Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

disapointing Victory

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> disapointing Victory Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
disapointing Victory - 9/1/2004 9:28:13 PM   
viking42


Posts: 91
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Europe
Status: offline 		I was quite disapointed about what happened:

I played as japanese, historical difficulty and won at 2/15/43
with 51527 points against 12827
the point is that it is a game over, i can't play anymore and continue my conquests, i was hopping the allied would attack back in 44 and giving me a lot of defensive fun, but i will not be able to see that happen.

i wanted to express my frustration of not being allowed to have a continue play and a total conquest
Post #: 1
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/1/2004 9:51:03 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline 		1) PBEM
2) Next time, do not take unfair advantage of the AI -it is NOT Karpov, indeed-: do not massacre it when it does stupid moves

(in reply to viking42)
Post #: 2
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/1/2004 10:03:24 PM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline 		Hrm, I guess the people ho said it wouldn't be an issue were wrong. Then again, at Historical level the AI is a push over.

< Message edited by Tankerace -- 9/1/2004 2:04:09 PM >

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 3
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/1/2004 10:27:35 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: viking42

I was quite disapointed about what happened:

I played as japanese, historical difficulty and won at 2/15/43
with 51527 points against 12827
the point is that it is a game over, i can't play anymore and continue my conquests, i was hopping the allied would attack back in 44 and giving me a lot of defensive fun, but i will not be able to see that happen.

i wanted to express my frustration of not being allowed to have a continue play and a total conquest


Play the "hard" level. This is a rare instance where a wargame AI actually plays a bit "smarter". It better anticipates your moves and will actually react in some cases. The levels above "hard" bascially cheat by just using what amounts to force multipliers. But "hard" is the top AI level that doesn't resort to cheating.

But even with that, you have to play HISTORICALLY as the human. Take what the Japs actually took and not much more. For instance, If you blitz in the far southeast Pacific by taking Fiji and Canton and such, the AI will probably not do a damned thing to you. If you reinforce to a very unhistorical level in the early operations (i.e. put three of your original PI divisions on Lunga) the AI will enter a Death Spiral and impale itself on your position. The AI doesn't understand the concept of flanking strategies and can't recognize "fients".

So play the "hard" level and then use a load of personal house rules. You can still have a very entertaining game.

Another method, if you don't want to be tied to the slow pace or restrictive nature of a PBEM game, play yourself in a hotseat game. React to only what your recon and intel discovers. I've discovered that you can generate some truely EPIC battles playing hotseat against yourself in places like China and Burma that you could probably NEVER duplicate in a PBEM game....

(in reply to viking42)
Post #: 4
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/1/2004 10:41:43 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Send the file to Mr Frag

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 5
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/1/2004 10:47:32 PM   
viking42


Posts: 91
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Europe
Status: offline 		frustrating is that i had planned a lot of things, my production for example, and i managed to get just enough oil to the right places to get my fleets running.
I will not play hotseat against myself, that's quite difficult to stay honest then and your fighting no one. pbem is really to long for me.

I will try to play as allies to get some challenge.

the save i have to send is the 03 i believe? the first two being the automatic ones?

< Message edited by viking42 -- 9/1/2004 8:49:51 PM >

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 6
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/1/2004 10:53:46 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		I'd like you to post a screen shot of the final map dispositions.
You didn't think the game was too boring, flogging the AI for 400+ turns drains all my energy.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to viking42)
Post #: 7
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/1/2004 10:54:03 PM   
BartM


Posts: 107
Joined: 7/18/2004
Status: offline 		not sure I like the "solutions" here :)

either play another player ignoring the Single player aspect, or... cheat yourself by playing badly so the AI has a chance....

reguardless how historical you play, the ai (both sides....your enemy and your computer controlled areas) play completely absent minded, and pbem is not a solution to this, unless this game was specificly designed for pbem only, in which case I would think most people would not have bought this.

I am still curious as to why the computer will split up an engineer unit, placing 1 squad on remote islands all over the place, doing the same thing with planes, sending unescorted ships into heavy airbal, not reacting to attacks and islands being taken, not reacting to airbal increases in their area and trying to defuse it.... the list goes on :)

but really, the a)pbem or b) play poorly is not a sollution

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 8
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/1/2004 10:59:39 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, The AI is not a "thinking" process. It is a set of directions. It is a set of simple directions. Coding a "thinking" "learning" process would require more space then the game and a single turn would require hours. (The AI would have to analyze the situation at the start of each turn and compute what the proper response would be) The AI has no memory.
This is not a simple game. The AI is only there following instructions. Very basic instructions. And then everyone who playes WITP is a brilliant person.

b.) is not "play poorly" b.) is "stop exploiting the AI"


Do you use the historic turn 1?
Do you stay inside your own air control when invading enemy bases?
Do you mass forces in one area and ignore others? (As Japan do you defend your outer bases or just those you see the AI working towards?)
Do you transfer units from China or Manchuria?
Do you use hundreds of aircraft at some bases and allow other areas to go without any air units?
Do you notice hexes the AI uses for simple tasks like supply convoy and wait there for them?
Do you tinker with the starting air factories that are set to R&D? (cheat)
Do you form surface TF with more then 15 ships per TF
Do you maintain fighter cover over Japanese Home Islands. How many bombers are in Home Defense Command.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/1/2004 4:06:22 PM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to BartM)
Post #: 9
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/1/2004 11:05:35 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Send me your file, as promised, I will zap the score and let you play on if you want, but I'd really like to hear what your starting options were as well ...

Since we have identified the bug with aircraft replacement/upgrades, I wonder just how much of the Yanks you were actually playing against.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 10
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/1/2004 11:30:11 PM   
viking42


Posts: 91
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Europe
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, The AI is not a "thinking" process. It is a set of directions. It is a set of simple directions. Coding a "thinking" "learning" process would require more space then the game and a single turn would require hours. (The AI would have to analyze the situation at the start of each turn and compute what the proper response would be) The AI has no memory.
This is not a simple game. The AI is only there following instructions. Very basic instructions. And then everyone who playes WITP is a brilliant person.

b.) is not "play poorly" b.) is "stop exploiting the AI"


Do you use the historic turn 1? nope
Do you stay inside your own air control when invading enemy bases? no comprendo
Do you mass forces in one area and ignore others? (As Japan do you defend your outer bases or just those you see the AI working towards?) nope, all bases protected
Do you transfer units from China or Manchuria? yes, once chinese defeated but only 2 div or so
Do you use hundreds of aircraft at some bases and allow other areas to go without any air units? nope, always naval search units in many bases but i concentrated a lot on attack bases
Do you notice hexes the AI uses for simple tasks like supply convoy and wait there for them? yes
Do you tinker with the starting air factories that are set to R&D? (cheat) nope
Do you form surface TF with more then 15 ships per TF yes bombardement ones
Do you maintain fighter cover over Japanese Home Islands. How many bombers are in Home Defense Command.
lots of poor fighters in japan (nate in training), few bombers in training (about 4 squadrons)

< Message edited by viking42 -- 9/2/2004 8:08:21 AM >

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 11
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 12:04:20 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BartM

not sure I like the "solutions" here :)

either play another player ignoring the Single player aspect, or... cheat yourself by playing badly so the AI has a chance....

reguardless how historical you play, the ai (both sides....your enemy and your computer controlled areas) play completely absent minded, and pbem is not a solution to this, unless this game was specificly designed for pbem only, in which case I would think most people would not have bought this.

I am still curious as to why the computer will split up an engineer unit, placing 1 squad on remote islands all over the place, doing the same thing with planes, sending unescorted ships into heavy airbal, not reacting to attacks and islands being taken, not reacting to airbal increases in their area and trying to defuse it.... the list goes on :)

but really, the a)pbem or b) play poorly is not a sollution



Since when is using basic historic strategy playing "poorly"? Attacking only when properly supported by friendly air cover. Not leaving important areas go undefended so you mass huge number of forces in other areas. Moving units completely outside their assigned areas of responsibilities? IMHO this game is FAR to lenient on allowing player to move forces all over the map. There is NO WAY the 25th Army commander and staff would have allowed his forces to be canabalized for the 15th Army operations nor would the Southern Area Army easily allow its subordinate commanders to do so even they wanted too! Same thing on the Allied side.

No way in HELL would the Dutch just give up their empire without a fight, allowing other commands to just take their best units. No way in HELL would MacArthur allow anyone to deplete his PI forces without a major fight. No way the Ausies would EVER allow home defense units to be canablized for operations that would leave the homeland less secure!

The AI plays a good, solid game against a human player who does largely what the Japanese did. And the Japanese did what they did because that's how operations are carried by professional commanders. They follow the chain of command and they follow well established plans of attack that required full air cover, target preparation and meticulous logistical support. You play that way an the AI does a reasonable job. And playing that way is NOT playing badly. You play the way a lot of human players play against an experience PBEM opponent or hotseat and you would likely be the one on the losing end of the auto-victory system, not the other way around!

(in reply to BartM)
Post #: 12
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 12:09:38 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, That was at least half the exploits against the AI being used.

China is a bug bear for the AI. A Japanese player can mop the floor with the AI in China but he has a real fight against a human. One of the fastest ways to screw up the AI is to makea massive offensive in China. Content yourself with just clearing the central RR and you get a better game.

You did not understand " Do you stay inside your own aircontrol when invading."

If you send a TF to land on enemy base could you if needed provide CAP over it?
If enemy TF appears is the base in range of LBA or carrier aircraft? If not you are outside your air control and you are only there because you are exploiting your knowledge of the AI force disposition.

It is an exploit if.......you play against the AI in a manner other then how you would play against me. (or another human)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/1/2004 5:11:27 PM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to viking42)
Post #: 13
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 12:09:43 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline 		What Zoomie and Mogami said. :)

I don't play "poorly" in my game against the AI. I constrain myself with house rules that reflect historical constraints; I don't exploit obvious AI blunders; and, as Mogami says, I garrison all bases, even those I doubt the AI will attack. The result is a game that has roughly followed the historical evolution of the war.

Playing on Very Hard evens things out a bit, too. I know there are combat advantages for the AI here, but I don't mind. I play Civ 3 the same way.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 14
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 12:13:14 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Balls back in your court. Play onwards as promised.

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 15
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 12:26:13 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, The game is designed to give a good game against the Ai (but the human should still always win) And allow complete freedom to players against another human (who is able to adjust or not to what you do. Many of the practices that defeat the AI will result in a human opponent countering in ways that produce undesired results. (Mass in China against a human and you'll find he is massing somewhere else. )

Send TF out of aircover against a human.....(sure the Japanese can do it early in the game by exploiting knowledge of enemy force dispositions but there will come a turn when the results show he tried it once too often)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 16
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 5:21:47 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		The real basic point of the thread is that "auto victory" needs to be an optional
setting, not built in. Some players LIKE "flogging a dead horse". They paid as
much for the Game as anyone else, so why not let them "whip to poor old nag"
as much as they want? It's not the designer's task to tell you HOW to enjoy the
product. I've never been able to understand why this wasn't an option from the
start. "Different strokes for different folks"...., and the wider the options available,
the more "folks" will be happy.

_____________________________


(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 17
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 5:28:34 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, No I think the real issue is the designers decides what victory is. Persons who play a game that produces a winner always know in advance what consitutes victory. What is the point of playing chess after you have mated the other player? When the gun sounds the end of the 4th quarter a football game is over.
There are rules in baseball/softball (not the majors) where 10 run lead ends the game.
You can ignore the auto victory if you want but it is still how victory in WITP is decided. The only way to end a game other then running out of turns is one side gets the required ratio for the period of the war the game has reached. When you begin play your ultimate objective is very simple.
4-1 in 1943, 3-1 in 1944 or 2-1 in 1945/46 If yuo don't want to end the game stop racking up the points beating up the idiot AI. It's just as simple for a player to edit Tokyo and San Francisco to 50k VP as it is for the programmers to insert a toggle and all the other changes the code would need. Do you think the AI would then understand what it was fighting to gain? It's already being exploited now we want to confuse it even more.

(Personally I think you are just breaking the AI when you assign a value of 50k to any base because then the AI will see that it can win the game by capturing 1 base rather then fighting a the war. But if you instead tell the AI points do not matter because there is no victory the AI will like as not simply stop fighting)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/1/2004 10:40:07 PM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 18
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 5:37:49 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		My point was simpler. If you are in the business of selling games, and a loud and
vociferous portion of your market is telling you that they LIKE 'beating a dead horse';
LET THEM! You will sell more games, and it doesn't hurt anybody else who will play
with the "auto-victory toggle" ON anyway. It isn't like this game is an absolutely
total, 100% historic set-up anyway. It's good, with the potential to be better, but it's
never going to be perfect. So why not let these folks have their fun? I agree that
it's not my idea of a good time..., but I don't like scotch whiskey either. Does that
mean no-one should have it available? (On second thought, in the PC age, maybe
I shouldn't ask that question)

_____________________________


(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 19
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 5:41:53 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Joel said days ago they would do that. After that I've just assumed the debate was philosophical. But it will not sell more games. The people with the issue already own the game. No where on the box do I find "Allows you to beat the dead horse"

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/1/2004 10:43:07 PM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 20
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 5:45:29 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Joel said days ago they would do that. After that I've just assumed the debate was philosophical.


That's my philosophy. The more games they sell, and the happier the purchasers are,
the better chance of getting them to expend the time and money to fix "real" problems.
Otherwise, we have no basic quarrel on this point.

_____________________________


(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 21
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 7:05:57 AM   
Becket


Posts: 1269
Joined: 3/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I don't like scotch whiskey either.


You....you....FREAK!

_____________________________


"The very word Moscow meant a lot to all of us....it meant all we had ever fought for" -Rokossovsky

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 22
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 7:13:28 AM   
CommC

 

Posts: 467
Joined: 8/3/2002
From: Michigan, USA
Status: offline 		My thought about why the auto-victory should be optional is that given the production realities, the US side can very likely come back from a pretty bad beating to win the game... where win is defined as doing better than historical by the historical end date. With the auto victory in place, the Allied come-back is prevented, where they may likely come back to win if allowed to finish.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 23
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 7:19:32 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Well I don't agree because while the Allied player will be forced to mount a comeback and will likely have to settle with the 2-1 in 1945 to win the war he cannot comeback from 4-1 in 1943 because that ratio means he has been destroyed. that score of 51k to 12k means the allies are getting slaughtered on a massive scale. Converting WWII to WITP points I doubt you find the Japanese ever got much past the 2-1 ratio and lost that before the end of 1942. Then the Allies spent another 2 years getting to 2-1 WITP terms.

You can't come back from down 51k to 12k but I am interested in what the point break down was for bases and for loss of material. The base VP can be made up it's the material loss that becomes the issue. You can't lose 30k worth of ships and men and then somehow score 60k in damage without the enemy still scoring enough damage points to stay above the 2-1 ratio

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/2/2004 12:24:58 AM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to CommC)
Post #: 24
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 8:46:31 AM   
stubby331


Posts: 268
Joined: 10/24/2001
From: Perth, Western Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Becket

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I don't like scotch whiskey either.


You....you....FREAK!


What Mike said.... (and I'm one eight scot to boot)

(in reply to Becket)
Post #: 25
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 9:42:11 AM   
Adam Parker


Posts: 1848
Joined: 4/2/2002
From: Melbourne Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

That's my philosophy. The more games they sell, and the happier the purchasers are, the better chance of getting them to expend the time and money to fix "real" problems.


Thing is, providing a competitive AI "isn't fixing a problem", it's creating something that no "operational" war game has yet to design.

I only comment on a game if I own it. In this case I think its best for me to also now really try to play it. However, I certainly hope peoples' reviews of WITP aren't to read: "A fun time against the AI if you use house rules".

Then again, the rulebook begins with something I've never seen - suggesting that after the first couple of attempts, people play at the "hard level" where the AI is artificially benefited.

It's a rare, honest and frank admission but one that should be known at the time of buying and currently, only revealled once owned.

There is just a simple truth that the more units, decisions, alternatives and objectives an AI is meant to face, the harder the math will be and the less likely a competitive AI will result. Only recently has a tournament level chess AI been programmed.

Thing is, those who now promise AI advances in their sequels without delivering, are risking the farm.

Adam.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 26
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 10:14:25 AM   
viking42


Posts: 91
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Europe
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, That was at least half the exploits against the AI being used.

China is a bug bear for the AI. A Japanese player can mop the floor with the AI in China but he has a real fight against a human. One of the fastest ways to screw up the AI is to makea massive offensive in China. Content yourself with just clearing the central RR and you get a better game.

You did not understand " Do you stay inside your own aircontrol when invading."

If you send a TF to land on enemy base could you if needed provide CAP over it? if threated by ennemy air, mostly yes, i don't like disruption raising
If enemy TF appears is the base in range of LBA or carrier aircraft? If not you are outside your air control and you are only there because you are exploiting your knowledge of the AI force disposition. nope, i always recon first to see if i will need aircover, i never played allied role to see his positions

It is an exploit if.......you play against the AI in a manner other then how you would play against me. (or another human) yes i was expecting strong US counteroffensive and hoping for it, i would very much have liked a japanses defensive game

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 27
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 10:20:11 AM   
viking42


Posts: 91
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Europe
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

The real basic point of the thread is that "auto victory" needs to be an optional
setting, not built in. Some players LIKE "flogging a dead horse". They paid as
much for the Game as anyone else, so why not let them "whip to poor old nag"
as much as they want? It's not the designer's task to tell you HOW to enjoy the
product. I've never been able to understand why this wasn't an option from the
start. "Different strokes for different folks"...., and the wider the options available,
the more "folks" will be happy.



Thats exactly what i want, let me conquer the map! those aussies and US have no reason to surrender as long as i didn't even touch Aussie homeland or PH

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 28
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 10:27:28 AM   
viking42


Posts: 91
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Europe
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Joel said days ago they would do that. After that I've just assumed the debate was philosophical. But it will not sell more games. The people with the issue already own the game. No where on the box do I find "Allows you to beat the dead horse"



There are two points for me here:
i'd like indead to play till the bare end but that can't be that fun after a while (beating base after base isn't fun without threats). What i really expected was aggressive allied counterattacks, in one word: challenge!

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 29
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 10:40:03 AM   
Adnan Meshuggi

 

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline 		sorry guys...

most people play it against the ai...
and most people want to fight it untill the end... if i invest 400-500 turns to break the point system, i want the result...
also, if the american loose all carriers and a lot cruisers, he will get em back in 44... so no problem with this.

Why is it forbidden to fight it out ?

This is the most disturbing thing at Garrys games... this silly victory points (for the game ending..)

With this, as the japanese you can try the autovictory...make silly things because you have not to care cause if your victory point level increase by it... do it.

If i bombard the coast of oz this would have zero impact in history, but here i can get a lot VPs for it and win...

i know that the game engine will need important targets (measured by VP)... but why can´t the game not still go on ?

The story of "use houserules"... is stupid. I mean, sure, if the game has a bug, like UV and its self murderer tries for invading Lunga with light cruisers without air cover against KB... you have a real problem. But honestly, this is the problem of the producer, not of the player (and customer)... should i stop to conquer certain points (if i can) cause the game will end ?

Maybe we need a discussion about the AI-programming... but i can´t say much about the way to workaround a "better" (say different) aproach to this thing. For me as an user, it is simple, i want a very smart AI, that do not silly mistakes (that get more informations about my positions if i play the harder level) but not get the Über-ships cause of a weak ai.

Sure, against humans it is fully different, but again. If i play for months or years against a human and then one side reach a certain point level, it is over ? Why...
I think the problem lay in the philosophy behind the game... "we" want to play a game untill the end, "the others" want to end the game by using great strategies and start another game... i think we players are both....

So my wish is, delete ANY victory conditions that stop a game against the AI.... (as an option... i allways would use it)
Sure, you can sit it out against the AI as the allies... but - if you do so, your problem. The AI should do what it would do with the option disable...

In BTR we had that problem - if the computer AI had heavy losses it still come and come, the losses were even greater... realistic would be, that the allies would pause their bombing campagin for say a months (after loosing in one day 500 heavies, 300 fighters and 300 nightbombers...), but in a late game, this cause the end of game....

or, one time, i kicked the a$$ out of the production and the game was over in spring 44... sorry, i played what ? 250 turns and wanted to burn down anything, but i couldn´t.... that is disturbing.

So, please, make maybe Autovictory conditions with a 1000:1 ratio (so nobody can reach (okay Mogami against me...)) and the part of the players like me who want to fight it out can play still untill the end.... thank you

_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit

(in reply to viking42)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> disapointing Victory Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.234