RE: Chiming in

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Chiming in

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Chiming in

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Chiming in - 5/28/2014 10:04:42 AM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

Whilst you spent two minutes writing the above, Steve has spent hours, days, years, trying to bring us a game, for minimal reward. GM is in trouble because there are competitive products, you are welcome to go and find a competitive product, at a better price, but it won't be on this planet.

Irrelevant.

Maybe irrelevant to you, but not to me, however if you fail to understand the basic principles of economics and competition, i.e. you cannot get the same product somewhere else (at any price), further discussion is irrelevant

.

_____________________________

"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon

�A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything� - Napoleon

�Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon

(in reply to joshuamnave)

Post #: 31

RE: Chiming in - 5/28/2014 10:57:37 AM

Astyreal

Posts: 37
Joined: 10/2/2010
Status: offline

Wargaming is a niche. Complex ones like WIF are a niche within that niche

I do think that a more modern flexible funding vehicle like kickstarter should have been considered

But supporting these kinds of efforts financially is incumbent upon any hobbyist that doesn't want to see a future devoid of these projects

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 32

RE: Chiming in - 5/28/2014 5:12:03 PM

alexvand

Posts: 380
Joined: 11/29/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

Kickstarter probably would have been a bad idea. This project would be overdue and over budget and probably fail like a fair number of Kickstarter projects. And would have even more upset people.

Also keep in mind that this project started more than a decade ago. Before Kickstarter existed.

(in reply to Astyreal)

Post #: 33

RE: Chiming in - 5/28/2014 5:46:03 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

Interesting discussion...

Generally I only play vs the AI, although this is one game where I thought multiplayer would be fun. Unfortunately, several months after release, we have neither, and don't look to have either one very soon.

I have to say that this is rather disappointing, but I've tried to remain philosophical about it rather than getting all bitter.

One question about AI development: I understand that the various optional rules can significantly impact game play/balance--is it feasible to contemplate an AI that allows players to choose whatever optional rules they want, or should we expect that when/if the AI is released, we will only be able to play with some fixed set of optional rules? If so, which ones?

(in reply to alexvand)

Post #: 34

RE: Chiming in - 5/28/2014 7:14:23 PM

Centuur

Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

Whilst you spent two minutes writing the above, Steve has spent hours, days, years, trying to bring us a game, for minimal reward. GM is in trouble because there are competitive products, you are welcome to go and find a competitive product, at a better price, but it won't be on this planet.

Irrelevant.

If I look at this from a customers view, I have to say that Mr. Zartacla is right when he states this. It is the duty for any company to fix a malfunctioning product...
Problem however is, that being right often isn't enough to get things in order.

MWIF has been put unto the market and there isn't any way a lot of money of resources can be put into it to speed things up. Matrix has made that pretty clear. Disappointing? Perhaps. But that is the decision of Matrix...

Now, you can do two things: work with the team to try to get things right (and Mr. Zartacla is one of those who does so. Sure, he states his frustrations and disappointments but in my opinion he is entitled to do so).
The other possibility is to throw it into a corner and wait and see what happens for the future.

Now, personally, I like the first group of people a lot more than the latter ones, even if they are a little grumpy (I believe that's the word, isn't it...) sometimes...

< Message edited by Centuur -- 5/28/2014 8:16:02 PM >

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to joshuamnave)

Post #: 35

RE: Chiming in - 5/28/2014 8:33:56 PM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

One question about AI development: I understand that the various optional rules can significantly impact game play/balance--is it feasible to contemplate an AI that allows players to choose whatever optional rules they want, or should we expect that when/if the AI is released, we will only be able to play with some fixed set of optional rules? If so, which ones?

One can certainly hope not. I say this because leaving the optional rule selection wide open would certainly mean an extreme lengthening of the development time for an AI due to the Optional rule's factorial function's effect on the number of permutations and combinations that would need to be considered.

What this forum can do - when the time comes - is try and arrive at a consensus as to what should be the list of optional rules that the AI plays with.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 5/28/2014 9:34:51 PM >

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 36

RE: Chiming in - 5/28/2014 10:57:22 PM

joshuamnave

Posts: 967
Joined: 1/8/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

One question about AI development: I understand that the various optional rules can significantly impact game play/balance--is it feasible to contemplate an AI that allows players to choose whatever optional rules they want, or should we expect that when/if the AI is released, we will only be able to play with some fixed set of optional rules? If so, which ones?

One can certainly hope not. I say this because leaving the optional rule selection wide open would certainly mean an extreme lengthening of the development time for an AI due to the Optional rule's factorial function's effect on the number of permutations and combinations that would need to be considered.

What this forum can do - when the time comes - is try and arrive at a consensus as to what should be the list of optional rules that the AI plays with.

Unfortunately, I suspect Paul is right. Looking at just 2 optional rules, oil and limited overseas supply, gives us an idea of the complexity of multiple rule sets on the AI. Turning the oil rule on or off will require a massive change to the AI, both at the strategic and tactical level. So will limited overseas supply. If just those two rules are selectable, you need 4 different AI's.

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 37

RE: Chiming in - 5/29/2014 12:27:17 AM

smitht2ls

Posts: 6
Joined: 3/10/2004
Status: offline

Haven't read the AI forum discussion in a bit but I believe Steve had a 3 level AI planned. Top level Strategic AI, Theater AI and Army Commander AI for each major power.

(in reply to joshuamnave)

Post #: 38

RE: Chiming in - 5/29/2014 3:50:35 AM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
What this forum can do - when the time comes - is try and arrive at a consensus as to what should be the list of optional rules that the AI plays with.

But isn't that time right now? I thought that at least some work has gone into the AI already, and you would certainly think that before getting very far at all Steve would want to know which optional rules will be implemented?

My main concern is that they might simply leave out all of the optional rules and develop the AI only to use only the base rules, which would to a large degree defeat the purpose of using the AI as a "training aid".

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 39

RE: Chiming in - 5/29/2014 4:53:32 AM

wworld7

Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

But isn't that time right now?

From what I have read over the years I have no doubt that Steve isn't working in a vacuum, he has a plan which requires time to complete.

What his plan is for optional rules I do not know, when he is ready he will let us know.

< Message edited by flipperwasirish -- 5/29/2014 4:46:35 PM >

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 40

RE: Chiming in - 5/29/2014 1:02:52 PM

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
What this forum can do - when the time comes - is try and arrive at a consensus as to what should be the list of optional rules that the AI plays with.

But isn't that time right now? I thought that at least some work has gone into the AI already, and you would certainly think that before getting very far at all Steve would want to know which optional rules will be implemented?

My main concern is that they might simply leave out all of the optional rules and develop the AI only to use only the base rules, which would to a large degree defeat the purpose of using the AI as a "training aid".

Hi 76mm glad to see your still hanging in there, missed you for awhile. I agree with you but I probably stand alone on that one. It would be fine to start out with the base rules and nothing wrong with using it as a training aid, it would be one sight better than nothing at all.

Why cant Steve do a modest AI for Barbarossa? Of all the scenarios this should be the easiest, very little navy involved if at all, supply, etc. The scenario is cut and dried IMO, using novice rules and see what transpires, then people who bought this game could hang their hats on that, meaning those who prefer and AI over other forms of play.

If net play were around the corner than I have no problem waiting for it even though I have no intentions of using it. But it is not around the corner and anybody here with common sense should know that. We should stop living in this MWIF perfect dream world and look at reality. We are a long way from netplay [I do hope I am wrong]. Cad98 HELP! you can explain it better than I can.

IMHO Barbarossa should be a very reasonable task to complete in a short period of time, what do I know about that, NOTHING! Just hoping.

There are very few problems with Barbarossa if any, supply etc. So I feel it should be ready to go. Make it simple and then all the players can test it while Steve works on netplay, by then we should all know what is needed in the AI. There will be the naysayers who will say we have to get everything else right first, supply production etc.

And I say baloney, while Steve is using his right hand to correct the few remaining supply problems, his left hand is idle,

put it to use make a simple AI for Barbarossa

I promise you it will be tested to hell and back.

Bo

< Message edited by bo -- 5/29/2014 2:27:50 PM >

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 41

RE: Chiming in - 5/29/2014 1:25:48 PM

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: smitht2ls

Haven't read the AI forum discussion in a bit but I believe Steve had a 3 level AI planned. Top level Strategic AI, Theater AI and Army Commander AI for each major power.

That sounds good to me smitty but in the meantime how about a simple Barbarossa, novice rules. Lets start small and build on it, does that make sense?

Bo

(in reply to smitht2ls)

Post #: 42

RE: Chiming in - 5/29/2014 4:10:16 PM

wworld7

Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: smitht2ls

Haven't read the AI forum discussion in a bit but I believe Steve had a 3 level AI planned. Top level Strategic AI, Theater AI and Army Commander AI for each major power.

That sounds good to me smitty but in the meantime how about a simple Barbarossa, novice rules. Lets start small and build on it, does that make sense?

Bo

Bo,

I am backing out of THIS conversation as you are headed for more disappointment I believe.

Your simple AI idea I would bet isn't happening.

And you are not alone, many people have similar views as yours.

Be well,

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to bo)

Post #: 43

RE: Chiming in - 5/29/2014 4:26:02 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: smitht2ls

Haven't read the AI forum discussion in a bit but I believe Steve had a 3 level AI planned. Top level Strategic AI, Theater AI and Army Commander AI for each major power.

That sounds good to me smitty but in the meantime how about a simple Barbarossa, novice rules. Lets start small and build on it, does that make sense?

Bo

Bo,

I am backing out of THIS conversation as you are headed for more disappointment I believe.

Your simple AI idea I would bet isn't happening.

And you are not alone, many people have similar views as yours.

Be well,

warspite1

I agree. The reason why I suspect it won't happen (anytime soon) is that Matrix has re-ordered the priority list as previously announced; Supply, Production, Naval bugs (+ any game killers in the meantime) then Netplay. The AI - even a "lite" version for Barbarossa - I suspect will have to wait.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to wworld7)

Post #: 44

RE: Chiming in - 5/29/2014 4:42:28 PM

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: smitht2ls

Haven't read the AI forum discussion in a bit but I believe Steve had a 3 level AI planned. Top level Strategic AI, Theater AI and Army Commander AI for each major power.

That sounds good to me smitty but in the meantime how about a simple Barbarossa, novice rules. Lets start small and build on it, does that make sense?

Bo

Bo,

I am backing out of THIS conversation as you are headed for more disappointment I believe.

Your simple AI idea I would bet isn't happening.

And you are not alone, many people have similar views as yours.

Be well,

I respect your backing out of this, totally understanable, I have been dissapointed for years, a few more wont matter. I will never stop fighting for an AI now or later and if some people dont like that then shame on them, just maybe if some other people had spoken out a little louder and backed me and Cad the game would not have been released on Nov 7th 2013, and then again?

These posts are for speaking up throwing ideas out there you know throwing something against the wall and hoping some of it sticks

If you dont speak up then nothing will ever happen pro or con.

Bo

< Message edited by bo -- 5/29/2014 5:58:56 PM >

(in reply to wworld7)

Post #: 45

RE: Chiming in - 5/29/2014 4:57:08 PM

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: smitht2ls

Haven't read the AI forum discussion in a bit but I believe Steve had a 3 level AI planned. Top level Strategic AI, Theater AI and Army Commander AI for each major power.

That sounds good to me smitty but in the meantime how about a simple Barbarossa, novice rules. Lets start small and build on it, does that make sense?

Bo

Bo,

I am backing out of THIS conversation as you are headed for more disappointment I believe.

Your simple AI idea I would bet isn't happening.

And you are not alone, many people have similar views as yours.

Be well,

warspite1

I agree. The reason why I suspect it won't happen (anytime soon) is that Matrix has re-ordered the priority list as previously announced; Supply, Production, Naval bugs (+ any game killers in the meantime) then Netplay. The AI - even a "lite" version for Barbarossa - I suspect will have to wait.

Agreed they are the priority, but if it has taken this long to come close [not there yet] to fixing the problems you mentioned what do you think net play will take to complete. You know just maybe if Steve gets frustrated and I am sure he is, it would be relaxing to sit back and do a little here, a little there on a modest AI, for all I know he might just be doing that

Hmmmm!

I would think as a inexperienced programmer, me [took the 2 week course, did not help though]

I really think Barbarossa would be a walk in the park for Steve, for an experienced programmer like Steve there is nothing complicated there, supply is straight forward no naval to be concerned with, production is not a factor in Barbarossa.

I do not think there is any bugs there, production is a nothing because you can only get a few units produced to make it in time before the scenario ends [5 turns] People we are talking about Barbarossa, not global war for gods sakes! That would be a monumental task for an AI. [Global War] Might never see it in Global War and that is understandable.

Bo

< Message edited by bo -- 5/29/2014 6:05:59 PM >

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 46

RE: Chiming in - 5/29/2014 5:44:45 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: smitht2ls

Haven't read the AI forum discussion in a bit but I believe Steve had a 3 level AI planned. Top level Strategic AI, Theater AI and Army Commander AI for each major power.

That sounds good to me smitty but in the meantime how about a simple Barbarossa, novice rules. Lets start small and build on it, does that make sense?

Bo

Bo,

I am backing out of THIS conversation as you are headed for more disappointment I believe.

Your simple AI idea I would bet isn't happening.

And you are not alone, many people have similar views as yours.

Be well,

warspite1

I agree. The reason why I suspect it won't happen (anytime soon) is that Matrix has re-ordered the priority list as previously announced; Supply, Production, Naval bugs (+ any game killers in the meantime) then Netplay. The AI - even a "lite" version for Barbarossa - I suspect will have to wait.

Agreed they are the priority, but if it has taken this long to come close [not there yet] to fixing the problems you mentioned what do you think net play will take to complete. You know just maybe if Steve gets frustrated and I am sure he is, it would be relaxing to sit back and do a little here, a little there on a modest AI, for all I know he might just be doing that Hmmmm!

I would think as a inexperienced programmer, me [took the 2 week course, did not help though] I really think Barbarossa would be a walk in the park for Steve, for an experienced programmer like Steve there is nothing complicated there, supply is straight forward no naval to be concerned with, production is not a factor in Barbarossa.

I do not think there is any bugs there, production is a nothing because you can only get a few units produced to make it in time before the scenario ends [5 turns] People we are talking about Barbarossa, not global war for gods sakes! That would be a monumental task for an AI. [Global War] Might never see it in Global War and that is understandable.

Bo

warspite1

bo I almost fell off my chair when I read that!! The whole game is complicated as hell to program or else the game wouldn't be in the situation it is in, god knows how many years since the project started

I would like to think that if this truly was a "quick win" then the powers that be would have seriously considered this. But the fact they have decided to proceed with the plan as previously outlined makes me suspect this would be another long term project - even if limited to just Barbarossa.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to bo)

Post #: 47

RE: Chiming in - 5/29/2014 6:13:00 PM

wworld7

Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

bo I almost fell off my chair when I read that!! The whole game is complicated as hell to program or else the game wouldn't be in the situation it is in, god knows how many years since the project started

I would like to think that if this truly was a "quick win" then the powers that be would have seriously considered this. But the fact they have decided to proceed with the plan as previously outlined makes me suspect this would be another long term project - even if limited to just Barbarossa.

Warspite1 hit it on the head better than me.

If you're going to program an AI you do it. Wasting FINITE resources on an "AI Lite" only makes sense if that is now the end goal to this game (which I do not believe it is).

I am not going to discuss the silly idea that it would be a starting point to build upon. It doesn't work that way.

I am sorry I returned, I am gone from this thread I hope.

Just when I thought I was free....it pulled me back into the vortex...

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 48

RE: Chiming in - 5/29/2014 6:26:24 PM

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

bo I almost fell off my chair when I read that!! The whole game is complicated as hell to program or else the game wouldn't be in the situation it is in, god knows how many years since the project started

I would like to think that if this truly was a "quick win" then the powers that be would have seriously considered this. But the fact they have decided to proceed with the plan as previously outlined makes me suspect this would be another long term project - even if limited to just Barbarossa.

Warspite1 hit it on the head better than me.

If you're going to program an AI you do it. Wasting FINITE resources on an "AI Lite" only makes sense if that is now the end goal to this game (which I do not believe it is).

I am not going to discuss the silly idea that it would be a starting point to build upon. It doesn't work that way.

I am sorry I returned, I am gone from this thread I hope.

Just when I thought I was free....it pulled me back into the vortex...

Oh you will be back I just have to think up something new to harass you with, the word lite is not my wording if you had noticed.

Bo

(in reply to wworld7)

Post #: 49

RE: Chiming in - 5/29/2014 6:33:20 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

bo I almost fell off my chair when I read that!! The whole game is complicated as hell to program or else the game wouldn't be in the situation it is in, god knows how many years since the project started

I would like to think that if this truly was a "quick win" then the powers that be would have seriously considered this. But the fact they have decided to proceed with the plan as previously outlined makes me suspect this would be another long term project - even if limited to just Barbarossa.

Warspite1 hit it on the head better than me.

If you're going to program an AI you do it. Wasting FINITE resources on an "AI Lite" only makes sense if that is now the end goal to this game (which I do not believe it is).

I am not going to discuss the silly idea that it would be a starting point to build upon. It doesn't work that way.

I am sorry I returned, I am gone from this thread I hope.

Just when I thought I was free....it pulled me back into the vortex...

Oh you will be back I just have to think up something new to harass you with, the word lite is not my wording if you had noticed.

Bo

warspite1

bo, nothing was intended by the word "lite" other than you believe that an AI for Barbarossa would be a "walk in the park" because it would be a simpler version of a Global War AI. i.e. because it does not have to deal with Production and the Naval war (as well as other elements of the game). Call it lite or whatever you like - I just happened to use the word lite. IF that is not what you meant then please can I ask you to clarify?

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to bo)

Post #: 50

RE: Chiming in - 5/29/2014 6:35:09 PM

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: smitht2ls

Haven't read the AI forum discussion in a bit but I believe Steve had a 3 level AI planned. Top level Strategic AI, Theater AI and Army Commander AI for each major power.

That sounds good to me smitty but in the meantime how about a simple Barbarossa, novice rules. Lets start small and build on it, does that make sense?

Bo

Bo,

I am backing out of THIS conversation as you are headed for more disappointment I believe.

Your simple AI idea I would bet isn't happening.

And you are not alone, many people have similar views as yours.

Be well,

warspite1

I agree. The reason why I suspect it won't happen (anytime soon) is that Matrix has re-ordered the priority list as previously announced; Supply, Production, Naval bugs (+ any game killers in the meantime) then Netplay. The AI - even a "lite" version for Barbarossa - I suspect will have to wait.

Agreed they are the priority, but if it has taken this long to come close [not there yet] to fixing the problems you mentioned what do you think net play will take to complete. You know just maybe if Steve gets frustrated and I am sure he is, it would be relaxing to sit back and do a little here, a little there on a modest AI, for all I know he might just be doing that Hmmmm!

I would think as a inexperienced programmer, me [took the 2 week course, did not help though] I really think Barbarossa would be a walk in the park for Steve, for an experienced programmer like Steve there is nothing complicated there, supply is straight forward no naval to be concerned with, production is not a factor in Barbarossa.

I do not think there is any bugs there, production is a nothing because you can only get a few units produced to make it in time before the scenario ends [5 turns] People we are talking about Barbarossa, not global war for gods sakes! That would be a monumental task for an AI. [Global War] Might never see it in Global War and that is understandable.

Bo

warspite1

bo I almost fell off my chair when I read that!! The whole game is complicated as hell to program or else the game wouldn't be in the situation it is in, god knows how many years since the project started

I would like to think that if this truly was a "quick win" then the powers that be would have seriously considered this. But the fact they have decided to proceed with the plan as previously outlined makes me suspect this would be another long term project - even if limited to just Barbarossa.

I apoligize warspite hope you did not hurt yourself

Look if you dont put things out there how do you kinow if this can be done or that can be done. I am not trying to be a wart on Steves back, maybe he would be good enough to enlighten me and other concerned posters as to what is possible and what is not. It seems to me that the powers that be as you put it didnt exactly hit the nail on the head with a lot of things this last year. I have very little confidence in their decisions anymore.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 51

RE: Chiming in - 5/29/2014 6:38:18 PM

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

bo I almost fell off my chair when I read that!! The whole game is complicated as hell to program or else the game wouldn't be in the situation it is in, god knows how many years since the project started

I would like to think that if this truly was a "quick win" then the powers that be would have seriously considered this. But the fact they have decided to proceed with the plan as previously outlined makes me suspect this would be another long term project - even if limited to just Barbarossa.

Warspite1 hit it on the head better than me.

If you're going to program an AI you do it. Wasting FINITE resources on an "AI Lite" only makes sense if that is now the end goal to this game (which I do not believe it is).

I am not going to discuss the silly idea that it would be a starting point to build upon. It doesn't work that way.

I am sorry I returned, I am gone from this thread I hope.

Just when I thought I was free....it pulled me back into the vortex...

Oh you will be back I just have to think up something new to harass you with, the word lite is not my wording if you had noticed.

Bo

warspite1

bo, nothing was intended by the word "lite" other than you believe that an AI for Barbarossa would be a "walk in the park" because it would be a simpler version of a Global War AI. i.e. because it does not have to deal with Production and the Naval war (as well as other elements of the game). Call it lite or whatever you like - I just happened to use the word lite. IF that is not what you meant then please can I ask you to clarify?

I was answering flipper I have no problem with the word lite I understand exactly what you mean but after Neilsters comment that this is Steves forte, I was just curious nothing sinister going on here.

Bo

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 52

RE: Chiming in - 5/29/2014 6:40:16 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: smitht2ls

Haven't read the AI forum discussion in a bit but I believe Steve had a 3 level AI planned. Top level Strategic AI, Theater AI and Army Commander AI for each major power.

That sounds good to me smitty but in the meantime how about a simple Barbarossa, novice rules. Lets start small and build on it, does that make sense?

Bo

Bo,

I am backing out of THIS conversation as you are headed for more disappointment I believe.

Your simple AI idea I would bet isn't happening.

And you are not alone, many people have similar views as yours.

Be well,

warspite1

I agree. The reason why I suspect it won't happen (anytime soon) is that Matrix has re-ordered the priority list as previously announced; Supply, Production, Naval bugs (+ any game killers in the meantime) then Netplay. The AI - even a "lite" version for Barbarossa - I suspect will have to wait.

Agreed they are the priority, but if it has taken this long to come close [not there yet] to fixing the problems you mentioned what do you think net play will take to complete. You know just maybe if Steve gets frustrated and I am sure he is, it would be relaxing to sit back and do a little here, a little there on a modest AI, for all I know he might just be doing that Hmmmm!

I would think as a inexperienced programmer, me [took the 2 week course, did not help though] I really think Barbarossa would be a walk in the park for Steve, for an experienced programmer like Steve there is nothing complicated there, supply is straight forward no naval to be concerned with, production is not a factor in Barbarossa.

I do not think there is any bugs there, production is a nothing because you can only get a few units produced to make it in time before the scenario ends [5 turns] People we are talking about Barbarossa, not global war for gods sakes! That would be a monumental task for an AI. [Global War] Might never see it in Global War and that is understandable.

Bo

warspite1

bo I almost fell off my chair when I read that!! The whole game is complicated as hell to program or else the game wouldn't be in the situation it is in, god knows how many years since the project started

I would like to think that if this truly was a "quick win" then the powers that be would have seriously considered this. But the fact they have decided to proceed with the plan as previously outlined makes me suspect this would be another long term project - even if limited to just Barbarossa.

I apoligize warspite hope you did not hurt yourself Look if you dont put things out there how do you kinow if this can be done or that can be done. I am not trying to be a wart on Steves back, maybe he would be good enough to enlighten me and other concerned posters as to what is possible and what is not. It seems to me that the powers that be as you put it didnt exactly hit the nail on the head with a lot of things this last year. I have very little confidence in their decisions anymore.

Bo

warspite1

I'm okay - it was a low chair

We've seen how long its been since the Matrix announcement and we still await a clean, bug-free supply system. Using that as a guide, can you imagine how long it is likely to take to sort Production? On that basis I cannot see how Steve can be working - even part-time - on an AI.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to bo)

Post #: 53

RE: Chiming in - 5/29/2014 6:48:12 PM

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

ok Warspite I am going to post a question in the beta forums instead of here.

Bo

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 54

RE: Chiming in - 5/29/2014 10:52:08 PM

wworld7

Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

I used the "lite" reference as describing the Barbaroso AI Bo desired.
My point is it isn't in any way EASY to do, and in fact
Would only delay or kill the desired AI for the whole program.

I can barely see on my phone.

I'll correct spelling errors after I get home after work (DONE).

< Message edited by flipperwasirish -- 5/30/2014 6:52:27 AM >

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to bo)

Post #: 55

RE: Chiming in - 5/30/2014 2:07:35 AM

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

I used the "lite" reference as describing the Barbaraso AI Bo desired.
My point is it isnt in any way EASY to do, and in favt
Woud only delay or kill the desired AI for the whole program.

I can bareky see on my phone.

Ill correct spelling errors after I get home after work.

Hi Flipper
I understand the word lite and how you meant and I am not disagreeing with you in any way. Below is an e-mail I received from a respected poster. [no names] He is not saying do this now or later but this is how he would do it. I just thought maybe wrongfully so that if Steve got a chance he could put out a "lite" AI on Barbarossa, get all the posters involved, take all their suggestions and at a later date create an AI for all the scenarios.
Of course Steve might not need any suggestions.

I will stand by this to the day I die, if this game had been released with an AI the sales would be in the many thousands as compared to what they are now [I do not know how many sales were created from Nov 7th on]

Asty said wargaming was a niche and MWIF was niche inside that niche, good statement and very true. If he means that it is really for the boardgaming community as a niche that may very well be true. Meaning the best way to play the game is aginst a human opponet which would be net play.

No argument there, but I believe that the war gaming community is starving for a great game. IMHO there is no game at Matrix or at Battlefront that can come close to this game if it is ever finished. I took a shot in the dark gentlemen suggesting an AI for Barbarossa. trying anything to put some life into this game thats all, nothing sinister.

Quote by a friend.

On the AI, yes I think Barbarossa (and Guadalcanal) should be the first ones coded. The limited scope (no production or real resource routing) and reduced options should enable the basic land / naval decision making process to get perfected, which would also give the consumer something to do during the long, Long, LOng, LONg, LONG wait for a fully functional AI. (Optimistic aren't I :-) )

Bo

< Message edited by bo -- 5/30/2014 3:18:47 AM >

(in reply to wworld7)

Post #: 56

RE: Chiming in - 5/30/2014 6:02:46 AM

wworld7

Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

Bo,

If he has the time I do believe you should be having this type discussion with Steve.

Doing it here can only get your hopes raised only to be dropped like a lead weight.

I understand I believe what your friends idea is and I cannot see it developing that way.

I could be wrong, but that is why you should chat with Steve and not in the forum.

You can't breath life into MWIF, it will stand tall on its own or not.

Be well,

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to bo)

Post #: 57

RE: Chiming in - 5/30/2014 2:53:54 PM

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

Bo,

If he has the time I do believe you should be having this type discussion with Steve.

Doing it here can only get your hopes raised only to be dropped like a lead weight.

I understand I believe what your friends idea is and I cannot see it developing that way.

I could be wrong, but that is why you should chat with Steve and not in the forum.

You can't breath life into MWIF, it will stand tall on its own or not.

Be well,

This is what the forums are for Flipper, I have the right to seek other opinions pro or con and yes I am trying to breathe life into the forums but I am not doing well

Talk to Steve hmmm wheres that playing, I do not think I am his favorite uncle right now, he has known my feelings about the AI for over 5 years now and in person I also told him how I felt.

But your right I cant breathe life into MWIF and my friend is convinced what he said I could put into the post is the right way to go, he and I spent countless hours on trying to solve net play over a year ago and got nowheres with it. I asked him to post his feelings but he seems to want to stay out of the fray cant blame him. Stand on its own hmmm that is a pretty big order. I guess end of story. SAD!

Bo

< Message edited by bo -- 5/30/2014 3:57:07 PM >

(in reply to wworld7)

Post #: 58

RE: Chiming in - 5/30/2014 5:24:36 PM

wworld7

Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

I guess end of story. SAD!

Bo

Bo,

Of course the forums are for posting anything you want. My advice to speak to Steve (He (and Matrix) will decide what is feasible at this point in the project) was only an attempt to prevent you from getting your hopes up and then shot down.

I do not believe this is anywhere near the end of the MWIF story, as long as Steve breathes there are possibilities.

Be well,

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to bo)

Post #: 59