How Is The AI?

[tgb]

I played and enjoyed Richard III, but despite having never played any games in the "blocks" series before, I was able to defeat the AI in any scenario at any difficulty right out of the gate, forcing me to reluctantly shelve it.

I would consider a purchase if someone could assure me it's been significantly improved. And before anyone mentions multi player, that really isn't my thing.

[evhtrek]

I am 0-3 against friends on the tabletop board game. I am 3-0 against the AI and have played each difficulty. Twice I won on the first turn, once with no battles. I would say they need to up the challenge a good amount and I hope the do.

[DukeOfLight]

well, i didnt play iulius caesar before, so for me the ai at the beginning was decent.
after 3 games, the AI is no chalange to me, the easiest difficulty is agressive the most chalanging is balanced. This game should be played in multiplayer...

[Fox]

I was really hoping this game had an asynchronous (PBEM style) multiplayer.

[DukeOfLight]

its not necesary
you can play in 1 hour

[Fox]

But I like to break it up, and asynchronous means two people don't have to be online at the same time, which makes it much easier to find matches.

[Fox]

As for the AI, it looks like it isn't any good. I am brand new to the game, but you can win on turn 1 with Pompey because Balanced Caesar doesn't know it needs to attack.

That's why I wish games like this had really excellent multiplayer options.

[pons]

I think the AI is fairly good but the victory conditions are too easy. You can win the game as Caesar without going to Egypt or Africa - which is not how it played out historically. If victory required 12 or 14 points rather than 10, then the pressure would be on more severely and the player would have to pull off some of the long shot brilliance to win that was needed from Caesar in real life. Slow and steady wouldn't be enough, as it is now. Seaborne invasions - which are the hardest to pull off - would definitely be required

[AvalonDigital]

We applied the rules on Victory exactly as per the boardgame rules. This could be tweaked though if a majority of players favors it. Final word lies with Columbia Games here.

[pons]

The difference is that with the boardgame you are playing a human opponent, whereas on the pc probably most often you are not so victory might need to be more challenging. Some other games say "you've achieved a 2/3 victory but do you want to continue playing to conquer the whole map", ie they have 2 victory levels built in. That would allow for either playing a human opponent or the ai. But I understand why you would only make a change if there was a general view in support.

[Ginner]

I support it. It does add more challenge for the PC version.

[AvalonDigital]

We'll check for alternate / extra victory levels, but this must be agreed upon by Columbia Games.

[LNC]

AI is very bad right now. I've never played one of these styles of game before (block wargames) and I've gone about 10-0, playing both sides, multiple AI styles, and both the first and third campaigns. When no retreat is available the AI should continue fighting to inflict damage instead of retreating and being destroyed anyway. The AI seems to move units back and forth without much purpose (i.e. doesn't encircle positions, doesn't tend to doomstack), the AI leaves good defensive positions so the player can quickly take them via amphibious movement, and even on the aggressive setting the AI almost never attacks an equally strong position.

[Jambo]

The AI is subpar. You can win turn 1 or 2 as Pompei as the AI doesn't attack aggressively when they are Caesar and Pompei can scoop up some of the points in and around Africa and Persia. You get a marginally better (i.e. longer) game as Caesar as you have more to do to reach 10.

[DukeOfLight]

very bad