Wasn't PBeM Diplomacy the reason the internet was invented? The government had to give all of those Harvard IR majors something to do when they weren't planning juntas or assassinating Kennedys.
I wasn't aware of the AH one. How was it? On the one hand, I loved AH back when they were their own company (and, to be fair, still love many of their products). OTOH, pre-internet, I'd imaginge Diplomacy could get even more annoying.
Actually, I've seen one of those games put to good use: If you're playing the flesh-and-blood version, it can do the dirty work for you, eliminating those I-support-him-but-she-counters-but-he-eliminates-the-counter-which-cancels-this-convoy-which.... arguments
What? Nonononono. This Europa Universalis, Victoria, Hearts of Iron Paradox. Scandinavians who specialize in richly historical strategy games. The diplomatic engine in these games is pretty smart already, so I'm curious to see what they do with it in Diplomacy.
Ah, gotcha. Too many companies with similar names. :-)
Part of my problem with a computerized Diplomacy is the same as with computerized poker. It's not just about the strategy, but the interactions between players. And a computer inherently cuts that off.
Yeah, even if it's a really awesome game, it's liable to be a rather different experience that the board game. Frankly, I'm not sure what they're thinking, but if anybody can pull if off, these guys can.
In my hazy misremembered past as a hardcore computer gamer, I feel like they've tried to adapt Diplomacy fifty times already.
And who wants to play Diplomacy against the computer? It took them decades to come up with the artificial intelligence needed to beat Kasparov, and they think they can come up with something half as decent for a game with so many variables? Never mind the fact that the attention devoted to artificial intelligence in modern computer games is only 5% of what aesthetic values gets.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-26 12:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-26 12:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-26 12:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-26 12:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-26 12:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-26 12:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-26 12:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-26 12:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-26 01:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-26 01:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-26 01:16 pm (UTC)Part of my problem with a computerized Diplomacy is the same as with computerized poker. It's not just about the strategy, but the interactions between players. And a computer inherently cuts that off.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-26 01:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-26 01:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-26 01:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-26 03:07 pm (UTC)And who wants to play Diplomacy against the computer? It took them decades to come up with the artificial intelligence needed to beat Kasparov, and they think they can come up with something half as decent for a game with so many variables? Never mind the fact that the attention devoted to artificial intelligence in modern computer games is only 5% of what aesthetic values gets.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-27 12:53 am (UTC)