye-thingies left, nothing around for *miles*
>-- yet those peons knew immediately that the way was open. It worked to
>my advantage, however, because I left the opening until the peons were
>very close then closed it up and killed them all. :)
>
>Unless the orcs have something that has a long range visibility (I
>haven't played them yet) I'd say this is cheating (or a bug).
>
see them EVERYWHERE!!! They probably spotted your paladins.
Jason Doyama
--
_-----------------------------------------------------------------_
| "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no |
| matter how improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes |
-_________________________________________________________________-
Kenneth Tan
> My question is this: how can you say that the computer is
>cheating? If you start a scenario with a flying machine and you go over
>and watch the computer build, you'll see that it does everything by the
>rules.
Say what you like, I _just_ saw the computer cheat last night!
I played the a multiplayer scenario (isles in the stream?), started with
with 1 peasant and 1 flying machine.
Start: Build town hall, fly to find enemy.
The enemy was also building a town hall. (that's fair)
But before I could end mine, he was already building a farm (close to 10
second lead advantage, which is cheating/unfair. BTW, the first thing
I did when the game started was BH right where the peasant stood, so at worst
I would have only a 2 second disadvantage.)
Then, the computer started cheating -- before he could even finish the farm,
he started building peons, building barracks, etc. This is cheating since
he doesn't have food!
All in all, I don't mind the minor cheating, we do have the advantage
of intelligence, if given the chance -- i.e., with all games of this class,
they'll mass an army and clobber you because they can build faster than you;
if you can somehow survive the initial onslaught, the rest is just a mop-up
operation because he's out of gold/resources.
Automan
Chris Schirlinger
> Actually, I believe it does cheat a little bit. Case in point:
>
> I was playing Human level 13 (destroy Blackrock Spire) and had wiped out
> the northwest band of orcs and had control of the entire eastern edge of
> the map. I had my paladins blocking the peons access to the trees and my
> flying machines could see that they were just standing around. I also
> knew (via flying machines and griffins) that *nothing* was close enough
> to my paladins to be able to spot them.
>
> Now, *as soon as* I moved a paladin to unblock the path, the peons
> started (and I mean *immediately*) to move to the trees. There were no
> ogre-mages casting those eye-thingies left, nothing around for *miles*
> -- yet those peons knew immediately that the way was open. It worked to
> my advantage, however, because I left the opening until the peons were
> very close then closed it up and killed them all. :)
Acually, that isn't really cheating as any of your troops can do the same
thing. What acually happens is that the computer player sees that its peons
arne't doing anything, it then tells it's peons to go and cut wood.
The *computer reality* then maps a path to the trees and find there is
no way to get there. Opps, so the peons stay where they are.
Wait a bit says the Computer AI, the peons aren't doing anything, hmm
well I need wood, so he/she sends them to the trees to cut wood, the
*computer reality* checks the path from peon to tree, paladin is in the
way so peon stays where he is... Ad infinitum
As the computer player can tell his troops to do things a *lot* faster
that you can it may seem to be cheating but if you send a unit to a place
they can't get to, they don't go. As a person you may wonder why and
check it. At least I *think* that sounds right. As I didn't program
the game I may be right out :-)
Share and Enjoy
Joe Schlimgen
wrote:
> Nope, I'd say it was all those eye things floating around. You
>see them EVERYWHERE!!! They probably spotted your paladins.
No, there were no ogre-magi to cast them, I had already killed them all
and the Ogre Mound. My flying machines showed no ogre-magi left after
passing over the remaining territory. I hadn't seen a floating eye for
at least 10 minutes and *not* at the time I moved the paladin (the
spotting range for an eye is shorter than that of a paladin).
Darryl Okahata
> My question is this: how can you say that the computer is
> cheating? If you start a scenario with a flying machine and you go over
> and watch the computer build, you'll see that it does everything by the
> rules. It's just that it's perfectly efficient in collecting resources;
> it never has peasants/peons standing idle while it's working on something
> else, and it knows exactly how many to put on lumber and how many on
> gold, and it knows exactly how many farms it needs, etc.
I don't think the "cheating" is of this type. As far as I can
tell, the computer may not know *WHERE* you are, but it does know
(roughly?) *WHAT* you have. For example, a friend and I play two-on-two
games (both of us against two computer players). If we build lots of
military units, the computer players tend to build few military units
(at first), but builds more advanced structures instead (for magic,
etc.). However, if we build few military units, the computer players
build lots of low-level military units and come looking for us (in some
scenarios, we rarely see military units if we build lots of our own).
So, the "cheating" appears to be the computer changing its strategy
based upon what the human players are building. It "kinda" makes sense,
and I'm willing to overlook this kind of "cheating".
-- 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.
P.S. -- To those people still in high-school or undergraduate college:
please *READ* the above before commenting. Use a dictionary if
necessary. The last time I posted something like the above,
some people posted replies without apparently understanding what
I wrote. In particular, there's a *BIG* difference in meaning
between the words, "where" and "what".
Edward Boris
: On 16 Dec 1995 08:53:54 GMT, str...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Brian Coleman)
: wrote:
: >
: > Okay, this is another one of my little gripes.
: > I keep seeing people referring to the so called "cheating" that
: >is supposedly so blatant on the computer's side in Warcraft II; most of
: >these people are the ones that claim the AI is moronic. (Disclaimer:
: >Though I'm sure I'll be accused of it, I never said the AI was brilliant.)
: >and watch the computer build, you'll see that it does everything by the
: >rules. It's just that it's perfectly efficient in collecting resources;
: >it never has peasants/peons standing idle while it's working on something
: >else, and it knows exactly how many to put on lumber and how many on
: >gold, and it knows exactly how many farms it needs, etc.
: >thing it does.
: > How is this cheating?
: Actually, I believe it does cheat a little bit. Case in point:
:
: I was playing Human level 13 (destroy Blackrock Spire) and had wiped out
: the northwest band of orcs and had control of the entire eastern edge of
: the map. I had my paladins blocking the peons access to the trees and my
: flying machines could see that they were just standing around. I also
: knew (via flying machines and griffins) that *nothing* was close enough
: to my paladins to be able to spot them.
did they have paladins too? Holy vision...
:
: Now, *as soon as* I moved a paladin to unblock the path, the peons
: started (and I mean *immediately*) to move to the trees. There were no
: ogre-mages casting those eye-thingies left, nothing around for *miles*
: -- yet those peons knew immediately that the way was open. It worked to
: my advantage, however, because I left the opening until the peons were
: very close then closed it up and killed them all. :)
THis isn't cheating, its part of that move-to command I think. Its the
same as when you tell a ship to move into an uncovered area (black) and
you click on the middle of an island (you don't know it though) and the
ship just sits there. The move-to command knows if its path is blocked.
So if the computer kept telling the peons to move to a point past your
Paladin it may have just kept failing the move-to command because they
couldn't get there so they just sat the same way the ships do...
ITs just a thought. I really don't think the computer cheats at all.
: Unless the orcs have something that has a long range visibility (I
: haven't played them yet) I'd say this is cheating (or a bug).
:
computer is much more efficient at using spells such as holy vision than
we are. With Holy Vision I bet he can watch the entire board, the spell
doesn't take much manna. Have you even seen a group of 5-6 computer
Paladins healing each other in the middle of a battle? its amazing.
And Paladins that aren't in battle have nothing better to do...
Ed
Rocky Brown
I have noticed the same thing; however, it goes both ways. As far
as the units moving when the path opens, it does not cheat any more
then the human player. I've had units do the same thing.
This is what I think the algorithm looks like: (I could be wrong. :)
1. Units get destination.
2. Computer uses a path algorithm to find path.
(BTW: does it check the path every step or just
on the initial move? I'll have to check...)
3. If the path is closed, wait, goto step 3.
4. Move.
5. If not there goto step 3. (Or, if it does check
the path every step, goto step 2.)
Of course there are some other things to consider, like: did someone
just attack me? Are there any resources left? Etc...
Just tossing words out,
Rocky - oa...@gemini.oscs.montana.edu
David Turriff
immediately. Note the amount of units and buildings... tell me, how did
it get more than you when the game hasn't been running more than a
second? It's impossible to build that fast.
David 0. Thomson
: Sorry, the computer DOES cheat. Try starting a game and surrendering
: it get more than you when the game hasn't been running more than a
: second? It's impossible to build that fast.
I'm pretty sure you're supposed to be moving into another part of
the land that has already been colonised by your enemy. It's been this
way right from Dune II I think.
--
Alban-barazi Wood
: Sorry, the computer DOES cheat. Try starting a game and surrendering
: immediately. Note the amount of units and buildings... tell me, how did
: it get more than you when the game hasn't been running more than a
: second? It's impossible to build that fast.
Maybe it's because that when a player starts a scenario with let's say 5
buildings, to computer considers them to have been built. I'm not sure
though, just an idea!
Alban
Mark A. Jamison
I just always thought that since you are, on the Human side, going into enemy
teritory that the enemy would be prepared, while you would be trying to gain
a foothold..
I mean what would be the point of "Capture point X, then destroy the Horde's
fortress at point Y" if there was nothing at X and Y started with the same junk
you start with..
Damian Haslam
at least resource-wise (ie., if the computer has spent all it's gold, and
it can't get anymore, it stops making things).
Howver, I was very disappointed to discover (or at least, seem to
discover) that the computer doesn't have the "fog of war" restriction
that makes this game so damn good in multiplayer. The last example that
Joe posted was a fine example, here's my example to add to the "evidence":
3 or 4 footman, and a couple of archers holding off a narrow pass in
between mountain ranges, a Knight hides in the trees in front of the
narrow pass, well out of range of any "9-range-eyes", awaiting the
cowardly death-knight to come and wreak havoc via his "Death & Decay
spell". Merrilly the Knight sat upon his horse, awaiting my instrcution
to leap from the bushes, and slay the single cowardly Death-Knight.
When.. all of a sudden, the death & decay is all about him! a quick run
forward from the footmen is a little to slow, and as the horse takes it's
last few dieing steps, the cowardly death-knight is seen retreating into
the fog. *sigh* there goes that strategy.
While the computer doesn't seem to be restricted by the "fog of war" it
still doesn't take *too* much advantage of it, ie. if a lone peasant has
decided to chop that tree down way over there, the dastardly two-headed
ogre on the other side of the hill doesn't rush him, and have his wicked
way with the under-educated peasant.
Anyway, in spite of the AI shortcomings (will anygame ever have good AI?)
it is still the best multiplayer networked game i've played (i just wish
c&c had fog of war).
ona cosing note, it is good to see a single enemy retreat when he sees a
horde of horse-bound, mace/sword weilding maniacs! Just wish it would
happen more often..
-damian
--
*-- Damian J. K. Haslam - dam...@blitzen.canberra.edu.au -------------------*
Striving to derive the expression for the intensity distribution developed
by a double slit illuminated by monochromatic waves.
*-- dam...@ise.canberra.edu.au ---------- u91...@student.canberra.edu.au --*
Andrew Davis
>From: dtur...@news.dct.com (David Turriff)
>Subject: Re: Warcraft 2: Computer "Cheating"
>Date: 28 Dec 1995 19:01:04 GMT
>Sorry, the computer DOES cheat. Try starting a game and surrendering
>immediately. Note the amount of units and buildings... tell me, how did
>it get more than you when the game hasn't been running more than a
>second? It's impossible to build that fast.
Read the FAQ - It does not cheat. It plays by different rules.
Mark Slone
>Read the FAQ - It does not cheat. It plays by different rules.
It doesn't cheat, but I don't enjoy playing games that give the computer a
head start or advantage. If I win, then the AI is an idiot, if I lose, then
the AI obviously had too much of an advantage :)
-Mark Slone sl...@traveller.com
Daniel Schmitz
> >Sorry, the computer DOES cheat. Try starting a game and surrendering
> >immediately. Note the amount of units and buildings... tell me, how did
> >it get more than you when the game hasn't been running more than a
> >second? It's impossible to build that fast.
>
>
Sounds like good advice. Where is the FAQ?
Dan
Wray Ferrell
In WarCraft1, I used the cheat to display the entire map just
to see what the computer started with and how it behaved.
1) Once you get to the higher levels 8+, the computer starts with
four farms, and all special buildings.
2) It starts with four peons, but never builds anymore. A fatal flaw
IMO, this game is about economy. I usually have 8 to 9 peons/peasants.
3) The computer knows exactly where you are. I built a few footmen and
moved them around the board. The computer built a unit and moved it
to exactly where all my units were.
Given all those advantages, the fact that it is easy to win is amazing.
Wray
mar...@global.co.za
>Sorry, the computer DOES cheat. Try starting a game and surrendering
>immediately. Note the amount of units and buildings... tell me, how did
>it get more than you when the game hasn't been running more than a
>second? It's impossible to build that fast.
Of course it does. Otherwise how do you explain the 32 gryphon riders that attacked
me the other day without any aviary built!!
Kenneth Tan
>dtur...@news.dct.com (David Turriff) wrote:
>>Sorry, the computer DOES cheat
>Of course it does. Otherwise how do you explain the 32 gryphon riders that attacked
>me the other day without any aviary built!!
I don't think so... The computer may send in 3 or so groups of 8 or so's; but
they never send flyers in more than groups of 2 or 3; let alone 32 of them.
In a solo mission, the computer can start off with some gryphons (like you
do, on some missions, without an aviary yet).
In a multiplayer mission, the computer is required to build as you do. It
doesn't cheat. If you don't see the avairy, it's probably hidden somewhere
(try using "on screen" or "showpath" to find it -- it WILL be there).
Automan
Michael O'Brien
>We all know that, if you survive the initial onslaught by the computer, the
>rest is a boring mop-up operation when the computer player runs out of gold.
So make a map where the computer's gold mine has a ton of gold in it, so
he won't run out. That way the game stays hard.
Mike
uabbr...@cc.memphis.edu
> Mark Slone wrote:
>>>Read the FAQ - It does not cheat. It plays by different rules.
>
>>head start or advantage. If I win, then the AI is an idiot, if I lose, then
>>the AI obviously had too much of an advantage :)
>
>
> cheating or not cheating:
>
> In a solo mission, both you and the computer starts off with a fixed "set".
> You may or may not have buildings, and the computer may already start off
> with a fortress. The computer does not seem to build anything new, or
> rebuild anything that is destroyed. It does not cheat.
I have seen the computer try to replace the fortress that I destroyed. It was
even kind of smart because the peon left the screen and went somewhere else to
rebuild. They also replace dead peons and sometimes they make new units when
I'm destroying their city.
> If you start a game and immediately surrender, the number of units and
> buildings the computer has is based on the starting set, which does not
> have to be balanced (what's the big deal of starting with 1 peasant and
> 100,000 gold against 50 computer units with 20,000 gold?)
That makes sense. In most of the missions, you are attacking them. It wouldn't
make sense to have to destroy city X when that city isn't even built yet.
> In multiplayer missions, the computer starts off with the same units you
> do, and builds accordingly. They work a lot faster than you (not in the
> time taken to mine/build/whatever/cheating, but in that you take a second
> to give an order to 1 guy, the computer takes 1 millisecond to do that),
> and your development strategy isn't optimal.
> (I did, however, notice that the computer seemed to take a slightly shorter
> time to build something than I do -- building a town hall + farm in about
> 10 seconds less; but I don't consider that significantly cheating).
You too can increase the speed at which you build. Just assign some extra
peons/peasants to repair the building as it is being built. Maybe that is what
the computer is doing, and not actually cheating.
> If you want to verify that the computer does not cheat, use the "on screen"
> command and watch the computer build.
> We all know that, if you survive the initial onslaught by the computer, the
> rest is a boring mop-up operation when the computer player runs out of gold.
True, especially with misison 14. It sure was tough fighting dragons before I
had time to build much of anything. Too bad the computer stopped making the
dragons.
-Tony
> Automan
J.Y.Zhou
>
> David Turriff (dtur...@news.dct.com) wrote:
> : Sorry, the computer DOES cheat. Try starting a game and surrendering
> : it get more than you when the game hasn't been running more than a
> : second? It's impossible to build that fast.
You can try the "showpath" cheat to show the entire map, then moniter
the computer's action. Personally I don't think the computer cheating.
J.Y.Zhou
J.Y.Zhou
Ben Pocock
It sees all your units, whether invisible or not. I cast invisibility on my
knight, and tried to get him close enough to the death knights to be able to
exc. one and then attack another. Nope... as he was moving, 5 drain spells were
cast and he died before ever getting there. Also, ever notice that you can't
pick up enemy subs even with towers? When they attack, they should be visible
briefly... but no!
Ahh well, still an excellent game. Wish they'd improve that.
uabbr...@cc.memphis.edu
I've never had a problem with invisibility working (other than the time I tried
to turn my dwarves invisible). Are you sure that the knight was still invisible
when he moved towards the knights?
As far as the towers go, they need to be close enough to see the subs. Anyway,
if you watch closely, you can see the location of the subs by looking for where
the torpedoes come from.
-Tony
Kenneth Tan
>>Read the FAQ - It does not cheat. It plays by different rules.
>It doesn't cheat, but I don't enjoy playing games that give the computer a
>head start or advantage. If I win, then the AI is an idiot, if I lose, then
>the AI obviously had too much of an advantage :)
Let us all get the premise correct first, before blabbing about the AI
cheating or not cheating:
In a solo mission, both you and the computer starts off with a fixed "set".
You may or may not have buildings, and the computer may already start off
with a fortress. The computer does not seem to build anything new, or
rebuild anything that is destroyed. It does not cheat.
If you start a game and immediately surrender, the number of units and
buildings the computer has is based on the starting set, which does not
have to be balanced (what's the big deal of starting with 1 peasant and
100,000 gold against 50 computer units with 20,000 gold?)
In multiplayer missions, the computer starts off with the same units you
do, and builds accordingly. They work a lot faster than you (not in the
time taken to mine/build/whatever/cheating, but in that you take a second
to give an order to 1 guy, the computer takes 1 millisecond to do that),
and your development strategy isn't optimal.
(I did, however, notice that the computer seemed to take a slightly shorter
time to build something than I do -- building a town hall + farm in about
10 seconds less; but I don't consider that significantly cheating).
If you want to verify that the computer does not cheat, use the "on screen"
command and watch the computer build.
We all know that, if you survive the initial onslaught by the computer, the
rest is a boring mop-up operation when the computer player runs out of gold.
Automan
Bill
: ada...@cycor.ca (Andrew Davis) wrote:
:
: >Read the FAQ - It does not cheat. It plays by different rules.
:
: It doesn't cheat, but I don't enjoy playing games that give the computer a
: head start or advantage. If I win, then the AI is an idiot, if I lose, then
: the AI obviously had too much of an advantage :)
There aren't many games which don't give the computer different rules,
and even fewer which don't give the computer special resource advantages.
Even Galactic Civilizations, probably the most advanced large scale
strategy AI in the PC game market, gives the computer extra resources on
the harder difficulty settings.
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+------------------------+
| Bill Poitras | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Tel (408)522-0116 |
| bi...@ba.msi.com | Sunnyvale, CA 94087-40237 | FAX (408)522-0199 |
+-------------------+----------------------------+------------------------+
|FTP Mail |mail ftp...@decwrl.dec.com | Offers:ftp via email |
| |Subject:<CR>help<CR>quit | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Joe Schlimgen
>: Actually, I believe it does cheat a little bit. Case in point:
>:
>: I was playing Human level 13 (destroy Blackrock Spire) and had wiped out
>: the northwest band of orcs and had control of the entire eastern edge of
>: the map. I had my paladins blocking the peons access to the trees and my
>: flying machines could see that they were just standing around. I also
>: knew (via flying machines and griffins) that *nothing* was close enough
>: to my paladins to be able to spot them.
>
>did they have paladins too? Holy vision...
Orc paladins, an interesting concept. :) No, there were no paladins.
>:
>: Now, *as soon as* I moved a paladin to unblock the path, the peons
>: started (and I mean *immediately*) to move to the trees. There were no
>: ogre-mages casting those eye-thingies left, nothing around for *miles*
>: -- yet those peons knew immediately that the way was open. It worked to
>: my advantage, however, because I left the opening until the peons were
>: very close then closed it up and killed them all. :)
>
>THis isn't cheating, its part of that move-to command I think. Its the
>same as when you tell a ship to move into an uncovered area (black) and
>you click on the middle of an island (you don't know it though) and the
>ship just sits there. The move-to command knows if its path is blocked.
>So if the computer kept telling the peons to move to a point past your
>Paladin it may have just kept failing the move-to command because they
>couldn't get there so they just sat the same way the ships do...
> ITs just a thought. I really don't think the computer cheats at all.
Okay, I'll admit it isn't *quite* cheating, since I can do it too and
it's a movement thing. However, it still *seems* like cheating (even if
*I* can do it) since it knows *immediate* when something moves out of
the way.
Brian Bach Soerensen
: st...@step.polymtl.ca (Alban-barazi Wood) wrote:
: >
: > David Turriff (dtur...@news.dct.com) wrote:
: > : Sorry, the computer DOES cheat. Try starting a game and surrendering
: > : immediately. Note the amount of units and buildings... tell me, how did
: > : it get more than you when the game hasn't been running more than a
: > : second? It's impossible to build that fast.
Why do think the computer is "cheating". It's U who are moving into a
new area, and it's U who have to stike against him.
: J.Y.Zhou
--
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Don't try this at home kids, I'm a professionel |
| - Last words of the unknown stuntman |
| o o (o o) o| <o> |o __o o |
| /|\ `-\ -' `- /| | |\ |\ /|\ |
| / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ |
| The Coca-Cola Kid (CokeKid) |
| Email: d94...@rix01.lyngbyes.dk |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
Chris Schirlinger
> The computer cheats, plain and simple. Maybe not that much, but it still does.
> It sees all your units, whether invisible or not. I cast invisibility on my
> knight, and tried to get him close enough to the death knights to be able to
> exc. one and then attack another. Nope... as he was moving, 5 drain spells were
> cast and he died before ever getting there. Also, ever notice that you can't
> pick up enemy subs even with towers? When they attack, they should be visible
> briefly... but no!
No, the computer DOES NOT CHEAT!
Death Knights can see through invisibility spells (They are undead and
do not see with standard eyes. Undead in most RPG genres are not
fooled with invisibilty)
Also, the reason that you can't see subs from the towers is that
they aren't close enough to the towers. When attacking land bases
the subs are usaually positioned at the furtherest point from the coast
where they can still attack the port (Or some such sea base)
Move your subs right up to a tower and watch them get destroyed
(Only by cannon towers I think, but maybe by arrow towers)
Trust me, I lost three subs attacking the port because the subs
decided to move too close to the land. Also been attacked by
an elven archer when close to a standard scout tower (No flying
units so far)
In general, Warcraft II is one of the only games I have come
across where the AI doesn't not "cheat" to win (Unlike C&C)
> Ahh well, still an excellent game. Wish they'd improve that.
Agree with you on the excelent game but :-)
Share and Enjoy
Chris Schirlinger
> I have seen the computer try to replace the fortress that I destroyed. It was
> even kind of smart because the peon left the screen and went somewhere else to
> rebuild. They also replace dead peons and sometimes they make new units when
> I'm destroying their city.
I have flowen over a section of enemy ground in one or other of the various
flying vehicals and realised that the computer had no towers or other defenses.
Twenty miniutes later, leading a small army, I come across a guard tower
sitting in what was clear ground! The computer does build new buildings
that it doesn't start with, just not very often.
Chris
uabbr...@cc.memphis.edu
> In article <30EB76...@is.co.za>, Chris Schirlinger <ch...@is.co.za>
> writes:
>
>>No, the computer DOES NOT CHEAT!
>
> time?
I'm not sure that it does that. I've watched a peasant build a town hall after
I destroyed the other one, and it seemed to take as long as normal. They might
increase the build speed by having more than peasant build. You can have a guy
repair a building as it is being built and it will go up much faster.
-Tony
JosephPG3
YOONG HOR MENG
on the enemy base. I found that if I used cheat code such as "glittering
prizes", computer also cheat in the same way. So does "make it so". I
agree that the computer does build faster than I am for a few seconds.
Ilya Vinnik
> In article <4buphg$6...@online.dct.com> dtur...@news.dct.com (David Turriff) writes:
> >From: dtur...@news.dct.com (David Turriff)
> >Subject: Re: Warcraft 2: Computer "Cheating"
> >Date: 28 Dec 1995 19:01:04 GMT
>
> >Sorry, the computer DOES cheat. Try starting a game and surrendering
> >immediately. Note the amount of units and buildings... tell me, how did
> >it get more than you when the game hasn't been running more than a
> >second? It's impossible to build that fast.
> Read the FAQ - It does not cheat. It plays by different rules.
could you tell me where can i get a FAQ for WarCraft2. Thank's
Ilya
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is a bich and then you die.
vin...@yu1.yu.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Bertolucci
I think the problem is with the Custome Scenarios. The computer
must start a with town hall already. The only ones I've been able to win
are the ones where my base and his are seperated by water. Anything else
and its a slaughter. I mean, I build a baracks as soon as I can and start
cranking out footmen as fast as the baracks can build them and still I
end up fighting two to one odds. For example, has anyone beaten Skull
Isle? If so, how? I think the computer also knows where you are since
his first attack is usually with 5 or 6 units.
Bill
: In article <4ce6nh$b...@nic.wat.hookup.net>, bpo...@ionline.net (Ben Pocock) writes:
: > cast and he died before ever getting there. Also, ever notice that you can't
: > pick up enemy subs even with towers? When they attack, they should be visible
: > briefly... but no!
: > Ahh well, still an excellent game. Wish they'd improve that.
: >
:
: I've never had a problem with invisibility working (other than the time I tried
: to turn my dwarves invisible). Are you sure that the knight was still invisible
: when he moved towards the knights?
:
: As far as the towers go, they need to be close enough to see the subs. Anyway,
: if you watch closely, you can see the location of the subs by looking for where
: the torpedoes come from.
:
: -Tony
Or even better, make a flying machine. They only cost 500G, 200L (or
something like that). Always have one for every major fleet of ships.
And have one hanging around your home port, so your ballistas can see
them.
Kenneth Tan
> I think the problem is with the Custome Scenarios. The computer
>must start a with town hall already.
The computer starts off with the same units you do, and builds by the same
rules you do. If you suspect the computer cheating, you can always use
the on screen command (ofcourse, then you'd probably accuse the computer of
cheating only when you're not looking <grin> *snickles* :))
>I mean, I build a baracks as soon as I can and start
>cranking out footmen as fast as the baracks can build them and still I
>end up fighting two to one odds.
Try using on screen to see how he builds.
We are usually slower because we have to click around.
>For example, has anyone beaten Skull
>Isle? If so, how? I think the computer also knows where you are since
>his first attack is usually with 5 or 6 units.
Don't know about that scenario. I may try it out tonight.
The computer does have to explore the map like you do. The computer does not
have any advantage on this, nor does it cheat.
(It's gotta be downright stupid if it did cheat and _still_ a) never finds you
on some games, b) keep sending his idiots to die by attacking the same same
place everytime, which naturally becomes the most defended front on your
base, when it can just walk in another part of your town.)
Automan
Doug McCreary
(snip)
> > You mean except for actually constructing buildings in about 10% less
> > time?
> >
> >
This I haven't seen. I finish buildings within 1 second of the computer
player when we start within 1 second. I've tried timing any difference
a couple of times, and I can't see a difference which could not be
attributed to error on the part of my stopwatch.
(snip)
For example, has anyone beaten Skull
> Isle? If so, how? I think the computer also knows where you are since
> his first attack is usually with 5 or 6 units.
Instead of knights, build an extra peon and construct a couple of
archery towers at the edges of your base. 4 should be enough to
get you through the computers' first attack. I've beaten most
of the custom scenarios with this strategy.
--doug
Robert Dejournett
>Ben Pocock wrote:
>
>> The computer cheats, plain and simple. Maybe not that much, but it still does.
Okay what about this: In most of my scenarios, i notice that no matter how
much I produce, the computer produces as much or more, but here is the kicker,
when i invade and conquer said computer, I notice his mines are not dry, nor
are his forests deforested. Some resource use does occur, but there must
be something going on if the computer chops down only a few squares of trees
and ends up producing 20000 lumber...Anyone notice this?
(As an aside, i find it disturbing that Westwood has such a callous attitude
towards deforestation, it is more like, 'see who can strip the earth of
trees the fastest'...But it *is* a game, and a damn good one at that).
-Rob
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Robert Dejournett her...@rtd.com http://www.rtd.com/~hermes
"And the meek shall inherit HELL" -- *Ultimate DOOM* Advertisement
Kenneth Tan
>>Ben Pocock wrote:
>>> The computer cheats, plain and simple. Maybe not that much, but it still does.
>>No, the computer DOES NOT CHEAT!
>Okay what about this: In most of my scenarios, i notice that no matter how
>much I produce, the computer produces as much or more, but here is the kicker,
>when i invade and conquer said computer, I notice his mines are not dry, nor
>are his forests deforested. Some resource use does occur, but there must
>be something going on if the computer chops down only a few squares of trees
>and ends up producing 20000 lumber...Anyone notice this?
Firstly, from the many other posts in this thread, we have already come to
the conclusion that the computer does NOT cheat (and cheating, if any, is
in building things about 10% (?) faster than we do). The computer simply
has the advantage of not having to click & slide the mouse around.
Bear in mind when you said that, are you playing a multiplayer/custom game
or a campain scenario. In campain scenarios, the computer does start off
with an advantage with everything pre-built.
In any case, the final report screen is correct in the amount of gold mined,
and lumber chopped. A careful inspection of the terrain will show
accordingly.
In campain scenarios, the computer usually has a ton of gold more than you,
but in any case, (campain or custom), they usually run out of gold a lot
faster than you do (but total gold does tally).
As always, if you suspect the computer cheating on you, use on screen to
cheat on it!
Automan
Trevor Barrie
>Okay what about this: In most of my scenarios, i notice that no matter how
>much I produce, the computer produces as much or more, but here is the kicker,
>when i invade and conquer said computer, I notice his mines are not dry, nor
>are his forests deforested. Some resource use does occur, but there must
>be something going on if the computer chops down only a few squares of trees
>and ends up producing 20000 lumber...Anyone notice this?
Are you sure that you started with the same amount of resources as he
did?
>(As an aside, i find it disturbing that Westwood has such a callous attitude
>towards deforestation, it is more like, 'see who can strip the earth of
>trees the fastest'...But it *is* a game, and a damn good one at that).
More specifically, it's a game about _Warcraft_. Not ecology or good
government or anything like that. The long term effects of
deforestation to the game would be horribly out of place in this game.
Fuwah Chez
: :
: : head start or advantage. If I win, then the AI is an idiot, if I lose, then
: : the AI obviously had too much of an advantage :)
: There aren't many games which don't give the computer different rules,
: and even fewer which don't give the computer special resource advantages.
: Even Galactic Civilizations, probably the most advanced large scale
: strategy AI in the PC game market, gives the computer extra resources on
: the harder difficulty settings.
Well, advanced civilization _might_ cheat in trading, but as to the
movement and such, it does not.
And I think GalCiv only 'cheats' in the highest level (5/5.) In fact,
in levels 1-3 the computer players are handicapped in terms of
resource production.
--
// On the cutting-edge of disaster.
richard...@gmail.com
> Okay, this is another one of my little gripes.
> I keep seeing people referring to the so called "cheating" that
> is supposedly so blatant on the computer's side in Warcraft II; most of
> these people are the ones that claim the AI is moronic. (Disclaimer:
> Though I'm sure I'll be accused of it, I never said the AI was brilliant.)
> My question is this: how can you say that the computer is
> cheating? If you start a scenario with a flying machine and you go over
> and watch the computer build, you'll see that it does everything by the
> rules. It's just that it's perfectly efficient in collecting resources;
> it never has peasants/peons standing idle while it's working on something
> else, and it knows exactly how many to put on lumber and how many on
> gold, and it knows exactly how many farms it needs, etc.
> I have watched this more than once. If you watch what the
> computer does and follow the method it uses, you can accomplish the same
> thing it does.
> How is this cheating?
>
> Brian E. Coleman
I don't know if it's cheating, but the AI can see through groves of trees. I had a death knight who had just been trained on one side of a tree line and a paladin suddenly appeared an exorcised him as soon as he got into range, from the other side of the tree line. And no air units had gone overhead. And don't try to tell me he used his magic vision immediately after my dk was trained. The AI knew exactly where he was.
............................................................................
> : Duct Tape is like the Force. It has a light side and a dark side, and it:
> : holds the universe together. The only difference is that "May The Force :
> : be with you" sounds a lot nicer than "May you be covered in duct tape." :
> :..........................................................................: