Better AI or better Multiplayer?

Xenutheeviloverlord · August 25, 2014

Honestly, I'd choose better multiplayer. I'd wish the whole game was multiplayer focused, in fact, even with the dynamic campaign/battle maps.

Because even on the hardest difficulty, you are practically guarenteed to win.

And I'm 100% against giving AI cheats, but a human player will always be an advantage.

Only time I've ever lost was to a human player and it was GLORIOUS, even though I lost. It was an amazing back and forth battle with both of us desperately trying to exploit our strengths and protect our weaknesses. Amazing tension and reactionary decision making throughout. He won because he managed to push my left with pettigrew while I assulted Mcpherson ridge from the north. And I used the Iron brigade to lead the attack... (which i now know this was a mistake, should have kept him with pettigrew. While nearly the entire confederate army was fleeing, pettigrew just marched up my left flank and ended up in the rear as my defending rearguard retreated under a withering charge from pettigrew. This after a 30 minute barrage with all my batteries firing explosive shells)

This game is good in single player but 20/10, A++ AMAZING in multi.

But who here thinks that the multiplayer should expand into the singleplayer. I mean single player would be availible, but if you wanted to, you could play an entire campaign with all the decision making in between battles with a human player.

EDIT:

Its just that the AI and multiplayer are two different beasts. I applaud the efforts of game lab for their better than average AI, but I think the game would reach quite an interesting level if the campaign was fully multiplayer capable.

the AI knows it's strengths and weaknesses and it plays that predictably.

With real players, especially with this one, it became a sort of mixture of unpredictablity and good-planning, backup plans, exposing a weakness or making united decisions that AI's wouldn't do.

For example. Most players ignore Oak hill to the north in the first battle map in multi, but the AI always go for it, drawing valuable troops from the main battle for pherson ridge.

The AI never leads with his artillery, almost never uses his shells or canister shots offensively and effectively, the AI always keeps the guns behind his troops.

The AI never uses ridges/hills/terrain in general, to avoid cannon fire.

The AI doesn't ward off the scouts and videttes as effectively, (wide screens/wide spaces between his brigades) and use the fog of war to hide his movements, which my human opponent did to much of my chargrin.

the AI also doesn't change its mind. Remember Oak hill? When I charged Pherson ridge from Oak hill, my human opponent sent his skirmishers to capture oak hill, but realizing how his forces were about to break at Pherson ridge, he diverted his forces to attack my rear with skirmishers instead of continuing to Oak ridge.

And, lastly. And this is what really made this guy a great tactician. He wasn't afraid of retreating/withdrawing. And I mean actually pulling back by ordering his troops instead of letting the brigades lose all their morale, break and flee for their lives. The AI never does this. After my human opponent rushed for an early capture on Seminary, He pushed, probed and prodded my defenses on Seminary ridge, pulling back his entire line back onto Pherson ridge when he realized my concentrated musket fire was going to decimate his forces should he continue to probe.

I on the other hand tried to take advantage of his two probes by trying to use the time to shell his other, more powerful brigades.

What made me lose was that I couldn't see pettigrews brigade, he was effectively protecting his forces from my videttes and wouldn't allow me to see his rear. Since he was concentrating his forces north of Pherson Ridge, I got the Iron brigade to march north from its original position west of gettysburg and lead the attack on Pherson ridge from oak. Only after that did pettigrews brigade show up on the southern tip of Pherson ridge.

I committed to the attack and hoped that two of the lesser brigades could keep pettigrews forces checked, but because these union forces were harrassing with confed skirmishers and a lesser brigade several minutes earlier, their morale had soften enough for pettigrew to push and break one of them, before charging the other brigade just as the rest of his forces began to retreat enmass from Pherson ridge. I continued to commit to Pherson ridge, hoping to secure my gains at Pherson before counterattacking Seminary ridge.

Of course, 2000 confederate soldiers dug into the forest on high ground proved to wear my troops down enough that he counter attacked Pherson ridge early, right before the battle time ended, driving my entire force into full retreat. despite losing 4000 troops, compared to my loss of 2000, my opponent won hardily...

I have never had a game like that against the AI.

Is it possible to play the single player campaign in multiplayer? kind of like play one battle at a time, save the game when one player quits and then continue the battle when both players log on again at the same time? I don't know anything about building a multiplayer campaign game so... just a thought.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Xenutheeviloverlord

Zelekendel · August 25, 2014

Of course, the full battle, with the ability to load an ongoing campaign game, is where it's at. Bring it on, faster! That's the best way to get us "veterans" of 100+ hours testing more.

R.E.B.Blunt · August 25, 2014

Multiplayer for sure.

MikeK · August 25, 2014

Better AI which is the strong suit here.

Lots of games have good PvP Multiplayer even with terrible high level AI.

However, good Coop MP on one or both sides is something extra that is more rare. Historical Gettysburg just cries out for several commanders per side.

P.S. BTW, is there a chart or description of which scenarios are prerequisites for others, if we wish to "collect them all." Easy enough to follow a winning path or the historical path, but how to get to the others?

Nick Thomadis · August 25, 2014

Better AI and better Multiplayer in next patch are already work in progress. We will always take after AI and we will never neglect it

RichardMcCor · August 25, 2014

Better AI - i'm on the west coast and often no one else is on multiplayer at night. I hit start and wait and wait only to come back an hour later and find the game half way through. Even then i'm getting a draw . A few times as Union against another player i did not click anything and still got a draw, just like against the AI. :-)

I've had great fun multiplayer when i've got others online. I just love it. However, keep that AI improving.

Zelekendel · August 25, 2014

I definitely understand the need for better AI, this game is probably the team's, especially Nick's, statement to the industry on how to do an AI, and i do applaud that effort - hopefully you'll get to raise the bar.

For someone on his first 50 hours it's definitely the best thing to have in the game.

Xenutheeviloverlord · August 25, 2014