I have a long-standing policy on not critiquing games I review until the review is published. I do this in deference to the publishers and am not changing. However, I’m playing Crown of Glory and World War II: The First Blitzkrieg for review and questions raised about AI on forums and news groups have made me think why such games may not play out historically. Here are some thoughts:
The AI, dumb as it is tactically, will never be as stupid as the Third Alliance in 1805 or the Allied High Command in 1940. Its side’s strengths and weaknesses will be known to it and will allow a more rational concentration of force and effort.
We won’t see a General Mack squandering time and resource at Ulm nor will the units of four armies just sit around as in 1940. Perhaps more importantly, the AI won’t be overawed when the player is Napoleon, Lee or the Wehrmacht.
The AI has no psyche, no emotional baggage so it won’t be mesmerized by previous experiences or propaganda. Designers may attempt to imitate doctrinal fallacies but it won’t throw away what advantages or capabilities it might have.
Therefore, players should not expect a replay of history. Dumb as AIs are, they won’t be paralyzed like the Austrians or Gamelin. Players will win eventually but they will do so only by doing something new with historical parameters, assuming the game has those parameters.
