Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!reed!orpheus
From: orpheus@reed.UUCP (P. Hawthorne)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: Strategic Conquest 3.0
Message-ID: <16066@reed.UUCP>
Date: 12 Feb 91 08:03:32 GMT
References: <1991Jan31.201929.29859@parc.xerox.com> <1991Feb3.035744.10548@portia.Stanford.EDU> <1991Feb4.004631.5296@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <6151@idunno.Princeton.EDU> <44020@ut-emx.uucp>
Reply-To: orpheus@reed.UUCP (P. Hawthorne)
Organization: Reed College, Portland OR
Lines: 31


  joes@phoenix.princeton.edu writes:
. It is true that the new computer opponent algorithim is better. However, it
. is not nearly good enough to "out think" an experienced human player, even
. at level 15. As a general case, I feel that In complex games where a
. computer opponent has to play by the same rules as the human, the computer
. *is going to lose*. SSI games are a fine example of this.


  I have only won on level 15 once, and that was a two week game that ended
  around turn 600, against the old computer opponent. I had two things going
  for me, namely, a working knowledge of the idiosyncracies of the computer
  opponent, and a spreadsheet that explored the economics of the units.
  Of course, nuking everything you possibly can works out pretty well, too.

  Every computer opponent I have ever faced, be it in Strategic Conquest or
  Falcon, is static. An idiosyncracy, once spotted, can be exploited over and
  over and over again without worrying that he's going to catch on. So if a
  human player learns enough about the opponent logic, he has only to contend
  with the economics of the game, the way I figure it.

  Mind you, at level 15, you are usually glowing cinders before you get a
  chance to worry about much in the way of economics. But if you get a chance
  at all, taking out two utterly predictable birds with one stone is easy.

  Short of dynamic opponent logic, stacking the deck against the human
  player is probably the best way for a game to make itself challenging.


  orpheus@reed
  No sig is a good sig.