From: dkass@cco.caltech.edu (David Michael Kass) Subject: [HotW] Comments on the Demo (computer version) After playing the demo of AH's computer version of History of the World, I really like it. I've played the board version a fair amount. Over all, it seemed to be a good (and very faithful) computer port of the board game. The graphic were excellent looking (while not critical, good graphics can always improve the experience with a game). The interface was very intuitive (I didn't bother reading the help file beyond any gamer familiar with the board game should have no problems, and didn't have any--I was up and playing within 5 minutes). I'm quite impressed with the AI. I was playing with the middle level AI (and with out changing its agressiveness or risk taking), and saw very very few dumb moves, as well as several quite brilliant plays. It even seemed to do a decent job of preparing itself for the future (ie considering where future empires would arrive, what would be valuable in the future). While its hard to judge from only two epochs, it seems to at least use reasonable, but not too predictible strategies. I'd guess it will beat new players, give casual player a run and at least keep dedicated players thinking. I was impressed with the stability. I've only had it crash once, and I think that was due to another problem with my system (P5-90, 32 MB, SB16, older no name/Trident video card). The speed was quite respectable; when set on fastest, it was at the limit of what I could follow. There were a few problems/improvements that I noticed. I hope some of these can be implimented before release, or at least in a patch. The first problem is that it has players draw empires in the wrong order when they have the same force total. This is especially noticeable after the first epoch (where all the empires have a strength of 4 or 5). If the force points were tied, it seemed to do the draws from highest VPs to lowest, instead of lowest first. I suspect this is a simple ouffda and easily fixed with a few changes (ie > to < :-). It does make a big difference to the game though:-) The other two problems I found are less clear. I don't have my copy of the rules immediately available to check (nor are the situations common). The first was that when a player had two retreats in the same opponent's turn (due to a minor Kingdom being played), it didn't allow the second retreat. I was not able to recreate the problem (hard to get two retreats in the same opponent's turn), but it clearly didn't occur the one time it should have. The third problem was playing a minor kingdom card and then playing another before turn card before finishing the minor kingdom (unrelated--I played the barbarians). I couldn't end the minor Kingdom without ending my actual empire's turn. This may be partly tied to the ability to end an empire's turn without using all of its forces (which I believe is not allowed in the board version--although I've never actually searched the rules:-) The game include two variants. The first is cultural contiuance (ie colored monuments) and fortresses. The first is quite nice (and the way I prefer to play). The second is, IMHO rather useless. I've only ever seen fortresses built using event cards (if you allow them to upgrade forts to fortresses as well as place new forts). Two variants that I would really like to see implemented are the non player Sumeria and bidding. The computer game actually allows seven players and always has Sumeria as a player empire. The option to play with Sumeria as always a non-player empire, assuming there are only six or fewer players, would be nice. Bidding is an interesting variant (originally from the General, I believe) where instead of randomly distributing the empires according to strength, you bid Victory Points and then allocate the empires according to the VPs bid (minimum bid being the strength of the empire, highest overall bid getting the empire they bid for and then descending; with the ability to bid on multiple empires). David P.S. For r.g.b readers, please respect the follow-up to c.s.i.p.g.s, where any discussion actually belongs. David Kass Caltech Grad Student E-Mail: dkass@cco.caltech.edu Planetary Science Research: dkass@venus1.gps.caltech.edu From: rri1@aol.com (RRI1) Subject: Re: [HotW] Comments on the Demo (computer ver Date: 20 May 1997 22:22:31 GMT Liked your review of the demo for HotW. I couldn't respond easily to r.g.b (I am on AOL), but here are a few comments: >The first problem is that it has players draw empires in the wrong order >when they have the same force total. This is especially noticeable after >the first epoch (where all the empires have a strength of 4 or 5). If the >force points were tied, it seemed to do the draws from highest VPs to >lowest, instead of lowest first. I suspect this is a simple ouffda and >easily fixed with a few changes (ie > to < :-). It does make a big >difference to the game though:-) Better read those rules again! The order is: - Lowest strength points - HIGHEST VP's - Lowest card number in previous epoch. >I'm quite impressed with the AI. I was playing with the middle level AI >(and with out changing its agressiveness or risk taking), and saw very >very few dumb moves, as well as several quite brilliant plays. It even >seemed to do a decent job of preparing itself for the future (ie >considering where future empires would arrive, what would be valuable in >the future). While its hard to judge from only two epochs, it seems to at >least use reasonable, but not too predictible strategies. I'd guess it >will beat new players, give casual player a run and at least keep >dedicated players thinking. Does this mean it is only configured to play 2 epochs only? It will be interesting to see how it plays the last 2 epochs, when the options are greatest. It dcoes look interesting. I thought AI would be less of a problem in HotW than in many other games. >The other two problems I found are less clear. I don't have my copy of >the rules immediately available to check (nor are the situations >common). The first was that when a player had two retreats in the same >opponent's turn (due to a minor Kingdom being played), it didn't allow the >second retreat. I was not able to recreate the problem (hard to get two >retreats in the same opponent's turn), but it clearly didn't occur the one >time it should have. You are correct it should have allowed two retreats. But in order to retreat there must be an adjacent army with the same epoch number on it--so it may have been possible that there was no available retreat for one of the lands. Richard Irving rri1@aol.com Made with recycled electrons!