Warcraft 2 : What about an AI patch ??
DOYAMA JASON
Stan Ragan <sra...@hsf.uab.edu> wrote:
>
>Hello Folks,
>
>Reading all the complaints about how easy the game is to beat, (much easier
>that Command & Conquer) I wonder if Blizzard would be up to working on an AI
>patch (Sort of like Ascendancy's Antagonizer patch).
>
>I just flew through War2, were as I'm still working on some of the C&C levels.
>
>Whatdoyathink ???
>
>Stan
>
Probably not possible since the AI is a MAJOR part of the code.
They'd have to rewrite it from scratch, and it's probably not worth the
effort.
Jason Doyama
--
_-----------------------------------------------------------------_
| "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no |
| matter how improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes |
-_________________________________________________________________-
Stan Ragan
Hello Folks,
Reading all the complaints about how easy the game is to beat, (much easier
that Command & Conquer) I wonder if Blizzard would be up to working on an AI
patch (Sort of like Ascendancy's Antagonizer patch).
I just flew through War2, were as I'm still working on some of the C&C levels.
Whatdoyathink ???
Stan
--
Stan Ragan
Information Systems
University of Alabama Health Services Foundation
INTERNET : sra...@hsf.uab.edu
Geo
: Stan Ragan (sra...@hsf.uab.edu) wrote:
: :
: : Hello Folks,
: :
: :Reading all the complaints about how easy the game is to beat, (much easie
: : patch (Sort of like Ascendancy's Antagonizer patch).
: :
: :I just flew through War2, were as I'm still working on some of the C&C levels.
I believe when you're doing a campaign, the AI is put in a "Passive" mode where
it will do 95% defending and 5% attacking since it gets such a over whelming
advantage with pre-built buildings and units.
Try to play a one-on-one custom map game and you'll see your butt get
kicked because I did. I use the 'show path' option and watched how
he's building up stuff, and he pretty much does the same thing I do,
except a lot more efficient since I can only move the mouse so fast :)
I wish there's a setting I can do for the AI to set the aggressiveness..
maybe there is, time to read the manual...
GL
Doug McCreary
>
> In article <4ap938$8...@maze.dpo.uab.edu>,
> Stan Ragan <sra...@hsf.uab.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Reading all the complaints about how easy the game is to beat, (much easier
> >that Command & Conquer) I wonder if Blizzard would be up to working on an AI
> >patch (Sort of like Ascendancy's Antagonizer patch).
> >
> >I just flew through War2, were as I'm still working on some of the C&C levels.
> >
> Probably not possible since the AI is a MAJOR part of the code.
> They'd have to rewrite it from scratch, and it's probably not worth the
> effort.
>
> Jason Doyama
>
It most likely doesn't need to be rewritten from scratch. A
well designed programming project can easily be patched with
minor revisions. Specifically, if Blizzard were able to
patch the AI to lay out its bases better (for better
defense), put peons on transports to get new gold sources,
and adjust they're attacking decisions not to attack
without slightly greater advantage, they would fix
at least the 3 most obvious AI problems. These are
the only problems that I've seen personally, or
heard of from others, which are so crippling to the AI
that it is just not challenging to play against. If
blizzard could fix these they would have a substantially
better product. And as a game developer, I have the
advantage of knowing that this sort of patch CAN
be done, and is in fact not extremely difficult, so
I hope that Blizzard will consider doing so.
--doug mccreary
Edward Boris
: patch (Sort of like Ascendancy's Antagonizer patch).
:
: I just flew through War2, were as I'm still working on some of the C&C levels.
: Whatdoyathink ???
:
: Stan
:
C&C cheats big time. Geez, first everyone complains about AI cheating
and wanting a game that starts from scratch like we do and doesn't cheat,
then Blizzard gives us one, with darn good AI, and we still complain.
Sure the AI could be better in WC2 but its the best AI of any game out
there. And in multiplayer mode with a friend you can play against
multilple computers and its quite challanging. Until the money runs out
that is...
Ed
Boris Harmic
>Hello Folks,
>Reading all the complaints about how easy the game is to beat, (much easier
>that Command & Conquer) I wonder if Blizzard would be up to working on an AI
>patch (Sort of like Ascendancy's Antagonizer patch).
>I just flew through War2, were as I'm still working on some of the C&C levels.
>Whatdoyathink ???
>Stan
>--
>Stan Ragan
>Information Systems
>University of Alabama Health Services Foundation
>INTERNET : sra...@hsf.uab.edu
The game is a blast but the AI is awful. Catapult units a grossly
stupid, as are some foot units, Any unit is easily lured into a trap,
etc. ad nauseum. Perhaps Blizzard could have spent a little more time
on putting brains into these little creatures. It seems the only ones
that do their job is the critters: they effectively get in you bloody
way when you least want them to!
C&C had me stumped for quite a time and is a joy to play over the
modem. Granted, I have yet to try WC2 over the modem, but I look
forward to it immensly.
--------
Boris Harmic rants at The Last Outpost
www.interlog.com/~bharmic/home.html
bha...@interlog.com Toronto, Canada
Grimfang
> >that Command & Conquer) I wonder if Blizzard would be up to working on an AI
> >patch (Sort of like Ascendancy's Antagonizer patch).
>
> >I just flew through War2, were as I'm still working on some of the C&C levels.
If your playing the Campaign included with WC2 then yeah its easy anything else and the AI is Brutal.
You said levels so I assume you mean your playing the Campaign Game. Warcraft 2 was meant to be played
Multiplayer, the options for the game are taylored for a Multiplayer game even the Cheat codes are universal this
time so I cannot use a cheat that a buddy doesn't get as well. Try a Custom or Built in single player scenario you'll
get killed very quickly several times I cannot beat several scenarios in single player mode, but I flew through the
Human side and am now working on the Orcs.
> The game is a blast but the AI is awful. Catapult units a grossly
> stupid, as are some foot units, Any unit is easily lured into a trap,
> etc. ad nauseum. Perhaps Blizzard could have spent a little more time
> on putting brains into these little creatures. It seems the only ones
> that do their job is the critters: they effectively get in you bloody
> way when you least want them to!
Why?? how can a unit be lured into a trap, isn't your job to see atrap in advance and to deal with it the
best way, 'cause that is your job description as supreme overlord of your units. Catapults Stupid doubt it, can't
attack short range targets, don't move from HtH, and move away from the units they can't attack that are attacking
them, Basically I just described the major problem of the use of siege Engines the same problem probably
plagued some of the greater men in history too but they got to be great by over coming the shortfallings of a unit
by using the best aspects of other units, if you cannot see that quit playing wargames and go play no brainer
arcade games, and furthermore quit attacking a Company which probably did more for a sequal since Fox
released Aliens.
They gave you all the tools you need to defeat this game in any role you choose,and to deal with anything that may
come up, They did not include a system requirement of a Brain which they should have.
Sincerely
Shane Forth
Boris Harmic
-snip-
> Why?? how can a unit be lured into a trap, isn't your job to see atrap in advance and to deal with it the
>best way, 'cause that is your job description as supreme overlord of your units. Catapults Stupid doubt it, can't
>attack short range targets, don't move from HtH, and move away from the units they can't attack that are attacking
>them, Basically I just described the major problem of the use of siege Engines the same problem probably
>plagued some of the greater men in history too but they got to be great by over coming the shortfallings of a unit
>by using the best aspects of other units, if you cannot see that quit playing wargames and go play no brainer
>arcade games, and furthermore quit attacking a Company which probably did more for a sequal since Fox
>released Aliens.
>They gave you all the tools you need to defeat this game in any role you choose,and to deal with anything that may
>come up, They did not include a system requirement of a Brain which they should have.
>Sincerely
>Shane Forth
I didn't say I couldn't defeat the game (I'm on Orc-14 now, without
cheats), but that certainly doesn't make it perfect. And yes, the AI
is crap. The game is great (I'll bet the multiplayer is a
blast-haven't tried it yet!), but the AI sucks, plain and simple. It's
not just the units when it comes to combat, it's also simple
maneuvering around the map. To be blunt, it doesn't work. Sending a
unit across maybe 2/3 of a large map is a virtual impossibility and
that sucks. Don't be so blind to slight imperfections in a game. I
don't make these complaints because I want it to be easier or some
such crap, I make them so that Blizzard would hopefully improve their
great game in the future!
Grimfang
> I didn't say I couldn't defeat the game (I'm on Orc-14 now, without
> cheats), but that certainly doesn't make it perfect. And yes, the AI
> is crap. The game is great (I'll bet the multiplayer is a
> blast-haven't tried it yet!), but the AI sucks, plain and simple. It's
> not just the units when it comes to combat, it's also simple
> maneuvering around the map. To be blunt, it doesn't work. Sending a
> unit across maybe 2/3 of a large map is a virtual impossibility and
> that sucks.
Personally I could care less what level your on in the included campaigns, they are easy to beat, play a
single player game without a cheat, and you will be slaughtered, you mentioned you had a problem getting men
led into traps yet a button Stand Ground does exist and they don't go into traps because they don't move, it isn't the
AI's fault you don't use it, it also isn't the AI's fault that catapult gets attacked or doesn't attack the target you think it
should attack, granted I feel the should only move as fast as its slowest but that is a feature not a AI problem.
Further if you try and move a group across "2/3" of the board without taking into account terrain that might get in the
way that is again your own fault not the AI's, use of a way point type system which involves moving your men in
stages instead of just picking your target and saying go there men(which is a really stupid way of doing things).
You still have not made a case for the AI sucking, all of you complaints are over things you control and things you
should be watching for.
> Don't be so blind to slight imperfections in a game. I
> don't make these complaints because I want it to be easier or some
> such crap, I make them so that Blizzard would hopefully improve their
> great game in the future.
You state above that the AI is crap and doesn't work, and below not to be so blind slight imperfections,
so which is it a slight imperfection which you are in fact blowing all out of proportion or is it crap as you originally
said, I am not blind and I see a few things that can be improved but the AI isn't on the list, and all of them fall into
the feature and rules categories.
Also, THE HELL YOU DON"T WANT THE GAME EASIER OR SOME SUCH CRAP, every one of your
complaints revolves around a complaint that is in fact your unwillingness to do some actual thinking when it
comes to this game, you want a nice clean sanitized game," I want my guys to go there and do it by the least
troubled route just like a computer moves his guys around", so I see only two ways of solving your complaints
about the AI non-problem, make radical devolopments in Direct Nueral Links, which isn't likely in the next twenty
years so, or let the computer play the computer which takes all the point out of the game, and is really all you want
them to do.
BTW I have two different definitions of AI:
SIMPLE AI: (which is the one you are complaining about) all it does is really handle the commands you give it, the
computer uses the same SIMPLE AI, it just Micro manages so fast that you cannot tell. Simple common sense
covers this one.
COMPLEX AI: which governs attack strategy for computer opponents, (this is the one you should be complaining
about) it would be like having a dozen flying attackers and not building towers or Archers to deal with it, If there
where any evidence of this I would be screaming bloody murder at the tech guys at Blizzard.
I personally hope a couple of guys at BLIZZARD read your complaints and promptly Ignore them
because what you are asking for is a game that would be Pretty and Boring after about two battles of not doing
anything but devoloping and pointing and clicking on the item you wanted destroyed, because all you want is the
guy to go the path of least resistance destroy the targets in a specific order without you telling it, guarding the
flanks without you telling it, and guarding any vulnerable targets without you telling it and sitting back and watching
while the computer did all the thinking for you, pretty pathetic game where's the fun in that. Then you'd be
complaining about how boring the game is and how much of a ripoff it was to pay for it.
Grimfang
>
>
>>>>
Tirpitzz
The AI in Warcraft is good anough to make most scenarios interesting. It
will not handle all tasks for you...if it did...you would get pretty
boored of it soon. Some more aggressivness in certain scenarions would be
kewl...but for the most part i am happy with it. The only function i would
like to see addet to the game is a AutoCenter function
if you tell it to do so...sometimes i like to watch a unit advance to the
terrain, and have to constandly move the map manualy or hit the alt-c
button...small inconvinenes..but again..no big deal...A add on Disk with
another campain would be nice...but iam shure there is a good chance of
blizzard delivering on that...
Thanks.
Saint Erroneous
>> >Reading all the complaints about how easy the game is to beat, (much easier
>> >that Command & Conquer) I wonder if Blizzard would be up to working on an AI
>> >patch (Sort of like Ascendancy's Antagonizer patch).
>> >I just flew through War2, were as I'm still working on some of the
>> >C&C levels.
> If your playing the Campaign included with WC2 then yeah its easy
>anything else and the AI is Brutal. You said levels so I assume you mean
>your playing the Campaign Game. Warcraft 2 was meant to be played
>Multiplayer, the options for the game are taylored for a Multiplayer game
>even the Cheat codes are universal this time so I cannot use a cheat that
>a buddy doesn't get as well. Try a Custom or Built in single player
>scenario you'll get killed very quickly several times I cannot beat
>several scenarios in single player mode, but I flew through the Human side
>and am now working on the Orcs.
I think excusing the campaign game's flaws because "it was meant to
played multi-player" is a bit of a cop-out. Surely they could have given
the orc's less of a head start on the setup, or give you sufficient
forces to deal with the attacks - eg - give the dragonmaw clan on the last
human level no farms to start off with, and hence given you time to get
established, rather than dumming down the air-attack ai which, despite
harvesting 238k of gold on the last human level seemed to do fuck-all
with it.
I've only just finished the human campaign (can I be bothered with the
pain of hacking my way through the orc campaign with bugger all
difference between the units? Perhaps, if only for the 3-4 cut scenes I
havn't seen yet) and havn't played the computer at any of the built-in
levels. Should be interesting.
> Why?? how can a unit be lured into a trap, isn't your job to see
>atrap in advance and to deal with it the best way, 'cause that is your job
>description as supreme overlord of your units.
Even with the game set on slowest my human units still move fast enough to
make clicking on them in a hand to hand combat environment a little
difficult. Often I find that my shiny group of nine paladins, attacking a
largish bunch of ogres, have decided to disperse into the group of ogres,
giving them the best possible opportunity to die horribly. I find
alt-clicking on one of my units to reselect the group in a this situation
a little fiddly, so refocusing the paladins on one, or maybe two targets
takes a little longer than it would in c&c, where I just have to hit a
number key. Not a huge problem, just (yet another) minor niggle.
If the slowest speed was maybe 30-50% slower than it currently is then I
suspect I wouldn't have a problem. (It might just be my p90, but people
have said the game runs fine all the way down the specification range, so
I think it's probably been a conscious decision by Blizzard).
>Catapults Stupid doubt it,
>can't attack short range targets, don't move from HtH, and move away from
>the units they can't attack that are attacking them, Basically I just
>described the major problem of the use of siege Engines the same problem
>probably plagued some of the greater men in history too but they got to be
>great by over coming the shortfallings of a unit by using the best aspects
>of other units, if you cannot see that quit playing wargames and go play
>no brainer arcade games, and furthermore quit attacking a Company which
>probably did more for a sequal since Fox released Aliens.
I just noticed that the previous paragraph was a single sentence. Wow.
Impressive.
>They gave you all the tools you need to defeat this game in any role you
>choose,and to deal with anything that may come up, They did not include a
>system requirement of a Brain which they should have.
Hmm... I suspect that your system kernel needs a politeness patch and a
full recompile.
*patronise mode off*
>Sincerely
>Shane Forth
Sorry for any spelling mistakes. It's cold here and my hands hurt.
-michael
--
-----------Saint michael (mainly) Erroneous m...@st-andrews.ac.uk-------------
-------------http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sa/personal/mpv----------------
Saint Erroneous
>
>> I didn't say I couldn't defeat the game (I'm on Orc-14 now, without
>> cheats), but that certainly doesn't make it perfect. And yes, the AI
>> is crap. The game is great (I'll bet the multiplayer is a
>> blast-haven't tried it yet!), but the AI sucks, plain and simple. It's
>> not just the units when it comes to combat, it's also simple
>> maneuvering around the map. To be blunt, it doesn't work. Sending a
>> unit across maybe 2/3 of a large map is a virtual impossibility and
>> that sucks.
> Personally I could care less what level your on in the included
>campaigns, they are easy to beat, play a single player game without a
>cheat, and you will be slaughtered, you mentioned you had a problem
>getting men led into traps yet a button Stand Ground does exist and they
>don't go into traps because they don't move, it isn't the AI's fault you
>don't use it, it also isn't the AI's fault that catapult gets attacked or
>doesn't attack the target you think it should attack, granted I feel the
>should only move as fast as its slowest but that is a feature not a AI
>problem.
Hmm. You're ranting on about stuff from one of his previous postings you
already responded to. Slightly incoherently too.
Essentially in Warcraft2 the routing subroutine is very limited. This may
have been a conscious decision on the part of Blizzard to make you
micro-manage your troup/unit movements. I find this limitation on the
"intelligence" (*cough*) of my units profoundly annoying, and while dune2
had a low enough minimum speed to make this sort of ordering every troop
to go to it's own specific spot playable, if not necessarily very
enjoyable, Warcraft2 moves a little too quickly to make this a complete
satisfactory playing system.
(I've said that before, elsewhere. Sorry for repeating myself.)
I've lost track of the number of times I've my group of 9 knights to
attack a building and had 4 of them standing behind the other because the
routing system's got stuck and can't deal with the idea of going around
the other side of the building. It's just so bloody frustrating at times.
>Further if you try and move a group across "2/3" of the board
>without taking into account terrain that might get in the way that is
>again your own fault not the AI's, use of a way point type system which
>involves moving your men in stages instead of just picking your target and
>saying go there men(which is a really stupid way of doing things).
So Blizzard, you are saying, has made a decision that means I have to take
time away from areas which need my attention, just because they feel that
I not capable of making the decision that I control the area the units
will move over and that they'll be in no danger if I leave the computer to
move them? I'm not saying the computer should attempt to route the units
away from enemy controlled regions - that _would_ be rather borgish.
Blizzard have made a decision that involves me in tedious crap with no
strategic importance whatsoever because they couldn't be bothered writing
a half decent routing function. If the blokes at Westwood can managed it
with c&c (not perfect, but works most of the time, and can certainly get a
unit anywhere on the map if it's possible), then the only possible excuse
_is_ that Blizzard were lazy, and that just makes me mad.
>> Don't be so blind to slight imperfections in a game. I
>> don't make these complaints because I want it to be easier or some
>> such crap, I make them so that Blizzard would hopefully improve their
>> great game in the future.
>You state above that the AI is crap and doesn't work, and below not to
>be so blind slight imperfections, so which is it a slight imperfection
>which you are in fact blowing all out of proportion or is it crap as you
>originally said, I am not blind and I see a few things that can be
>improved but the AI isn't on the list, and all of them fall into the
>feature and rules categories.
If we count dumbing down the AI in the campaign game as a problem, and I'm
afraid I think that it is, since the way a significant chunk of people
will be playing the game _is_ through the campaign, then yes the "AI" that
most people will see _is_ crap.
I repeat (from elsewhere): if Blizzard couldn't be bothered putting some
effort into making the campaign game a challenge (which the human campaign
wasn't for me) then they deserve to be criticised.
>Also, THE HELL YOU DON"T WANT THE GAME EASIER OR SOME SUCH CRAP,
>every one of your complaints revolves around a complaint that is in fact
>your unwillingness to do some actual thinking when it comes to this game,
>you want a nice clean sanitized game," I want my guys to go there and do
>it by the least troubled route just like a computer moves his guys
>around", so I see only two ways of solving your complaints about the AI
>non-problem, make radical devolopments in Direct Nueral Links, which isn't
>likely in the next twenty years so, or let the computer play the computer
>which takes all the point out of the game, and is really all you want them
>to do.
>BTW I have two different definitions of AI:
>SIMPLE AI: (which is the one you are complaining about) all it does is
>really handle the commands you give it, the computer uses the same SIMPLE
>AI, it just Micro manages so fast that you cannot tell. Simple common
>sense covers this one.
>COMPLEX AI: which governs attack strategy for computer opponents, (this is
>the one you should be complaining about) it would be like having a dozen
>flying attackers and not building towers or Archers to deal with it, If
>there where any evidence of this I would be screaming bloody murder at the
>tech guys at Blizzard.
AFAIK "complex" AI is bloody hard to write, and that's one reason that
Blizzard have put the 3 AI types into the game engine, so that the 'puter
doesn't have to figure exactly how it should be attacking you.
Warcraft's "simple" AI doesnt appear to be particularly bad, they've just
made some bad design decisions, imho of course, that make things a little
more fiddly.
>I personally hope a couple of guys at BLIZZARD read your complaints and
>promptly Ignore them because what you are asking for is a game that would
>be Pretty and Boring after about two battles of not doing anything but
>devoloping and pointing and clicking on the item you wanted destroyed,
>because all you want is the guy to go the path of least resistance destroy
>the targets in a specific order without you telling it, guarding the
>flanks without you telling it, and guarding any vulnerable targets without
>you telling it and sitting back and watching while the computer did all
>the thinking for you, pretty pathetic game where's the fun in that. Then
>you'd be complaining about how boring the game is and how much of a ripoff
>it was to pay for it.
Such an game would be the only way of playing a truly to-scale strategy
game, modelling realisticly sized military engagments in the way that c&c
and warcraft2 don't. Imagine a game where you deal with real-world
geography, with proper numbers of troops (in the many 100s - 1000s or more
range) where you're the General directing everything from overall economic
strategy to battlefield tactics, telling company commanders to "occupy
that hill" or "suppress those units" on a scale where it's impossible to
micromanage everything, but can "zoom in" and control some of the troops
on the battle field, a number perhaps equal to what you can currently
control with C&C and warcraft2, while there are any number of other troops
obeying your orders and supporting your troops intelligently.
Now _that_ would be really sexy (think of the opportunies for networked
play!) but would require enormous leaps in programming technique to
enable the computer to control units in a truly intelligent way.
Essentially it would be 512x512 sized warcraft with intelligent, cunning
opposition and intelligent cunning computer controlled allies.
It would also need a 64Mb quad-processor dec alpha machine to run at a
reasonable speed. It'll happen. Give the computer industry another 5-10
years.
Until then Warcraft2 will have to do. :)
Oh there's a problem with your text-editor. You're formatting it for a
screen that's wider than 80 characters, which wraps around in an ugly and
confusing fashion on most of the common non-Windows newsreaders.
There also seems to be a problem with the full-stop key on your keyboard.
HTH,
-michael
>Grimfang
Simon Tennant
>
> Grimfang wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> > Why?? how can a unit be lured into a trap, isn't your job to see atrap in advance and to deal with it the
> >attack short range targets, don't move from HtH, and move away from the units they can't attack that are attacking
> >plagued some of the greater men in history too but they got to be great by over coming the shortfallings of a unit
> >by using the best aspects of other units, if you cannot see that quit playing wargames and go play no brainer
> >arcade games, and furthermore quit attacking a Company which probably did more for a sequal since Fox
> >released Aliens.
>
> >come up, They did not include a system requirement of a Brain which they should have.
>
>
> >Shane Forth
>
> I didn't say I couldn't defeat the game (I'm on Orc-14 now, without
> cheats), but that certainly doesn't make it perfect. And yes, the AI
> is crap. The game is great (I'll bet the multiplayer is a
> blast-haven't tried it yet!), but the AI sucks, plain and simple. It's
> not just the units when it comes to combat, it's also simple
> maneuvering around the map. To be blunt, it doesn't work. Sending a
> unit across maybe 2/3 of a large map is a virtual impossibility and
> don't make these complaints because I want it to be easier or some
> such crap, I make them so that Blizzard would hopefully improve their
>
>
I've had serial linked games, with one extra computer, where the
computers' peasants have got stuck behind a large area of forest,
carrying gold, unable to get around it. So much for 'an enhanced
artificial intelligence'!
Simon.
Dan Bateman
doy...@ecf.toronto.edu (DOYAMA JASON) wrote:
>In article <4ap938$8...@maze.dpo.uab.edu>,
>Stan Ragan <sra...@hsf.uab.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Reading all the complaints about how easy the game is to beat, (much easier
>>that Command & Conquer) I wonder if Blizzard would be up to working on an AI
>>patch (Sort of like Ascendancy's Antagonizer patch).
>>
>>I just flew through War2, were as I'm still working on some of the C&C
levels.
>>
>>
>>Stan
>>
> Probably not possible since the AI is a MAJOR part of the code.
>They'd have to rewrite it from scratch, and it's probably not worth the
>effort.
>
That's a shame, though. The AI appears to be pretty much the same as WC,
the only difference I see it that the CP will scatter units around outside his
town (not to be confused with the units that start there).
The computer player periodically sends 2 or three units at a time to my town
to be slaughtered. You can attack the CP's buildings on the edge of his town
and destroy them without him sending a SINGLE troop to see what's going on!
As long as you're not in sight of the CP's troops he never seems to respond to
any attack. Not too smart.
Overall, I like WC2 (especially multi-player!), but I found the graphics and
AI to be lacking. And where are the animations between missions?
-=-
Dan
Bill
: That's a shame, though. The AI appears to be pretty much the same as WC,
: town (not to be confused with the units that start there).
:
: The computer player periodically sends 2 or three units at a time to my town
: to be slaughtered. You can attack the CP's buildings on the edge of his town
: and destroy them without him sending a SINGLE troop to see what's going on!
: As long as you're not in sight of the CP's troops he never seems to respond to
: any attack. Not too smart.
:
: Overall, I like WC2 (especially multi-player!), but I found the graphics and
: AI to be lacking. And where are the animations between missions?
Although the AI is pretty weak in most scenarios, I find the one I'm
working on very tough. Its the one where you (the Humans) have to escort
8 traitors on of those Red Circles.
I have had to start over several times, now that I've used a Flying
Machine to scout out where I have to go.
My biggest problem is that I keep getting invaded by small invasion
forces which land on various parts of my wide open coast. When I start
building up my navy, I get pummelled by a Juggernaut and later one is
escorted by 2 destroyers. And the invasion forces are getting bigger.
Because of the weak AI, a lot of the time it seems like a building game,
but its still lots of fun. You want a REALLY great AI? Go out and get a
real I, play head to head.
What complaints could you possibly have with the graphics? They are
really great! At first I kinda missed the Warcraft graphics, but now I
really like the detail of the buildings and characters.
The animations are between each mission. Actually the biggest animations
are between "acts". OK, not great, but who cares? Its not a graphic
adventure, its a war game.
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+------------------------+
| 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 | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Eric van Bezooijen
> In article <DJLLw...@ecf.toronto.edu>,
> doy...@ecf.toronto.edu (DOYAMA JASON) wrote:
> >In article <4ap938$8...@maze.dpo.uab.edu>,
> >Stan Ragan <sra...@hsf.uab.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>Hello Folks,
> >>
> >>Reading all the complaints about how easy the game is to beat, (much easier
>
> >>that Command & Conquer) I wonder if Blizzard would be up to working on an AI
>
> >>patch (Sort of like Ascendancy's Antagonizer patch).
> >>
> >>I just flew through War2, were as I'm still working on some of the C&C
> levels.
> >>
> >>Whatdoyathink ???
> >>
> >>Stan
> >>
> > Probably not possible since the AI is a MAJOR part of the code.
> >They'd have to rewrite it from scratch, and it's probably not worth the
> >effort.
> >
>
> the only difference I see it that the CP will scatter units around outside his
> town (not to be confused with the units that start there).
>
> The computer player periodically sends 2 or three units at a time to my town
> to be slaughtered. You can attack the CP's buildings on the edge of his town
> and destroy them without him sending a SINGLE troop to see what's going on!
> As long as you're not in sight of the CP's troops he never seems to respond to
> any attack. Not too smart.
>
> Overall, I like WC2 (especially multi-player!), but I found the graphics and
> AI to be lacking. And where are the animations between missions?
>
> Dan
>
>
I thought the AI in WC2 is *way* better then C&C. And, the graphics in WC2
are *beautiful*. I can do without cut-scenes. They were cool in C&C, but once
you have seen them all a couple of times, they lose their value.
We play multi-player (3) games against the computer, and the computer does an
excellent job of mining gold mines and building up a good economy. We are still
learning how to play, but if we aren't vigilant, the computer can defeat us all!
I haven't played any of the single-player missions yet, maybe those are easier.
I was never scared of the C&C AI. Usually a guard tower or 2 was enough to be
able to ignore any attack from the computer. The reason some of the missions
were tough was either because it was your base vs. 3 other bases, or you only
got a handful of units and had to go against overwhelming forces.
My $0.2 / 10
-Eric
>
Saint Erroneous
Eric van Bezooijen <er...@logrus.activesw.com> wrote:
>I thought the AI in WC2 is *way* better then C&C. And, the graphics in WC2
>are *beautiful*. I can do without cut-scenes. They were cool in C&C, but once
>you have seen them all a couple of times, they lose their value.
With the (significant) exception of Economics, C&C's and WC2's AI are
pretty much equally stupid. They send in fast units and slow units
together, and instead of supporting the slow but nasty units, the fast
units splatter them selvesagainst your defences and leave the slow
potentialy nasty units to be eaten.
In WC2: Footmen and Catapaults - I've yet to see the computer support
catapults properly.
In C&C: NOD tanks and Artillary - The tanks rush valiantly towards your
guard-towers and tanks *chomp*, the artillary gets taken out (once it
finally arrives) by a single tank, far away from your base before it can
get into range.
WC2's fog of war does mean having to think about leaving scouts around
the map (before you get flying machines), of course.
Blizzard did put a couple of cunning tricks into the AI, but they're
along the lines of one-off responses, rather than good defense/offense
planning. I was _really_ surprised while playing human when (on the level
where you're fighting humans traitors and orcs) that an enemy mage cast
"flame-shield" on one of the archers in a big group. Since WC2 lacks a
"scatter" button, this proved to be rather unpleasant.
>We play multi-player (3) games against the computer, and the computer does
>an excellent job of mining gold mines and building up a good economy. We
>are still learning how to play, but if we aren't vigilant, the computer
>can defeat us all!
Provided you pay careful attention to your peons at the start, and
whenever a building's being finished or a peon produced you slow the game
down, so you don't waste game-time in giving the available units new
orders, the computer doesn't have a huge advantage.
The computer only has an advantage at the beginning because it seems to be
able to build units slightly faster. Thus it has 2/3 footman while you've
only got one, and eats all your peasants for lunch. If you can out-gold
him and build 2 barracks then you're laughing.
Has anyone played the Alomo and thought it was difficult? It _should_ be
hard, but after a (very brief) false start I found it pretty much plain
sailing.
>I haven't played any of the single-player missions yet, maybe those are easier.
They are _much_ easier because unlike the customn maps, the computer can't
just wander into your base and eat your peasants right from the start. The
maps are more episodic (deal with this bit of the map, move across the
ocean, attack this place, then this place, etc..)
>I was never scared of the C&C AI. Usually a guard tower or 2 was enough to be
>able to ignore any attack from the computer. The reason some of the missions
>were tough was either because it was your base vs. 3 other bases, or you only
>got a handful of units and had to go against overwhelming forces.
Oh I agree. But the Warcraft2 AI's no better. Play the campaign game and
enjoy a good laugh when you read the back of the game packaging again...
Unheard of challenge and difficulty?
*ROTFL*
-michael (mainly) Erroneous
--
-----------Saint michael (mainly) Erroneous m...@st-andrews.ac.uk-------------
ObWarcraft2/RJordanRef: Can I cast Haste on RJ and get CoS out in January?
-------------http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sa/personal/mpv----------------
Beowulf92
Erroneous) writes:
>I was _really_ surprised while playing human when (on the level
>where you're fighting humans traitors and orcs) that an enemy mage cast
>"flame-shield" on one of the archers in a big group. Since WC2 lacks a
>"scatter" button, this proved to be rather unpleasant.
I have this bad habit left over from WarCraft: Orcs & Humans of placing a
unit I want to enchant/heal immediately next to the spellcaster (it seemed
in that original game that the effects of a healing spell diminished over
distance). Imagine my surprise when I brought a paladin over to a mage to
receive a flame shield...
I really don't see the point in this particular spell. You can't easily
move a group of "flame shielded" units together, and a single unit will
get slaughtered by a larger force before the flames do any significant
damage. Also, this spell's ability to "damage walls" is almost whimsical.
A footman's sword does more damage per strike.
Beowulf92
Joachim Kleis
>
> I have this bad habit left over from WarCraft: Orcs & Humans of placing a
> unit I want to enchant/heal immediately next to the spellcaster (it seemed
> in that original game that the effects of a healing spell diminished over
> distance). Imagine my surprise when I brought a paladin over to a mage to
> receive a flame shield...
>
> I really don't see the point in this particular spell. You can't easily
> move a group of "flame shielded" units together, and a single unit will
> get slaughtered by a larger force before the flames do any significant
> damage. Also, this spell's ability to "damage walls" is almost whimsical.
> A footman's sword does more damage per strike.
Well, perhaps you should not try make an attack using a flame shielded
unit, at least not against an overwhelming power.
But have you ever tried to cast it upon an enemy unit standing in the
middle of other units? Of course the computer will be able to scatter
his untis much quicker than any human player could do that and his units
won't get too much damage.
So, it's at least a nice multiplayer trick.
Joachim
--
#################################################################
# Joachim Kleis | kl...@htw.uni-sb.de #
# HTWdS Saarbruecken | or kl...@gsf.de (forwarded) #
#################################################################
# Home page of the HTWds http://www.htw.uni-sb.de #
# My home page http://www.htw.uni-sb.de/people/kleis/kleis.html #
#################################################################
# Can't open ~kleis/.signature: permission denied #
#################################################################
Revenant
>I really don't see the point in this particular spell. You can't easily
>move a group of "flame shielded" units together, and a single unit will
>get slaughtered by a larger force before the flames do any significant
>damage. Also, this spell's ability to "damage walls" is almost whimsical.
> A footman's sword does more damage per strike.
Cast it on your foe when he's in arranged in a clump and it will damage
his own units; unless they scatter. I used it in Net play once to rather
amusing effect.
-BCR the Revenant
I must become a borrower of the night
For a dark hour or twain.
Brian Hacking
> beow...@aol.com (Beowulf92) wrote:
> >I really don't see the point in this particular spell. You can't easily
> >move a group of "flame shielded" units together, and a single unit will
> >get slaughtered by a larger force before the flames do any significant
I was in a multi-player game and was down to a magic user and a peasant. I
cast flame shield on the peasant and used him to kill 2 ogres and badly
damage a third. I lost the game but definitely had a lot of bragging
rights.
--
[These are my opinions]
Skip Thompson
enough to detonate at their target.
Teck_Weng Tan
Have you tried casting it on a mass of enemies? A couple of yuks
can also be had by casting it on an enemy peasant/peon and watch
him fry all his buddies on his way to the mine/woods/whatever.
-TTW
"Damnit, I need a decent quote!"
Christopher J Milner
>> If your playing the Campaign included with WC2 then yeah its easy
>>anything else and the AI is Brutal. You said levels so I assume you mean
>>your playing the Campaign Game. Warcraft 2 was meant to be played
>>Multiplayer, the options for the game are taylored for a Multiplayer game
>>even the Cheat codes are universal this time so I cannot use a cheat that
>>a buddy doesn't get as well. Try a Custom or Built in single player
>>scenario you'll get killed very quickly several times I cannot beat
>>several scenarios in single player mode, but I flew through the Human side
>>and am now working on the Orcs.
Bah the computer is easy to beat in the campaign and in the scenarios. At the
start of a game build a lumber mill quickly and then a couple guard towers.
If you want build a few archers and keep them behind the towers as the units
come to attack. The attacking units will stop and attack the first fighting
thing it come across ie the tower. Use a couple peon/peasants to repair the
tower even as they are attacking it, however, make sure you keep them on the
side that the attacking units are not on. The computer will throw dozens and
dozens of units at this and lose very badly since you will rarely lose a
single unit. The only problem comes when they start to send
catapults/ballistas but this takes awhile and by then you will have far
superior units to them and can either blizzard/DC or send a unit out to kill
them. Eventually the comp runs out of money and does nothing. I have beat
4 or 5 comps by myself on several different scenarios without much trouble but
have not played it against more than that. I think that this strategy would
fall through with more comps but works great up to.
Saint Erroneous
Beowulf92 <beow...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4cmma5$e...@calvin.st-and.ac.uk>, m...@st-andrews.ac.uk (Saint
>Erroneous) writes:
>I have this bad habit left over from WarCraft: Orcs & Humans of placing a
>unit I want to enchant/heal immediately next to the spellcaster (it seemed
>in that original game that the effects of a healing spell diminished over
>distance). Imagine my surprise when I brought a paladin over to a mage to
>receive a flame shield...
Ouch... nasty.
>I really don't see the point in this particular spell. You can't easily
>move a group of "flame shielded" units together, and a single unit will
>get slaughtered by a larger force before the flames do any significant
>damage. Also, this spell's ability to "damage walls" is almost whimsical.
> A footman's sword does more damage per strike.
Take a paladin.
Cast invisible on him
Cast flame shield on him.
Move the knight into a bunch of enemy units you want to kill. Just stand
him there, and the enemy units will die. The computer can't see the
flame-shield effect. I havn't seen what an invisible, flamshielded unit
looks like from the receiving end, but I presume that a human player (over
a serial game, say) would see the flame-effect, but not the invisible
unit, so be able to move units out of the way.
I would hope so, anyway, otherwise the game becomes completely pants -
another Ultimate weapon...
Can you cast flame-shield on only living units? It'd be one way of giving
a catapult some defense in hand-to-hand combat... :)
>Beowulf92
-michael
Kenneth Tan
>Take a paladin.
>Cast invisible on him
>Cast flame shield on him.
>Move the knight into a bunch of enemy units you want to kill. Just stand
>him there, and the enemy units will die. The computer can't see the
>flame-shield effect.
No, but the computer will immediately know of the presence of the kinght.
I'd recommend a peon/peasant instead.
Soldiers will attack any enemy unit it comes ajacent to (unless you keep it
constantly moving). Stop 1 second and that kinght of yours is going to take
a swing at anything adjacent (and you have to be adjacent to something for
the flameshield to work), and thereby breaking the invisibility spell and
exposing himself.
>Can you cast flame-shield on only living units? It'd be one way of giving
>a catapult some defense in hand-to-hand combat... :)
Yes, you can.
The computer even casts flame shield on _my_ catapult.
Automan
JosephPG3
Erroneous) writes:
>Take a paladin.
>Cast invisible on him
>Cast flame shield on him.
>Move the knight into a bunch of enemy units you want to kill.
If you can get close enough, cast flame shield on one of the enemy units
standing in a crowd. Not only does it kill the units standing around the
target, others will step up into the flame.
JPG
Saint Erroneous
Kenneth Tan <ken...@bbs.sas.ntu.ac.sg> wrote:
>Saint Erroneous wrote:
>>Take a paladin.
>>Cast invisible on him
>>Cast flame shield on him.
>>him there, and the enemy units will die. The computer can't see the
>>flame-shield effect.
>No, but the computer will immediately know of the presence of the kinght.
>I'd recommend a peon/peasant instead.
>Soldiers will attack any enemy unit it comes ajacent to (unless you keep it
>constantly moving). Stop 1 second and that knight of yours is going to take
>a swing at anything adjacent (and you have to be adjacent to something for
>the flameshield to work), and thereby breaking the invisibility spell and
>exposing himself.
Sorry. You're _wrong_. I've done it many times, and an invisible paladin
does _not_ automatically attack units while invisible and adjacent to
them, in War2. I can't remember what they did in War1. Perhaps you're
remembering that?
They must have done something sensible and supressed the auto-attack
function while the invisibility is in place. Very sensible. Very nasty.
I still want to know whether you can see an invisible/f-shielded unit in
a multiplayer game, before I try it. :)
>>Can you cast flame-shield on only living units? It'd be one way of giving
>>a catapult some defense in hand-to-hand combat... :)
>Yes, you can.
Kewlness.
Another multiplayer tactic.
>The computer even casts flame shield on _my_ catapult.
I was _so_ happy when the computer first cast flame-shield on one of my
units: a cunning thing to put into the Mage AI. Unfortunately the rest of
the AI isn't quite so fiendish. Ho hum.
>Automan
William H. Powell
distroy four oil platforms). What good are the workers and how do you get
through the town and where are the platforms??
Jeffrey T. Lowe
also.
Nai-Chi Lee
>In article <4cekjd$1...@ns2.mainstreet.net>, bi...@nowhere.net (Bill) wrote:
>>Dan Bateman (bate...@buck.com) wrote:
>>The animations are between each mission. Actually the biggest animations
>>are between "acts". OK, not great, but who cares? Its not a graphic
>>adventure, its a war game.
>>
>animations? All I can get is the introduction animation. I know it's just a
>war game, but animations help to bring each missions story to life.
Yes, there are "animations" between EVERY mission. The backgroud is a
static picture of a book and a dagger, with lines and lines of text MOVING
up real smoothly. Really exciting stuff indeed (*yawn*), matched only
by the talent of the narrator holding his nose to fake a British accent.
Of course, between acts are the "biggest animations" which are really,
REALLY exciting (*yawn*). Just make sure you don't strain your eyes by
staring at the screen too long, because some of those animations can be
as long as 7 whooping SECONDS!
;-)
--
Nai-Chi
=============================================================================
"The correct approach to any situation is, by amazing coincidence, the
only approach you know." -- Scott Adams (DILBERT)
=============================================================================
Jon Velapoldi
: >: Overall, I like WC2 (especially multi-player!), but I found the graphics
: >: AI to be lacking. And where are the animations between missions?
: >What complaints could you possibly have with the graphics? They are
: >really great! At first I kinda missed the Warcraft graphics, but now I
: >really like the detail of the buildings and characters.
: I think the units are too fantastic-looking. I liked the graphics in WC1
: much better.
I dunno, I saw the game for the first time over the weekend (boy am I
behind :) and I would have to say that this game has possibly some of
the best unit graphics that I have seen in a long time. granted big
billowy cloaks on elven archers and knights is kinda goofy (but great :)
but I think that the graphics are quite good.. oh well, its a moot point
as we all have our own little opinions :)
: >The animations are between each mission. Actually the biggest animations
: >are between "acts". OK, not great, but who cares? Its not a graphic
: >adventure, its a war game.
: >
: You get animations between EVERY mission? You mean, full-screen, rendered
: animations? All I can get is the introduction animation. I know it's just a
: war game, but animations help to bring each missions story to life. Plus, I
: resent having do dig the CD out and stick it in the drive just to play a game
: that's totally installed on my hard drive anyway!
: Let me know if you get animations between each mission; if so I'll have to
: do some experimenting to see what's wrong with my setup.
Interesting.. I figured you may not get animations cause you have a disk
version (is there a disk version?) but now that I read further, I see
you don't. maybe you have a setting in the preferences set funny or
something like that.
--
Jon
GAE -d+ p c+ l-- u(---) e++(*) m s++/- !n h f(?) !g w++(++++) t+ r+ y+(?)
Rhett M. Stroh
: Let me know if you get animations between each mission; if so I'll have to
: do some experimenting to see what's wrong with my setup.
: Dan
I don't think I get 'em between every mission, but at least between the Acts.
They're really quick, though. And the quality isn't up to C&C's. THey seem
well rendered and shaded, but it's like they cut the resolution WAY down for
the save, and they're too quick. Did I mention that they're not long enough?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Rhett Stroh "The Eunuch Of Unix" |
| rms...@gdesystems.com |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
thomas...@gmail.com
vladimir...@gmail.com
> This topic is 22 y old lol
