Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

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

quote:

Problem is, will the AI still play if you say yes?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

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)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

Problem is, will the AI still play if you say yes?

The AI always wants to play. Didn't you see "Wargames"?

"Shall we play a game?"

quote:

OK, so why isn't it called "Historical" level then?

Let's see if I've got this right:

Easy: the player gets to cheat with better numbers to hit etc.
Historical: No advantage for either side
Hard: ai gets intelligence information, but no other help.
Very Hard: ai gets intelligence info AND gets to cheat as well.

Sounds to me like "Hard" should be the "Historical" level, sorry to contradict - the ai gets to 'intuit' some of the player's moves, but all else is even.

Steve.

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"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

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"

A couple of things you have to wonder about though, is would the USA concede with an armistice for an auto-victory, and if they were willing, IOW, 'they' brought up the subject to the Japanese, would the Japanese be willing to stop at that point? It's not so much wanting to beat a dead horse, that one in that situation would want to play longer, but that why would you want to stop when you're dominating? You're in a situation where you accomplished more than the historic counterpart, so you just might be more willing to see if you could continue to thrive or at least holdout. The Japanese in 43 had no idea that the A-bombs would be dropped, nor that the USSR would attack them, such that they would have less reasons to seek peace than we now know. Besides, the JA player may know he's won the early game, such that continuing it and thereby reaping a greater reward for the long haul is more intriguing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

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"

A couple of things you have to wonder about though, is would the USA concede with an armistice for an auto-victory, and if they were willing, IOW, 'they' brought up the subject to the Japanese, would the Japanese be willing to stop at that point? It's not so much wanting to beat a dead horse, that one in that situation would want to play longer, but that why would you want to stop when you're dominating? You're in a situation where you accomplished more than the historic counterpart, so you just might be more willing to see if you could continue to thrive or at least holdout. The Japanese in 43 had no idea that the A-bombs would be dropped, nor that the USSR would attack them, such that they would have less reasons to seek peace than we now know. Besides, the JA player may know he's won the early game, such that continuing it and thereby reaping a greater reward for the long haul is more intriguing.

The problem is that a 4:1 level is not Japan doing better, it's Japan winning the war. If the Victory conditions were a 2:1 or 3:1 level, I could see your point ... thats Japan doing better or really good. 4:1 is not a really good, it's the Yanks are now discussing surrender terms, Britain is lost the war with Germany, China no longer exists, etc.

It is *not* recoverable from. It technically is *impossible*. It was put in as a trap to end games that have gone seriously wrong. It's not a Victory condition test. It is to allow a completely unrealistic game to end.

Anyone here who really thinks Japan could *win* the war is just being beyond silly. The 4:1 ending to the game is Japan *winning* the war, not the game. It is a check to close out a beyond silly game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, To test silly. Load scenario 15 into editor. Begin deleting Allied ships, LCU and Aircraft till you delete 48k worth of material. Load game and begin play as Allies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Anyone here who really thinks Japan could *win* the war is just being beyond silly. The 4:1 ending to the game is Japan *winning* the war, not the game. It is a check to close out a beyond silly game.

Cheers,
Panzer

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

Benjamin Franklin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzer76

I find it ridiculous that you have to do the same *mistakes* as the historical counter parts to get any real fight from the AI. Is not the point og playing a historical game to see if you can do better than history, not replicate it?!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzer76

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Anyone here who really thinks Japan could *win* the war is just being beyond silly. The 4:1 ending to the game is Japan *winning* the war, not the game. It is a check to close out a beyond silly game.

What you are saying that any results other than the historical one is silly and should be artifically stopped. Then, please tell me, why am I playing this *game*, if not to change history?

From your posting history I see you have a tendancy to defend the game with claw and tooth, no matter how strange the behaviour. Your role as a beta tester plays an important role in your bias it would seem.

Cheers,

Panzer

quote:

It is a check to close out a beyond silly game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sneer

Hi I have good memory and follow this forum for a while.
As sb noticed before Beta testers are switching their statements.

I checked earlier posts and found some interesting quotes :
All of them from Mr Frag against AI thread - you can look and see that - it was one of few tests of AI against Human before release
very interesting so read till the end

it starts
1. about palying game
"Just to set the stage, I am not holding back on anything, using every dirty trick in the book to beat the AI. I have probably played upwards of 2,000 starts now. All settings are in their standard position except for Vary start."

2. about autovictory and finishing
" Sorry, but I have little interests in playing the end of the game without earning the right to be there. Perhaps one of the other guys can kick off the '43/'44 version where Japan can do nothing but die with style. "

3. about difficulty
"1) What difficulty setting are you playing at?
Historical "

4. about AI "historical" performance
"Glad *you* guys think I am doing very well. I am about to loose Singapore, PI is running out of supply. I am holding for the moment in Burma, but thats about it ... The one Brit CL got hammered because it was got hit hard right off and the AI decided to finish it off. Did a great job too because it went down the following turn.
Basically, I am getting kicked everywhere and fighting back as I pull out resources and oil to feed Oz, but I am running out of time.
That should give you an idea of how the AI plays as Japan. One month in and nothing I did really detracted it from it's goals. It is still expanding like a virus inspite of me breaking up 3 major invasion fleets. Not too shabby and there are 2 higher skill levels if you really want to get spanked. "

5.about historical performance - why Mr Frag did not surrendered Mandalay - it is not historical - does anybody lost Mandalay to AI????
"Japan lost 88 aircraft in an evil little base jump just outside Singapore. Japan has also lost a couple hundred aircraft at Mandalay, which would fall to most of you, but I knew what was coming so I had every unit there was in India already on the way. Had I not pulled two P-40B groups out of PI and stuck them there and managed to get them upgraded, Japan would have steam rolled over me. I am currently keeping at least two of the divisions unable to attack each turn with ground attacks with fighter-bombers. Had I not saved *every* base unit from Victoria Point all the way up, I would not be able to have the size of the air groups here and the AI would have killed me quickly.
The AI expected to win here, and it didn't. Based on the distances involved, it takes a *long* time to bring in more troops. In the mean time, I have a major advantage of supply, support, air support, constant bombing from multiple bases and range is most certainly on my side as I am attacking in the hex I am in. "

6. Final and best note from 6/7/2004
"#3 The higher level of difficulty is for Mogami only. I doubt anyone else could stand it"

I'm lazy so i did not checked what was written in second half of the thread

Shame , Mr Frag ,Shame

quote:

You don't play with restrictions when you play against the AI. You handicap the AI by restricting it with other then "Very Hard". The AI plays 1 turn at a time. The AI can not plan in depth. You play multiple turns in advance. Allowing the AI to peek at what you are doing is the *only* way to simulate it playing multiple turns and planning what might seem to be obvious stuff.

quote:

Now, after winning with a handicap, you want the developers to go in and modify the game so you can continue to play winning even more? Whats the point? It's like taking candy from a baby. The baby can't fight back. What exactly is the point of stealing candy from a baby? It make you feel good or you just like candy too much?

quote:

I don't really care whether you agree with me or not, but playing a game beyond where the game ends is just an ego trip. Grow up and find someone who fights back and quit picking on the baby. The AI is not going to exploit your weaknesses like even the greenest human player is. If you want something more then an ego trip, take the handcuffs off the AI. It's still not going to be up to human standards, but it is out of diapers at least.

quote:

end of thread for me ... had enough of this one topic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sneer

Hi I have good memory and follow this forum for a while.
As sb noticed before Beta testers are switching their statements.

I checked earlier posts and found some interesting quotes :
All of them from Mr Frag against AI thread - you can look and see that - it was one of few tests of AI against Human before release
very interesting so read till the end

it starts
1. about palying game
"Just to set the stage, I am not holding back on anything, using every dirty trick in the book to beat the AI. I have probably played upwards of 2,000 starts now. All settings are in their standard position except for Vary start."

2. about autovictory and finishing
" Sorry, but I have little interests in playing the end of the game without earning the right to be there. Perhaps one of the other guys can kick off the '43/'44 version where Japan can do nothing but die with style. "

3. about difficulty
"1) What difficulty setting are you playing at?
Historical "

4. about AI "historical" performance
"Glad *you* guys think I am doing very well. I am about to loose Singapore, PI is running out of supply. I am holding for the moment in Burma, but thats about it ... The one Brit CL got hammered because it was got hit hard right off and the AI decided to finish it off. Did a great job too because it went down the following turn.
Basically, I am getting kicked everywhere and fighting back as I pull out resources and oil to feed Oz, but I am running out of time.
That should give you an idea of how the AI plays as Japan. One month in and nothing I did really detracted it from it's goals. It is still expanding like a virus inspite of me breaking up 3 major invasion fleets. Not too shabby and there are 2 higher skill levels if you really want to get spanked. "

5.about historical performance - why Mr Frag did not surrendered Mandalay - it is not historical - does anybody lost Mandalay to AI????
"Japan lost 88 aircraft in an evil little base jump just outside Singapore. Japan has also lost a couple hundred aircraft at Mandalay, which would fall to most of you, but I knew what was coming so I had every unit there was in India already on the way. Had I not pulled two P-40B groups out of PI and stuck them there and managed to get them upgraded, Japan would have steam rolled over me. I am currently keeping at least two of the divisions unable to attack each turn with ground attacks with fighter-bombers. Had I not saved *every* base unit from Victoria Point all the way up, I would not be able to have the size of the air groups here and the AI would have killed me quickly.
The AI expected to win here, and it didn't. Based on the distances involved, it takes a *long* time to bring in more troops. In the mean time, I have a major advantage of supply, support, air support, constant bombing from multiple bases and range is most certainly on my side as I am attacking in the hex I am in. "

6. Final and best note from 6/7/2004
"#3 The higher level of difficulty is for Mogami only. I doubt anyone else could stand it"

I'm lazy so i did not checked what was written in second half of the thread

Shame , Mr Frag ,Shame

John Kerry has this problem too......in his case..... a voting record.....

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