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: 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 >> RE: disapointing Victory Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 11:09:04 AM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		Auto victory was a reason for me too to start new game with edited (VP) locations.
I'd expect autovictory optional
House rules do not help a lot when AI is stupid.
Do not much harm to enemy .....but it is not a reason people play strategic games.
Most players use single mode feature so game does need to have at least reasonable AI.


in my opinion this discussion should be about AI.
It should be reworked if this game is expected to be replayable.

(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)
Post #: 31
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 11:28:10 AM   
steveh11Matrix


Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline 		On the one hand I can't help laughing to myself about this...I really can't see myself getting to play WitP long enough in one game to get that kind've victory, even if I though I could win as big as that....

On the other hand I know a number of players of other games who take satisfaction in wiping out all opposition, or as in this case, setting such a strong postition that they then wait for the counterattack and hope to enjoy defending their conquests...

But on the Gripping Hand this has to have been an early design decision, and can we be sure that the ai would know how to come back?

For my own part, I'd support a toggle (another one! ). Fairly simple enhancement, with the caveat stated up front that when set to 'No Auto-Victory' that playing with this has not been tested by the staff.

Steve.

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 32
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 11:53:51 AM   
BartM


Posts: 107
Joined: 7/18/2004
Status: offline 		Perhaps when I said playing poorly, people read into that. What I meant to say, which is, playing poorly, is playing historicaly, making the same mistakes. I don't want to take advantage of the AI, but I do want to try and not make the same mistakes Japan made or the Us for that matter. I do agree with some here, that the real hidden issue is the AI itself. House rules, certain restrictions you place on yourself to give the AI a chance is what I call playing poorly. Yes I garison troops and stay within cap, and move slow with units planning for weeks on end to reach a goal. The very basic problem is with this game so far with the AI, is that it is simply not flexable in any way, that compounded by the thousands of decisions it needs to make (not to mention the same thousand we humans need to), really places this size of a game at a huge disadvantage.

honestly, going backwards here a moment, and using PAC as the main example here, I really think using China and Russia was a mistake (too late now), as that really was a front in and of itself away from the actual conflict with the Pacific. There were certain rules in PAC to keep units there and eventually release some to the main theater, but in this game, you can actually win with China without really the involvement of the US at all.
Having such a HUGE area of units and actions in China and Russia seems to really hinder the AI in the other areas.

Don't think yet another "toggle" is the answer either, as I think we are asking for a ton of toggles as it is heh, but really a more restrictive rule on China, Russia, Northern US, India where Air Groups should not be and can NOT be removed. The political point system is very good, but does need to make a hard rule against restricted units.

As we have it now, Dutch, USAFFE and the Brits can evacuate most of their units leaving nothing but scortched earth for the Japaneese. Stand and Fight, as they really had no other choice. Given more concentration to the AI in the actual Pacific theater and less so in the China/Russia/India would I think anyway, help lessen some of the AI calculations.

just a thought

(in reply to steveh11Matrix)
Post #: 33
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 11:57:27 AM   
viking42


Posts: 91
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Europe
Status: offline 		In my game that was the point which was beginning to interest me: the allied AI has never counterattacked, only stupidly once i landed in suva, but that was back in early '42.
I had stopped most of my conquests and was prepared to play defensive till '46 just in the hope to see the AI organise nice offensives against me. I'm now doubting if the AI would have been intelligent enough to mount island reconquests, which where in fact historical.
Retaking of rabaul or the marianes all took place only in '44


Mr Frag has my savegame, he can confirm what i said seing the positions on the map, i played it with quite a few houserules (all bases protected, naval reccon everywhere etc...)

(in reply to steveh11Matrix)
Post #: 34
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 12:53:52 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		does sb play startegic games "poorly"?
if it is supposed to give fun ( you pay for it) then you use your brain

Ai was never tested in games longer then few months so it is quite reliable that it is not capable for counterattacking( especially if has taken losses).

In one post sb mentioned that Ai was not designed to play 44 and 45 in campaign. but I may be wrong and try to find this.

(in reply to viking42)
Post #: 35
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 1:15:44 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline 		My take on this. Sorry it's a bit of a rant ...

It has been stated that the auto-victory feature is not going to be removed.

In the thread http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=696905&mpage=2&key=� Joel B stated

"As has been stated elsewhere, Gary will continue to work on the AI periodically as long as we get save games that show specific issues. I don't honestly expect it to get a lot better than it is now, but hopefully we can improve a few of the more obvious problems."

Therefore, live with it or play against other humans. There is no need for further whinging.

For those who have never tried PBEM - doing 1 turn of PBEM is more satisfying than playing 1,000 turns against the AI. I really do not understand the "only play the AI" mentality, it's like having your teeth pulled as far as I'm concerned.

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 36
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 2:04:25 PM   
viking42


Posts: 91
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Europe
Status: offline 		easy, i made a fast count of how much years of my life i would need to finish a PBEM game with 1 turn/day (according thaht i really want to finish it) and my lifetime is not long enough.........

< Message edited by viking42 -- 9/2/2004 12:04:52 PM >

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 37
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 2:05:31 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, OK here is a stupid question. What then is victory in WITP? Without the point ratios the Allies can suffer 10x the loss the Japanese do and still eventually take a base in B-29 range and bomb Japan into the stoneage. Is that winning? Without point ratios the Japanese can assault Pearl Harbor or San Francisco and call it a victory.

If you think you will be playing WITP 5 years from now you should be playing PBEM. If you only have a few months to live you should be playing PBEM. because beating the AI and going 1600 turns to total conquest of earths surface is means nothing. One PBEM game I began 7 days ago has reach Dec 30 1941. (or 23 days of game in 7 days real time)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/2/2004 7:15:09 AM >

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)
Post #: 38
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 2:26:02 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: viking42
easy, i made a fast count of how much years of my life i would need to finish a PBEM game with 1 turn/day (according thaht i really want to finish it) and my lifetime is not long enough.........


So you'd rather spend a few frustrating months "beating the dead horse" than have several years of pleasure and mental stimulation? I fail to see the logic.

(in reply to viking42)
Post #: 39
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 2:35:43 PM   
viking42


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

ORIGINAL: Mogami

because beating the AI and going 1600 turns to total conquest of earths surface is means nothing.


nope but being beaten hard by the AI in '44, is very pleasant for masochist strategic players (hurt me with a Witp box version).
I don't want to conquer the earth, i want to see the end of the war, having the new planes i produced, and being happyly slaughtered by the AI at the end of the war. The AI can't resist an human (at least in historical) and that's a lack of challenge

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 40
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 2:37:05 PM   
viking42


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

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

quote:

ORIGINAL: viking42
easy, i made a fast count of how much years of my life i would need to finish a PBEM game with 1 turn/day (according thaht i really want to finish it) and my lifetime is not long enough.........


So you'd rather spend a few frustrating months "beating the dead horse" than have several years of pleasure and mental stimulation? I fail to see the logic.



I'm assuming that in my game the US and Aussies are not "dead" (having all their prod capacity and i having not that much oil), they have to build up and come to kick me out

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 41
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 2:53:53 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline 		OK, so the AI isn't giving you what you want. What are you going to do? Put the game away or play PBEM, the choice is yours.

(in reply to viking42)
Post #: 42
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 2:54:34 PM   
Thayne

 

Posts: 748
Joined: 6/14/2004
Status: offline
quote:

For those who have never tried PBEM - doing 1 turn of PBEM is more satisfying than playing 1,000 turns against the AI. I really do not understand the "only play the AI" mentality, it's like having your teeth pulled as far as I'm concerned.


Well, it does depend on what one finds satisfying.

I read the AARs from the PBEM games, and I cringe. A PBEM game appears to be a contest between two players to find the most ahistorical weakness in the model and to exploit it to the maximum potential. I simply have no interest in playing that type of game.

At the same time, I see some of the problems with playing against the AI. I would like to be able to play against an opponent who can recognize and even execute a diversion, or a flanking maneuver, and execute a strategic plan. At the same time, if I play with a number of historical "house rules" where I restrict myself from doing things that, historically, could not have been done, but which are legal within the game. If I did this in a PBEM game, my opponent will likely take advantage of that, too, and slaughter me. One is forced into a situation in PBEM games of having to play ahistorically, just to stay alive. I would not at all be satisfied in a situation that forces me into that style of play.

PBEM is great for people whose game mentality is fixed on collecting victory points and winning a game. But for somebody like me who wants to simulate a historical event, PBEM has serious drawbacks. It's not all that satisfying.

By the way, it is not "playing poorly" to want to restrict oneself to historical limitations. It is, instead, "playing according to rules that should have been coded into the game but could not have been because it is too cost prohibative to do so." This goes for things such as "no invasions beyond the range of fighter air cover", as well as things such as "do not totally destroy the carrier group that the AI mistakenly docks at a port within bombing range and refuses to move."


Now, I do believe (getting back to the original point of the discussion) that there should be an optional "Do you want to continue?" placed where one gets an autovictory. The analogy to continuing a game of chess after checkmate or playing football beyond the fourth quarter is flawed. Nobody programs chess boards to immediately lock the game after checkmate -- people can choose to continue the game. They simply do not do so. As for football, we do not have minotors going to every game among friends in the local park saying, "You have finished your allotted four quarters, now you must quit and all go home. You can't decide to play for another half hour."

If I were playing in an organized competition with fixed rules, this type of argument makes sense. But, in a game between me and a friend, or between me and my computer, an outside monitor saying that I have to put the game up now because I have fulfilled their idea of victory seems a bit excessive.

I can well imagine Spalding setting out monitors to everybody using one of their footballs in a friendly game in the park saying that they MUST end their game at the end of the fourth quarter. No, if I and my friends are having fun, we should not be forced to put the game up and go home until we WANT to put the game up and go home.

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 43
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 3:02:38 PM   
frank1970


Posts: 1678
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Bayern
Status: offline 		Hello, does ANYONE listen out there?

It will happen. There will highly propably be a toggle in the next patch to switch on/off auto victory. You can stop asking for it.



Thanks

_____________________________

If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"


(in reply to Thayne)
Post #: 44
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 3:06:51 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thayne

quote:

For those who have never tried PBEM - doing 1 turn of PBEM is more satisfying than playing 1,000 turns against the AI. I really do not understand the "only play the AI" mentality, it's like having your teeth pulled as far as I'm concerned.


Well, it does depend on what one finds satisfying.

I read the AARs from the PBEM games, and I cringe. A PBEM game appears to be a contest between two players to find the most ahistorical weakness in the model and to exploit it to the maximum potential. I simply have no interest in playing that type of game.

At the same time, I see some of the problems with playing against the AI. I would like to be able to play against an opponent who can recognize and even execute a diversion, or a flanking maneuver, and execute a strategic plan. At the same time, if I play with a number of historical "house rules" where I restrict myself from doing things that, historically, could not have been done, but which are legal within the game. If I did this in a PBEM game, my opponent will likely take advantage of that, too, and slaughter me. One is forced into a situation in PBEM games of having to play ahistorically, just to stay alive. I would not at all be satisfied in a situation that forces me into that style of play.

PBEM is great for people whose game mentality is fixed on collecting victory points and winning a game. But for somebody like me who wants to simulate a historical event, PBEM has serious drawbacks. It's not all that satisfying.

By the way, it is not "playing poorly" to want to restrict oneself to historical limitations. It is, instead, "playing according to rules that should have been coded into the game but could not have been because it is too cost prohibative to do so." This goes for things such as "no invasions beyond the range of fighter air cover", as well as things such as "do not totally destroy the carrier group that the AI mistakenly docks at a port within bombing range and refuses to move."


Now, I do believe (getting back to the original point of the discussion) that there should be an optional "Do you want to continue?" placed where one gets an autovictory. The analogy to continuing a game of chess after checkmate or playing football beyond the fourth quarter is flawed. Nobody programs chess boards to immediately lock the game after checkmate -- people can choose to continue the game. They simply do not do so. As for football, we do not have minotors going to every game among friends in the local park saying, "You have finished your allotted four quarters, now you must quit and all go home. You can't decide to play for another half hour."

If I were playing in an organized competition with fixed rules, this type of argument makes sense. But, in a game between me and a friend, or between me and my computer, an outside monitor saying that I have to put the game up now because I have fulfilled their idea of victory seems a bit excessive.

I can well imagine Spalding setting out monitors to everybody using one of their footballs in a friendly game in the park saying that they MUST end their game at the end of the fourth quarter. No, if I and my friends are having fun, we should not be forced to put the game up and go home until we WANT to put the game up and go home.



Hi, Your safe then. You will not as Japan get the ratios and the Allies will not get them before 1945.

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Thayne)
Post #: 45
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 3:09:21 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline 		Thayne - I do admire your well argued point of view but haven't you ever once wanted to just throw the AI out of the window for it's utter stupidity?

Frank - I didn't know that, thanks for the info.

(in reply to frank1970)
Post #: 46
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 3:28:30 PM   
frank1970


Posts: 1678
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Bayern
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"


It wasn´t me who stated that but Mogami. I only hoped to stop the begging

_____________________________

If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"


(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 47
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 3:36:22 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I think you'll get a more historically accurate game in PBEM then against the AI. It is much easier to exploit the AI then another human.

I still don't think the problem per say is the ratios for auto victory since they cannot be obtained unless one side is much better (or exploitive) then the other.
View the ratios as thresh holds that if obtained compell the other side into surrender.
Since the Allies do not have the material to achive a 4-1 ratio prior to 1944 the 1943 ratio is strictly for Japan. If you are the Allies you will never see the AI reach this ratio and you your self will not be able to do it no matter how poorly the AI plays because you don't have the means. As Japan is is easy against the AI but much more difficult in PBEM. Here you are more apt to see your opponent change his screen name and stop answering your emails before you ever get a 4-1 ratio. Some people are so tender they quit before you have 2-1 on them. If you are the Japanese you are in control of the game. It is unlikely you will ever get the required ratio so how long the game lasts is up to you, The ALlied player will not get 2-1 without his B-29 bombing Japan. (As Allied player even getting the bases in 1943 does not help because you don't have the aircraft yet)
What we are fighting about is Japanese player against the AI who conquer China and India by exploiting the AI and wanting to keep going all the way to West Coast USA. After they run the ALlied AI out of material they want to keep playing. Fine I say let them but victory is not measured by this. If it was the Japanese p[layer would have no hope in PBEM games. His only hope is to prevent the Allied player from ever gaining that 2-1 ratio.
Japan was not invaded in WW2. Japan surrendered. 2-1 ratio in points means the side with the lower ratio has suffered grieveous loss. 4 to 1 means it is being slaughtered like sheep. (If you are losing 4 aircraft to every 1 you shoot down, If you've lost 4 CV while only sinking 1 if you lose 4 divisons for everyone you destroy you are being abused. The Japanese cannot do this in PBEM. A Japanese player who is not living in fantasy land will not do it. It is a long hard fight for the Allied player to get to a 2-1 ratio. The Japanese player should get to 2-1 early in 1942. However this is not a victory condition. In 1943 he needs 4-1 and in 1944 3-1. If 2-1 is the best he can do he will never get auto victory. If he has 4-1 in 1943 it is because he has destroyed most everything the allies have gotten up to that point. In that case there will be no Allied counter offensives and no Japanese defense.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/2/2004 8:41:28 AM >

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 48
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 3:39:22 PM   
Thayne

 

Posts: 748
Joined: 6/14/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Thayne - I do admire your well argued point of view but haven't you ever once wanted to just throw the AI out of the window for it's utter stupidity?


Certainly, an AI pulling some stupid stunt can ruin a game as fast as a PBEM opponent exploiting some loophole in the rules or the model to get ahistorical results. I have worries that the AI will eventually ruin the game I am playing now -- the one I am using in my AAR.

Both styles of play have their advantages and disadvantages. The AI plays when I want to play, always returns its turns promptly within a few minutes after I have turned in mine, and adjust its level of play to from slaughtering me by exploiting the game rules or exploiting the fact that I want to adopt some historical limitations.

On the other hand, I do regret the fact that the AI will not plan and execute an ambush, or a flanking maneuver, or create and execute a strategic plan that I have to try to figure out and counter, and I fear that the computer will engage in some game-wrecking foolishness well into the game that I just can't prevent it from doing.

There are positives and negatives on both sides of the equation. The only people that I really disagree with are those who say, "This way of playinjg the game is THE ONE TRUE AND RIGHTEOUS WAY OF PLAYING THE GAME" (typically spoken by people who like PBEM).

No, it's not. It depends on what your interests are.

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 49
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 3:50:30 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline 		Wise words from Mr Mogami :-)

Thayne, sorry to blather on like this but I suspect that your project, which once again I say is admirable, will likely falter once you go on the offense. Come mid 1942 the AI will just sit on its behind with all its planes on Night Ops - LRCAP/Naval Attack/Airfield Attack, pilots at morale 10/fatigue 40 waiting for you to destroy it. Unless you actually take to standing down most of your planes (what's historical about that?) it will have nothing of worth left by mid 1943.

EDIT: Posted prior to seeing Thayne's previous message, sorry.

< Message edited by Captain Cruft -- 9/2/2004 2:41:58 PM >

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 50
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 4:22:59 PM   
Caltone


Posts: 651
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Raleigh, NC USA
Status: offline 		Thayne I just have to say that the opponets I PBEM with, play a game much along the lines you lay out. I know I am fortunate and actually I've been playing with these guys for a few years (we started in UV) There were some bumps along the way and unfortunately I met some players I will never PBEM with again.

While it may be an aggravating proceess at first, I suggest you try a PBEM or two. Look carefully for the "right" opponent, one who shares your views of the game. You may encounter players that you thought played "your" type of game at the start but changed once events developed in the game. It's frustrating but just don't play with them again. Keep trying and you will find that player.

The reason you hear this so often is the sheer amount of fun and joy from playing PBEM with people you enjoy and respect. My opponents are also friends, even though I have never met any of them in person. We discuss events outside the game and find we have much in common.

But the greatest joy is in discussing the game with someone that can talk back This the AI cannot do. We trash talk a little, we joke a little, and we discuss the moves of the past few days. This adds much to the game for me. And of course, they are able to make smart moves, to plan long term, to ambush, to feint plus a million other things.

All that said, I do enjoy a game against the AI and keep one running. I enjoy that one too, just for different reasons.

_____________________________

"Order AP Hill to prepare for battle" -- Stonewall Jackson

(in reply to Thayne)
Post #: 51
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 5:10:37 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		My experiance from UV shows that in long term you rarely make more then 1-2 turns per day. Also many games breaks from personal reason.
Yes fun is muuuuch greater.
Still most players bought WITP to play solo.
I remember Mr Frag was in favor for AI in his AAR before release and now we get info that it is for PBEM only !!
Ai was not tested before release!
I don't like it.
The only solution is reworked AI.
Hope Matrix will do sth with this
cos there is no AI by now.

(in reply to Caltone)
Post #: 52
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 5:21:34 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Yikes, talk about a runaway thread.

Here ... lets make it real clear:

Playing the AI on other then VERY HARD is not valid for other then training purposes.

Now, if you want to complain about the AI's performance on VERY HARD, that is quite acceptable, but complaining about it when you are not playing it at it's top form is really rather pointless and beyond silly. If and when you beat the AI on a game run on VERY HARD, you most certainly have a valid case to say the AI is not good enough.

So far, I see people complaining about the AI yet unwilling to play it at it's full level. Whats the problem? Afraid you will loose?

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 53
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 5:27:34 PM   
viking42


Posts: 91
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Europe
Status: offline 		shall i play on hard or very hard, it was told that very hard made only the AI cheating, that hard was the best way to just enhance his intelligence.

I'm quite confused having initiated such a bloody debate.....

< Message edited by viking42 -- 9/2/2004 3:27:58 PM >

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 54
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 5:34:31 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

I'm quite confused having initiated such a bloody debate.....


You didn't initiate it, you just stirred it up again. Someone else will do again next week

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to viking42)
Post #: 55
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 5:36:42 PM   
Adnan Meshuggi

 

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline 		Mogami, this is not the point.
i know, we need something the AI has to calculate, plan or better to "value"... so it can make planes and develop strategies...

but i still want no ending of the game cause a certain level is reached.
If the allies loose 10x the losses, this is documented... maybe we could have a Statistic abut all losses

for ships:
BB Nagato, sunk after reciving 4 Torpedos, 26 16" hits by South Dakota, 15.05.44 near Rabaul (for example)....

same for planes and land battles....

so, we could have a savegameresult of the losses...

if someone use just the numbers but pay heavily, his "victory" is less worthy for us all as someone who achieve it with lesser losses....

the problem is (next to the problems with the AI) that the data for losses and statistics are really bad in the moment. I bet many people would love such data

"Damned, this bloody June 43, i lost 10% of my subs and most in this Tarawa-area... " could be a great input for the forum... (maybe we could detected a new bermuda triangle)

Houserules help to reduce the AI-Failures, but i still do not know what to do about Lunga or Moresby... (stupid AI-forces who run into the open sword over and over and over... (at last at UV i know this is true, in witp for Port Moresby i have no input..)

_____________________________

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 mogami)
Post #: 56
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 5:55:05 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		In reply to Mr Frag


ok I will go for very hard - why not but I will be really suprised if final outcome will be much different- some thing will take more time and nothing more. Playing Allies still will have no real sense cos nothing can help AI when going in stupid loops.
it is like perfuming dead body. Give bonuses to AI mean Ai is weak if it can't stand ( I do not mean win - but give a real fight)

Open savegame from second side in any advanced game and look what AI is doing - you will not see any sense in it.
No plan. no strategy. Just walking around and puting ass on plate to anybody ready to kick

To MR Frag. It was You and only You who advertised AI before release. I remember. I think others too.
And there was nothing like in the thread above.
How would you call that ???

< Message edited by Sneer -- 9/2/2004 10:56:37 AM >

(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)
Post #: 57
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 6:01:36 PM   
Adnan Meshuggi

 

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline 		Look,
i fi understood the game right (i am still a beginner) the allies will get all early losses back (in CV and Cruisers)... so, if the AI loose all these ships in 1942 (and as the japanese i hope to reach this result) he can still get em back. As the allied, if i try to test the KB earlier as historically and i loose my ships, i get em back...too.

These damned VPs can kill such game too early... Esp. for the japanese player, who would have tons of new enemies in 43 and 44 this problem can destroy the fun of the game.

Maybe it is cause of BtR, but all these games are time consumpting... a signal for high motivation and game fun. But if we have "stupid" AI, the gamestopping VP solution make it even worse...

You give the allies heavy losses (but a capable player could take over in 44 and still kick the japanese butt out of nirvana) but you can´t fight it out.

If you could conquer china and india and invade the west coast, this is not the guilt of the player, but of the game engine.

PBEM is fine for many people, but not for me - cause i can´t play so much at times other people have time. So, what should i do ? I try to "force" my brother to buy the game so we can play it against each other, but untill now he want to test it (and he can´t cause i play it and give not the game to him (piracy is for me, if more people play the game at the same time... if i do not want to play it, i can give it to him and later he can give it back. For PBEM, he would buy it, but he fear that it will not work on his computer... otherwise i could order it NOW for him).
So i had one pbem-partner, but all others out there would be not happy with my turns... and i would not be happy with their turns (if i have time, i want to play the game) - and i think the game should be able to help me to play the game, not me to help the game to redo historical events (as the allied i want to win "better", as the japanese i want the allies pay much more as they did for reconquering)

if another beginner would play a pbem against me (me allied side (i think it is much easier)) he is welcome.... but i bet, nobody will play in seldom intensive phases of the game. So, what should i do ? PBEM is not realistic, and against the AI it is no fun cause you "cheat" or win easily... (okay, i will not win easily, bad players need more time )

As i wrote, more statistics would be great and a point system, too... but no game stopping system.... 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 mogami)
Post #: 58
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 6:18:53 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

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)


It's the same issue as in the aircraft upgrade argument. The designers may be trying to force too much rigidity on the players and many players are taking exception to that.

However, when it comes to the AI, no amount of tinkering with toggles and editors is going change the fact that the AI is what the AI is, basically a brain-dead, scripted piece of code that mostly acts in a fixed way. AI programming in games, in general, needs a rennaissance, or a reformation. But until that day comes, if ever, AI's are always going to be rather easy to exploit, no matter how many toggles and editors game developers provide.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 59
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 6:25:36 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: viking42

shall i play on hard or very hard, it was told that very hard made only the AI cheating, that hard was the best way to just enhance his intelligence.

I'm quite confused having initiated such a bloody debate.....



The AI on VERY HARD uses what amounts to force multipliers. As far as I'm concerned that equates to cheating. I detest that design, and always have. On HARD is actually a bit "smarter", which is pretty rare in games these days for difficulty settings.

(in reply to viking42)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: disapointing Victory Page: <<   < prev  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

0.906