Looking for games with good AI

[Dunhill]

I'm not sure if these games are what you're looking for, but several spring to mind Conquest of the Aegean and the games from AGEOD: Birth of America and AGEOD's American Civil War.

The games themselves are not graphic heavy, but still look good. Much attention has been paid to the AI.

Here are some links to their forums which may provide an indication of the style of each game.

http://www.ageod.com/forums/index.php

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=123

These are grognard-level games and award winners at that. I play quite a bit of single player games and need some challenge. I'd put the AI from both these games at quite a high level.

If you are interested in Chess, Rybka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rybka) seems to be the top AI at the moment for personal computing.

[Adrian II]

Artificial intelligence is nice, human intelligence is a far better opponent than any machine and groups working together are smarter than soloists.

Sooo, the answer is Battlefield2.

Nothing beats a few rounds on a BF2 64 ticket map in a six-member squad with a squad leader who is Medic and has VoiP, no noobs on board and every member knows the map and can fly, drive and use anti-tank or C4. Gets my adrenaline going every time.

[Bijo]

Then you might as well suggest joining the army. Human opponent "AI", human friendlies who have "AI", and real-time action in the field :)

You can even feel real pain or die ;) Maybe paintball is a better suggestion, heh heh.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Artificial intelligence is nice, human intelligence is a far better opponent than any machine and groups working together are smarter than soloists.

Sooo, the answer is Battlefield2.

Nothing beats a few rounds on a BF2 64 ticket map in a six-member squad with a squad leader who is Medic and has VoiP, no noobs on board and every member knows the map and can fly, drive and use anti-tank or C4. Gets my adrenaline going every time.

You have a good point, and I indeed prefer human opposition in most cases. But there are situations in which human opposition is not a good idea: when I want to be able to play when I feel like it, when I want to play a non-mainstream or old game that has lost/never had any notable mp community, and when I want to play complex long-time campaigns that would be too much fuss to arrange with others, etc.

[Dunhill]

Thank you for bringing the thread back on topic. It is actually quite difficult to find good AI's, particularly with certain kinds of games.

Go is one game where AI research hasn't progressed very far. Most AI's for Go as easily beaten on a smaller board by players of relatively low experience, even if the computer is given a large benefit of handicap against the player. That type of game just doesn't lend itself to programming, due to the nature of game resolution. More pieces are going onto the board, not being taken off.

I'd say that the more simplistic the game, the more likely the AI is to be able to give you a challenge. I think that is why the AGEOD games are quite good in that the economics are abstracted, so the choice are restricted to what kinds and sizes of armies, led by which assortments of leaders moving to take specific areas. Abstracting economics and diplomacy leaves more time for the strategic assessment. These games also permit some choice in AI time for assessment. They say the latest game permits dual cores to think about the move as you are conducting your, but I can't ouch for how that works without a dual core myself.

[TinCow]

I'd say that the more simplistic the game, the more likely the AI is to be able to give you a challenge. I think that is why the AGEOD games are quite good in that the economics are abstracted, so the choice are restricted to what kinds and sizes of armies, led by which assortments of leaders moving to take specific areas. Abstracting economics and diplomacy leaves more time for the strategic assessment. These games also permit some choice in AI time for assessment. They say the latest game permits dual cores to think about the move as you are conducting your, but I can't ouch for how that works without a dual core myself.

Yep, that's true. Most RTS AIs are pretty decent simply because the game itself is simple. The C&C series, Warcraft series, Starcraft, etc. all had AIs that would give you a run for your money in random battles.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I like Take command

Combat feels authentic beyond the basics of ensuring that regiments and commanders remain true to the textbooks. Positioning is crucial. You need to get your artillery into the right position and place your infantry in the ideal spot to both gain a good firing height and an ideal location for an enemy-breaking bayonet charge. This isn't particularly easy. Maps are sprawling affairs (which get the job done nicely despite being pretty dated, with blurry troops and choppy animations) filled with battle-affecting physical features such as forests, roads, walls, and farmhouses

Really neat is how every unit has the correct commnder and every unit has the correct flag that it carries in battle .

Battles are much more orderly than you would think, though, largely thanks to immaculate artificial intelligence. Brigade commanders do a solid job of issuing orders in your stead when the shooting starts, so you don't need to concern yourself with micromanagement. Forget to put a brigade into a proper firing line when moving into firing position--which is almost inevitable in larger battles, as you tend to be dealing out orders to at least a half-dozen brigades at any given time--and the commander takes over and does it for you. He also shifts the line into ideal firing position, swings in around to target a new enemy column if the first is dispersed or destroyed, and is quick to order his men to respond if ambushed. Essentially, the urge for self-preservation kicks in smartly whenever you drop the ball. Control freaks might not appreciate this, as it can fairly be said that aspects of the game run on autopilot. But this does add to the authenticity of being involved in a real battle, with real human commanders taking and interpreting your orders.

Needless to say the same goes for the enemy units facing you. These are really tough battles. The AI are no morons.

If you're a wargamer with an interest in the Civil War, you will love Take Command: Second Manassas. The only caveat is that the rigorous attention to historical detail makes for such a leisurely pace that casual gamers might be scared away. Then again, the casual crowd isn't apt to be interested in a hardcore Civil War reenactment sim in the first place, so MadMinute's target demographic isn't likely to care.

The thing is you must march your units to their positions for the battle, Using the correct routes and giving the proper marching orders has a lot to do with the out come. Its not just all lined up like in VI. The maps are huge and it takes quite q while to get everything in position. If your not playing the commander in cheif you will reguarly recieve dispatches from your superior officers telling you what to do. You can see the dispatches coming on their horses right thriugh the battle. Its truly an amazing game. I have both Bull Run and Mannassas and love playing them both.

[Faust|]

I thought the STALKER AI was remarkably bad, actually... as were the combat dynamics (who would move so leisurely during a firefight?). The positive aspects of the game were not enough to make up for those flaws.

With FEAR, isn't it ironic that the character's super reflex ability mostly helps those players with slow reflexes? The combat dynamics were decent and the graphics were pleasing, but I didn't find the game so enjoyable... then again, I didn't utilize the slow motion ability at all, so maybe I've missed out on something.

Far Cry was superior to the two games above. It was far too easy to be undetectable outdoors as long as you were stationary, however. The AI is not so much superior as it is more versatile than other games.

Mount and Blade might be worth trying (there's a thread on it in this forum). I'd give it a very high recommendation, based on its gameplay, if Lord of the Rings doesn't insult your sensibilities. Be sure to check out the "directional blocking" option, it's great!

IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles will probably satisfy you the most out of the games mentioned... as would the newer installments in the series. You would of course have to invest in a joystick.

Good luck!

[Fragony]

Artificial intelligence is nice, human intelligence is a far better opponent than any machine and groups working together are smarter than soloists.

Sooo, the answer is Battlefield2.

Only if you play with good players, multiplayer games can be free for all spray and pray-fests as well. A good AI feels like it actually works together, in the case of Halo and F.E.A.R. the AI trumps 90% of the multiplayer matches.

[Kekvit Irae]

Battlefield 2 multiplayer can make you feel like either you are against supermen or idiots. However, this is also the case on single player too. Case in point: The Great Wall map, single player. Chinese players can dominate the map because of a bug in the map causing the EU AI to clusterfudge over at one ruined part of the wall at one of their main spawn points, all of them TRYING to jump over onto the wall, but failing, getting all of them stuck.
Multiplayer can be the same, with some players thinking they are god when they really aren't. You don't charge into an area you just threw a grenade at, idiot! If someone is manning a machine gun nest, you don't charge across a field directly in its line of fire to get to it! If you gain command of a transport helicopter, you certainly don't crash it, with your human cargo, into a tank!

[Husar]

Only if you play with good players, multiplayer games can be free for all spray and pray-fests as well. A good AI feels like it actually works together, in the case of Halo and F.E.A.R. the AI trumps 90% of the multiplayer matches.

I played with that seperate free FEAR MP client(FEAR Combat IIRC) and it was mostly a whole lot of shooting and dieing involved. I had great fun because it was so...absurd. How do you want to aim if your screen is full of particles, smoke and special effects that you cannot see a player anyway?

[Fragony]

It is very much possible to turn that off. But the real meat is in the single player thanks to the oh so excellent enemy behaviour. These guys really keep you second-guessing all the time, and then OHNOES behind me

[Adrian II]

Battlefield 2 multiplayer can make you feel like either you are against supermen or idiots.

Exactly. The supermen would be in the well-oiled squad. The squad with the leader who calls for artillery support so you get killed without knowing what (or rather, who) hit you. Who tells his squaddies what's what, where the opposition is, what kit to bring to a situation, &cetera. And with a squaddie called Adrian II who either drives tanks or kills them.

But I believe the original poster does not appreciate multiplayer discussion in his thread. Maybe we can pursue this some other time.

[Kekvit Irae]

Exactly. The supermen would be in the well-oiled squad. The squad with the leader who calls for artillery support so you get killed without knowing what (or rather, who) hit you. Who tells his squaddies what's what, where the opposition is, what kit to bring to a situation, &cetera. And with a squaddie called Adrian II who either drives tanks or kills them.

But I believe the original poster does not appreciate multiplayer discussion in his thread. Maybe we can pursue this some other time.

The ultimate nutjobs are Commanders who go out into the middle of the fight INSTEAD OF DOING THEIR JOBS.
The single player version didn't even have commanders, unless you put yourself in that seat.