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  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 11:32:13 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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


Hi, I think it is pretty mean and rotten to clip from a BETA TEST AAR and pass it off as Mr Frags opinion of the finished product. His last comment seems to be right on. People would rather beat up the lower levels of the AI for 1600 turn then play the hard level. The AI does not "cheat" The help the AI gets in WITP hard level is the same help AI's get in most games when you select the harder levels. The AI does not get combat bonus per say but because it cannot manage forces as well as a human it has lower fatigue and disruption. This allows it to be more vigilant. Also in the AAR Mr Frag is not exploiting the AI that is why the AI is doing as well as it is. He is playing in that test exactly the way he is telling you to play here. And I bet when you first loaded WITP the hard AI level was beyond most of you.


I've played the Hard level since about day 1 since it's the highest level that does not involve too much of some sort of a force multiplier (less fatigue and disruption are just more force multipliers). And yes, I have no problem playing the AI the way the AI was programmed to be played against.

What I DO have a problem with is beta testers telling paying customers what they should like or what they should want. In the normal world it is the PAYING CUSTOMERS that TELL the developer what they like and want. The developer either delivers, even if they don't like it, or they pay the consequences of not providing what customers want.

If a large body of players want a continuation toggle and such a toggle is an easy thing to provide and has no effect on the game otherwise, WHAT THE HELL IS THE BIG DEAL????? Give it to them for Christ sakes! It is patently STUPID and IGNORANT not to!

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 91
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 11:35:44 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline 		The AI in this game is better than in most computer wargames. That's not saying much, but hey. I can't think of a computer wargame with a better AI. I can think of only one computer strategy game with a better AI (other than chess): Galactic Civilizations -- a game with a square chess-like grid and a far less complex battlefield.

Also, Very Hard doesn't give the AI that much help. I'm playing on the Very Hard setting, and while the AI may get a little help in combat, it's nothing all that noticeable. Personally, I wouldn't mind if the developers added an Almost Impossible level that gave the AI much more significant combat and logistics bonuses. I have no problem with giving the AI an advantage. I play Civ 3 that way, and it makes the game more enjoyable and challenging.

One other point: There's one cheat the AI never gets: saving and reloading. I never save-and-reload against the AI.

Yet another point: I've yet to see someone post that they whupped the Allies playing as Japan in, say, a 1944 or 1945 scenario on Very Hard. Nor have I heard of anyone conquering San Francisco or even Hawaii. Sure, you can easily bamboozle the AI, but it's not brain-dead.

Finally: I'm having a great game against the AI (on Very Hard) simply by imposing house rules on myself. PBEM players also use house rules. What's the big deal? I don't "play poorly" or "repeat historical mistakes". I play to win. But I play within historical constraints -- as does the AI.

(in reply to RUPD3658)
Post #: 92
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 11:39:18 PM   
samuraigg

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

If a large body of players want a continuation toggle and such a toggle is an easy thing to provide and has no effect on the game otherwise, WHAT THE HELL IS THE BIG DEAL????? Give it to them for Christ sakes! It is patently STUPID and IGNORANT not to!


Amen, sorry to interrupt the love fest for Mr. Frag, but he deserved any and all "abuse" (if you can even call it that ) he recieved in these threads for deliberately going against what such a large amount of people are requesting and repeatedly telling us what we SHOULD enjoy.

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 93
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 11:42:28 PM   
mogami


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

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

quote:


Hi, I think it is pretty mean and rotten to clip from a BETA TEST AAR and pass it off as Mr Frags opinion of the finished product. His last comment seems to be right on. People would rather beat up the lower levels of the AI for 1600 turn then play the hard level. The AI does not "cheat" The help the AI gets in WITP hard level is the same help AI's get in most games when you select the harder levels. The AI does not get combat bonus per say but because it cannot manage forces as well as a human it has lower fatigue and disruption. This allows it to be more vigilant. Also in the AAR Mr Frag is not exploiting the AI that is why the AI is doing as well as it is. He is playing in that test exactly the way he is telling you to play here. And I bet when you first loaded WITP the hard AI level was beyond most of you.


I've played the Hard level since about day 1 since it's the highest level that does not involve too much of some sort of a force multiplier (less fatigue and disruption are just more force multipliers). And yes, I have no problem playing the AI the way the AI was programmed to be played against.

What I DO have a problem with is beta testers telling paying customers what they should like or what they should want. In the normal world it is the PAYING CUSTOMERS that TELL the developer what they like and want. The developer either delivers, even if they don't like it, or they pay the consequences of not providing what customers want.

If a large body of players want a continuation toggle and such a toggle is an easy thing to provide and has no effect on the game otherwise, WHAT THE HELL IS THE BIG DEAL????? Give it to them for Christ sakes! It is patently STUPID and IGNORANT not to!



Hi, They did. This thread should have ended a while ago. But really I have another question about this post. I've not been around pre-release of many wargames. DO they really ask what you want and then make the game? Or do you buy the game and play it the way it comes. What if there were no Matrix forums and you just saw WITP sitting on a shelf somewhere?

_____________________________






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

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 94
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 11:46:45 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, It might be something much simpler. Both Mr Frag and Myself have played the game many thousands of turns. Maybe we have to just sit back and relax and let other players catch up. An adult can tell a young person what the world is like and give advice but unless the young person lives and learns he will not agree or understand.
As players who want to go past AV do so and grow bored they will raise the level play PBEM or find another past time. We are not trying to belittle the other players but in our excitment and passion get them to where we are now. It's lonely here and we want someone to play with.


Well, there you go again. Where did this notion come from that this game was supposed to be a PBEM only game? Just because you and Fraggo think that's the end-all, be-all of the game, not very many, in terms of percentages of purchases, will agree with that notion. The overwhelming VAST majority of players are solitaire players, playing the AI or themselves in hotseat games. My opponent is already growing impatient with me because I got busy with my life (yes many people actually have real lives outside this game) and have not provided him a turn in over a week! It's been three days since I even clicked on the WitP icon on my desktop!

YOu beta's make a crucial mistake all the time. You assume the games purchacers see the game as you see the game and you get short tempered and irritable when they refuse to do so. The reality is, very few see the game as your guys do and very few ever really will. And that is quite obvious everytime these contentious threads come up.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 95
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 11:49:39 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		There was a very important point made earlier by (I think) Frag that gives me pause in the blind pursuit of "let us play until doomsday."

Nobody knows how the AI will perform if the AV limitation is removed. There may be significant programming problems that will have to be addressed in order to make the AI play on competently if the human wants to play on. The AI, in short, may have been designed around the victory conditions.

If that is the case, I say, "Forget it, let's live with what we've got."

Let's just continue to find ways to smarten up the AI instead of giving it combat advantages and additional ways to cheat.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 96
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 11:52:29 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
quote:

Let me get this straight... unless we allow the ai TO CHEAT(in combat, I have no problem with using the Hard difficulty), we are handicapping it? What planet are you from?


samuraigg

All game AI's cheat at one level or another, go ask Cid Meyer (maker of CIV, others) who even admitted this several times in print. If any developer tells their game AI doesn't cheat they are lying or their game has no AI

Matrix /2by3 Games are being very honest here, something most game companies don't do. This doesn't mean the AI won't impove in future patches if it's possible. Many people are complaining AI turns take to long aready, making the AI do more isn't going to make things run quicker. There has to be trade-offs somewhere nobody is going to happy if the AI turns start taking an hour to complete.

< Message edited by pad152 -- 9/2/2004 10:20:33 PM >

(in reply to samuraigg)
Post #: 97
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 11:53:43 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mogami

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

quote:


Hi, I think it is pretty mean and rotten to clip from a BETA TEST AAR and pass it off as Mr Frags opinion of the finished product. His last comment seems to be right on. People would rather beat up the lower levels of the AI for 1600 turn then play the hard level. The AI does not "cheat" The help the AI gets in WITP hard level is the same help AI's get in most games when you select the harder levels. The AI does not get combat bonus per say but because it cannot manage forces as well as a human it has lower fatigue and disruption. This allows it to be more vigilant. Also in the AAR Mr Frag is not exploiting the AI that is why the AI is doing as well as it is. He is playing in that test exactly the way he is telling you to play here. And I bet when you first loaded WITP the hard AI level was beyond most of you.


I've played the Hard level since about day 1 since it's the highest level that does not involve too much of some sort of a force multiplier (less fatigue and disruption are just more force multipliers). And yes, I have no problem playing the AI the way the AI was programmed to be played against.

What I DO have a problem with is beta testers telling paying customers what they should like or what they should want. In the normal world it is the PAYING CUSTOMERS that TELL the developer what they like and want. The developer either delivers, even if they don't like it, or they pay the consequences of not providing what customers want.

If a large body of players want a continuation toggle and such a toggle is an easy thing to provide and has no effect on the game otherwise, WHAT THE HELL IS THE BIG DEAL????? Give it to them for Christ sakes! It is patently STUPID and IGNORANT not to!



Hi, They did. This thread should have ended a while ago. But really I have another question about this post. I've not been around pre-release of many wargames. DO they really ask what you want and then make the game? Or do you buy the game and play it the way it comes. What if there were no Matrix forums and you just saw WITP sitting on a shelf somewhere?


Sorry, I missed that memo....

As far as games with no pre-release forum, well I usually buy it, play it a bit, and unless its a really good fit for what I like, I toss it away in few weeks.

But when you open yourself up for user community input you open yourself up for EVERYTHING that entails. One thing nice about the OpeSource world is not only can people give input about what they like and don't like about the software, they can actually make the changes themselves if the core developers have no interest.....

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 98
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/2/2004 11:58:12 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Holy Cow Thats like Van Gogh being at an exhibtion and explaining one of his paintings to onlookers and being told he knows nothing of art and clearly nothing about this particular artist.

I wonder who understands the game. A person who has been involved for over 4 years or someone who has had the game for 2 months?

The problem is we can't make anyone use the game as designed if they can find other things to do. I've explained things like the RD aircraft factories in Japan are for the AI.
Without them the AI will not begin producing the correct numbers and types of aircraft when it should. But then I get

"Why give us something and then tell us not to use it"

The whole point of Mr Frag and I even posting in this thread is that a player will not get the 4-1 in 1943 unless he is exploiting the game. And this is always taken as "You have to play stupid and make mistakes"

And the final winning cry was "If they want it give it to them" Now that has been decided several days and many posts ago. Mr Frag and I's contiuned posting here was not our attempt to call any one stupid or sway them to our way of thinking. (Because I fairly certain most people will understand what we are tallking about after they have made around 2000 turns)

Niether one of us cares how you play or what you do. We have only been trying to explain how to get the most out of the game. Our great mistake was not catching on very early that there are people who like to believe they can win the game and beat up the AI and don't care how they are doing it as long as the game ends with them in Seattle.

_____________________________






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

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 99
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/3/2004 12:07:24 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

Amen, sorry to interrupt the love fest for Mr. Frag, but he deserved any and all "abuse" (if you can even call it that ) he recieved in these threads for deliberately going against what such a large amount of people are requesting and repeatedly telling us what we SHOULD enjoy.


Explain to me why I as a "paying customer" have to put up with you?

I think your request is garbage and a waste of the folks I "too" paid for who could be doing something else that actually adds value to the game instead of some "babyfest ego stroke".

I have nothing to do with Matrix Games or 2BY3. I do not represent them. I do not speak for them. I am a paying customer who has the exact same "rights" as anyone else who paid for the game. You want to know what those "rights" are? They are the right to delete the software should I not like it and post messages here that do not violate the forums rules. Period.

2BY3 owes you nothing. The fact that they choose to do more then that is their choice. Threads will this type of crap and "demands" are more likely to make them simply stop and move on. Didn't mommy ever teach you that polite requests are more likely to get you something as opposed to threats and demands?

(in reply to samuraigg)
Post #: 100
This is why Close Combat sucked - 9/3/2004 12:16:18 AM   
Popoi

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 9/1/2004
Status: offline 		This reminds me of a discussion i had about Close Combat, a most excellent tactical WWII game in which the AI was so POORLY designed that you had to invent 'house rules' in order to make it challenging. That killed the game for me.

To say that "playing ahistorically" is "cheating" that's preposterous. if i wanted a game that followed history, why don't i just set the game to "continous" turns and Computer vs. Computer then?

Or better yet, go watch the history channel.

(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)
Post #: 101
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked - 9/3/2004 12:20:20 AM   
Thayne

 

Posts: 748
Joined: 6/14/2004
Status: offline 		I actually find it interesting that people can get so worked up telling other people what they should find entertaining.

Sorry, but my notion is that as long as you can have your fun without hurting other people, no criticism can be leveled against you.

If we have evidence that there are people who have fun playing the Japanese, getting a 4-1 ratio in victory points, and want to keep playing, it's harmless fun to let them, so . . . let them. If the AI can't handle it, then -- unless we are talking about crashing the computer or reformatting the hard drive -- let them have their fun.

Okay, what would REALLY be fun is to have an AI that can plan ambushes and feints and that if the Allies have five infantry divisions sitting on Midway it has to send more than an SNLF to capture it. Or a PBEM player who will adapt his play to my style and promise me that he won't stomp me into the ground because I decided to adopt a silly 'house rule' to make the game more realistic, and yet do nothing but sit at his computer for my move to show up in his email, and always respond within the half hour with his move.

Well, some of the things we want, we can't have -- unless we are willing to pay for it. At times, I think it would be cool to win the lottery and say, "Matrix. Here is $20 million. I want a game with a truly impressive AI. The point being, I do not think it is reasonable to demand that others provide something that one is not willing to pay for. Or to just pay somebody $50,000 per year to act as my AI and play by the rules I give him, no questions asked.

A more reasonable request, I hope, is that Matrix will identify and remove the game-threatening problems with the AI before they adversely affect my game. I do believe that, as a paying customer, they owe me an AI that can at least complete a campaign game successfully.

Other than this, I just do not see how, when I am talking about a game, there is anything at all that merits getting upset about.

(in reply to Popoi)
Post #: 102
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked - 9/3/2004 12:22:36 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Round and round we go.

Ahistorical is alright. Ahistorical means you plan an Operation that did not occur in the actual war.

Ahistorical is not invisable transports that fly undetected during the night of Dec 6 1941 and appear off Noumea on the 7th Unloading troops.

Ahistorical is Japan deciding to go towards Canton Island rather the Midway in June 1942

Ahistorical is not Japan producing 2k aircraft a month in early 1942 by converting factories placed for the AI's use.

I'm at a loss that people keep misunderstanding such a simple concept. Here is the root of this thread and why Mr Frag thinks it is silly.
Unless you exploit the system you won't get the 4-1 ratio for autovictory that makes the game you want to continue end. Without exploits the game would continue. till at least 1944. (in 1944 2-1 is an AV)
And auto victory is what the AI is playing for. Auto victory is the only victory in WITP. There are no other rules for ending the game except running out of turns. Auto victory means

A. Japan has won the Allies agree to the terms. Japan fought the war to capture resource and hold inflicting loss on enemy till they agreed to terms they have good job Japan

B. Japan surrendered.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/2/2004 5:26:14 PM >

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Popoi)
Post #: 103
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked - 9/3/2004 12:28:41 AM   
mogami


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

Or to just pay somebody $50,000 per year to act as my AI and play by the rules I give him, no questions asked.


I'm your Huckleberry.

_____________________________






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

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 104
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/3/2004 12:31:18 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Holy Cow Thats like Van Gogh being at an exhibtion and explaining one of his paintings to onlookers and being told he knows nothing of art and clearly nothing about this particular artist.

I wonder who understands the game. A person who has been involved for over 4 years or someone who has had the game for 2 months?


That whole point is irrelevant. The Customer is ALWAYS right, no matter what. This isn't fine art, it a mass-market, off-the-shelf, boxed consumer software product (admitted not very massive"). Explain all you want, but you people are wrong to dictate anything or ridicule for that matter. The customer is right, ALWAYS, even when they are wrong, they are STILL right.


quote:


The problem is we can't make anyone use the game as designed if they can find other things to do. I've explained things like the RD aircraft factories in Japan are for the AI.
Without them the AI will not begin producing the correct numbers and types of aircraft when it should. But then I get

"Why give us something and then tell us not to use it"


No matter how hard I look, I cannot find anywhere on the web site, advertising blurbs, or in the manual that explains what the RD stuff is really for. If that's what they are for, then that salient point was never communicated in any fashion, anywhere that matters. This forum does not matter, BTW. Reasonable, sensible, logical purchacers made the perfectly sound, reasoned, and logical conclusion that it was for the same purpose the same system was for in GG's other games that had RD in them. Making the that point, AFTER release, buried in a web forum thread, doesn't cut it.


quote:


The whole point of Mr Frag and I even posting in this thread is that a player will not get the 4-1 in 1943 unless he is exploiting the game. And this is always taken as "You have to play stupid and make mistakes"


I won't argue with that at all. In fact I agree with that, for the most part. But again, the customer is right even when he's wrong. If they want to exploit the AI for 750 more turns after they get to 4:1 then so what? Who cares? Who should care? I don't.

quote:


And the final winning cry was "If they want it give it to them" Now that has been decided several days and many posts ago. Mr Frag and I's contiuned posting here was not our attempt to call any one stupid or sway them to our way of thinking. (Because I fairly certain most people will understand what we are tallking about after they have made around 2000 turns)


I'll likely be long gone from WitP long before I have 2000 turns under my belt. A game's half-life on my computer is roughly three-months. I'm already approaching that this title. I imagine by Christmas I will have grown bored with the whole thing. (Hope my PBEM partner isn't reading this....) Afterall, if you been reading here for a while, I have my own game write. Hard to do that when all my free computer time is eaten up PLAYING a game! (And playing baseball, playing golf, going to college football games, etc.....you know....life).


quote:


Niether one of us cares how you play or what you do. We have only been trying to explain how to get the most out of the game.


Could have fooled me!

quote:


Our great mistake was not catching on very early that there are people who like to believe they can win the game and beat up the AI and don't care how they are doing it as long as the game ends with them in Seattle.


And the problem with that is, again???? The sentence above this one and this one appear to be philosophically 180 out from each other.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 105
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/3/2004 12:32:33 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Amen, sorry to interrupt the love fest for Mr. Frag, but he deserved any and all "abuse" (if you can even call it that ) he recieved in these threads for deliberately going against what such a large amount of people are requesting and repeatedly telling us what we SHOULD enjoy.


Explain to me why I as a "paying customer" have to put up with you?

I think your request is garbage and a waste of the folks I "too" paid for who could be doing something else that actually adds value to the game instead of some "babyfest ego stroke".

I have nothing to do with Matrix Games or 2BY3. I do not represent them. I do not speak for them. I am a paying customer who has the exact same "rights" as anyone else who paid for the game. You want to know what those "rights" are? They are the right to delete the software should I not like it and post messages here that do not violate the forums rules. Period.

2BY3 owes you nothing. The fact that they choose to do more then that is their choice. Threads will this type of crap and "demands" are more likely to make them simply stop and move on. Didn't mommy ever teach you that polite requests are more likely to get you something as opposed to threats and demands?



Well, chalk this one up to yet another one Fraggo lost. They've apparently agreed to make the change!

The point is, you don't just stop at explaining why the request is bad or unreasonable. You RIDICULE people for even wanting it. The mere notion that you bother to put the phrase, "babyfest ego stroke" in your post is prime example. You are even more full of yourself than I am, and that's quite an accomplishment...

< Message edited by ZOOMIE1980 -- 9/2/2004 10:35:55 PM >

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 106
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/3/2004 12:35:32 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, 2000 turns is 1.25 games of WITP

_____________________________






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

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 107
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked - 9/3/2004 12:38:44 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Round and round we go.

Ahistorical is alright. Ahistorical means you plan an Operation that did not occur in the actual war.

Ahistorical is not invisable transports that fly undetected during the night of Dec 6 1941 and appear off Noumea on the 7th Unloading troops.

Ahistorical is Japan deciding to go towards Canton Island rather the Midway in June 1942

Ahistorical is not Japan producing 2k aircraft a month in early 1942 by converting factories placed for the AI's use.

I'm at a loss that people keep misunderstanding such a simple concept. Here is the root of this thread and why Mr Frag thinks it is silly.
Unless you exploit the system you won't get the 4-1 ratio for autovictory that makes the game you want to continue end. Without exploits the game would continue. till at least 1944. (in 1944 2-1 is an AV)
And auto victory is what the AI is playing for. Auto victory is the only victory in WITP. There are no other rules for ending the game except running out of turns. Auto victory means

A. Japan has won the Allies agree to the terms. Japan fought the war to capture resource and hold inflicting loss on enemy till they agreed to terms they have good job Japan

B. Japan surrendered.


I think the jist of this request is players want a "Take the Flag" game, not a game based on accumulating points.

Same as players wanting what they want from RD and open upgrades. They want a builder/conquest, not an operational simulation.... And based on the game literature outside this forum, it appears to the casual observer that that is what they are buying. Thus the irritiation level you see here.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 108
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked - 9/3/2004 12:40:56 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Ok, Zoomie has decided apparantly ... instead of working on aircraft being user selectable, all effort will furthermore be spent working on resolving the crash problems caused by disabling the auto-victory.

Sorry folks, Zoomie has spoken for you all.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 109
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked - 9/3/2004 12:41:29 AM   
fabertong


Posts: 4546
Joined: 2/25/2004
From: Bristol, England, U.K.
Status: offline 		I hate to say this, but I'm really enjoying this game...........and I'd bet I'm not the only one...........some time soon I'll embark on a PBEM, but now I'll relax and enjoy gettting to know the ins and outs of a very involved and involving game.........AI on a game of this complexity is never going to push an experienced player to his, and or her, limits.....but get a grip, relax and enjoy what's there.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 110
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked - 9/3/2004 12:45:14 AM   
Rob322

 

Posts: 578
Joined: 8/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fabertong

I hate to say this, but I'm really enjoying this game...........and I'd bet I'm not the only one...........some time soon I'll embark on a PBEM, but now I'll relax and enjoy gettting to know the ins and outs of a very involved and involving game.........AI on a game of this complexity is never going to push an experienced player to his, and or her, limits.....but get a grip, relax and enjoy what's there.


Get a Grip? On the internet? You must be crazy!

(in reply to fabertong)
Post #: 111
RE: disapointing Victory - 9/3/2004 12:46:35 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, 2000 turns is 1.25 games of WITP


A real problem with this game. I'm already of growing weary of doing the same thing over and over and over an over again and again.

Build Prep Points in invasion force

Accumulate invasion force in staging base.

Accumulate transports

Move air assets in place

Bombard and bomb

Form troop TF

Land troops

Attack and take base

Start building


Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat....... Can't imagine when I get to the point of making a ritual out of defense. Build forts, add CD's units, re-enforce if you can. Watch troops get slaughtered by 5 US Divisions. Rinse and repeat, Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat.....

It's fun now, but after a few hundred rinses and repeats, how fun will it be then???

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 112
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked - 9/3/2004 12:49:26 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Ok, Zoomie has decided apparantly ... instead of working on aircraft being user selectable, all effort will furthermore be spent working on resolving the crash problems caused by disabling the auto-victory.

Sorry folks, Zoomie has spoken for you all.


Wow, the underlieing software design must be even more pathetic than I originally thought, if that's the case....

And I haven't decided anything. It appears Joel and Mike and Co. have decided.....

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 113
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked - 9/3/2004 12:54:17 AM   
Oznoyng

 

Posts: 818
Joined: 4/16/2004
From: Mars
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Ahistorical is not Japan producing 2k aircraft a month in early 1942 by converting factories placed for the AI's use.

You know, in all my thinking about aircraft production, I never once considered doing that? I just dismissed it right out of hand as being an exploit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Unless you exploit the system you won't get the 4-1 ratio for autovictory that makes the game you want to continue end. Without exploits the game would continue. till at least 1944. (in 1944 2-1 is an AV)
And auto victory is what the AI is playing for. Auto victory is the only victory in WITP. There are no other rules for ending the game except running out of turns. Auto victory means


What I find most peculiar is that you seem to be saying that there is no way to win *the game* as Japan. I understand that the idea of winning the war as Japan is nothing more than a fantasy. What I don't understand is the idea that winning the game is a fantasy as well. If the VP are such that it is impossible for Japan to win *the game*, then there is something wrong.

Japan's strategy was based upon inflicting so much damage on the Allies that some kind of peace was negotiated. I don't believe that it would have ever happened, so the logical conclusion of the game for me is not some VP total, but the date on which Japan surrenders. For me, VP is only appropriate as an expression of Japan's will to continue the fight, not the Allies willingness to accept a negotiated peace. In other words, I believe Japan should surrender on points, but the Allies never should. The end should come when the Allies reach a multiple of VP over Japan, and the date that occurs on relative to August 45 is the measure of how bad the Allies trounced Japan.

Even in our game, (and if you don't get my turn tonight, you will get it tommorrow since I am taking Friday off) I want to play from the mindset of inflicting major damage, securing the SRA, and holding on as long as I can, not from the mindset of accumulating VP. I will pursue VP to an extent because I have to, but I would prefer a game (campaign game) that ended with a Japanese Surrender.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 114
exploit? - 9/3/2004 12:57:33 AM   
Popoi

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 9/1/2004
Status: offline 		Mogami

I kinda understand where you're going, but it bugs me when a game craps out because of what some calls *ai exploits*.

As a hypothetical example with respect to gameplay, not for WITP in particular:

If the AI is programmed to always take one particular route with unescorted Oilers between A and B. and i discover it by chance during the game, and set up constant sub patrols to intercept. And if the AI is so poorly programmed that it cannot adapt to something this simple, such as stepping up escorts, changing the route, or increasing ASW warfare in that area.

Then, sure, this is an AI exploit.. But what the heck! Do we, as end-users, have to know how the bloody game is programmed in order to avoid "disappointing victories"? OK fine, i challenge the developers to post the AI code here, so i can see what i shouldn't do in game.

Seriously though, if an AI is poorly programmed and people step to the plate and say "Fine, you got us, you noticed that our AI sucks, and if you're interested in Single-Player you will most probably be disappointed." on the box, then i would be happy. In fact, some games don't even support single player - multi only. And THAT'S OK. But if you have a game with an AI that stinks (not this game, i'm mostly content with the AI) and try to push the game as a viable single-player game, then people will complain, and rightfully so.


(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 115
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked - 9/3/2004 1:05:45 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Ahistorical is not Japan producing 2k aircraft a month in early 1942 by converting factories placed for the AI's use.

You know, in all my thinking about aircraft production, I never once considered doing that? I just dismissed it right out of hand as being an exploit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Unless you exploit the system you won't get the 4-1 ratio for autovictory that makes the game you want to continue end. Without exploits the game would continue. till at least 1944. (in 1944 2-1 is an AV)
And auto victory is what the AI is playing for. Auto victory is the only victory in WITP. There are no other rules for ending the game except running out of turns. Auto victory means


What I find most peculiar is that you seem to be saying that there is no way to win *the game* as Japan. I understand that the idea of winning the war as Japan is nothing more than a fantasy. What I don't understand is the idea that winning the game is a fantasy as well. If the VP are such that it is impossible for Japan to win *the game*, then there is something wrong.

Japan's strategy was based upon inflicting so much damage on the Allies that some kind of peace was negotiated. I don't believe that it would have ever happened, so the logical conclusion of the game for me is not some VP total, but the date on which Japan surrenders. For me, VP is only appropriate as an expression of Japan's will to continue the fight, not the Allies willingness to accept a negotiated peace. In other words, I believe Japan should surrender on points, but the Allies never should. The end should come when the Allies reach a multiple of VP over Japan, and the date that occurs on relative to August 45 is the measure of how bad the Allies trounced Japan.

Even in our game, (and if you don't get my turn tonight, you will get it tommorrow since I am taking Friday off) I want to play from the mindset of inflicting major damage, securing the SRA, and holding on as long as I can, not from the mindset of accumulating VP. I will pursue VP to an extent because I have to, but I would prefer a game (campaign game) that ended with a Japanese Surrender.


Kind of like a Take the Flag game. What defines "surrender"? A game where Japan has lost it's last city? Either that or the game runs out turns. Points are calculated only on a +- from actual VJ Day.... I like that idea.

(in reply to Oznoyng)
Post #: 116
Customers - 9/3/2004 1:10:48 AM   
dr. smith

 

Posts: 221
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: lost in space
Status: offline 		Well, when some people say "the customer is always right" it scares me. Some customers are whack jobs.

Community input is nice but it can go overboard, you have to keep it in some scope and perspective. If you want the AI to be Machavellian (sneaks into your house, schtoops your wife, takes your dog, sinks your CV) you're gonna need a Cray.

Its amazing what's in this game now, the whole friggin Pacific with every ship and REMF (rear echelon "chaps") known in the theater. Betcha even my dad's scow is here!

If I can beat the AI on historical, I'm happy! If I pay $70 for a game I want to "win" it once in a while. Don't want it to be too easy, and be harder on different settings, but still want the chance to win, and I think I'll have it after I get my 2k hours in! Until then, ain't the beer cold, and "You SUNK my Battleship!!" (that's the type of AI we all started with playing Naval games
)

(in reply to fabertong)
Post #: 117
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked - 9/3/2004 1:11:26 AM   
Oznoyng

 

Posts: 818
Joined: 4/16/2004
From: Mars
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Kind of like a Take the Flag game. What defines "surrender"? A game where Japan has lost it's last city? Either that or the game runs out turns. Points are calculated only on a +- from actual VJ Day.... I like that idea.


Sort of, only I would not want it to be to the last city. Historically, Japan surrendered. Finding a way to quantify a "hopeless situation" that caused Japan to capitulate should be possible. I would probably tie it to percent of HI damaged, Manpower losses, etc, in addition to the pure VP ratio.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 118
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked - 9/3/2004 1:13:12 AM   
samuraigg

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline 		We won guys, let Frag whine all he wants.

Furthermore.

quote:

"babyfest ego stroke".


Nice way to address a legimiate request from fellow customers. You are the ultimate in maturity and debate skills. When you can't find a real argument against the toggle, you give it a pet name and rant, rant, rant.

quote:

I have nothing to do with Matrix Games or 2BY3. I do not represent them. I do not speak for them.


Its a good thing too, you would piss the customers off and drive them away.

quote:

2BY3 owes you nothing. The fact that they choose to do more then that is their choice.


When did I say I wasn't appreciative of their effots? WITP is a fantastic game, and I'm thrilled they continue to support it the way they do.

quote:

Didn't mommy ever teach you that polite requests are more likely to get you something as opposed to threats and demands?


I don't see any demands. Where did I ever use the word "demand". I must be going blind, I'm searching all of my posts on this forum and I can't find it. Same thing goes for threat... I must need glasses...

< Message edited by samuraigg -- 9/2/2004 11:20:27 PM >

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 119
RE: Customers - 9/3/2004 1:13:57 AM   
Oznoyng

 

Posts: 818
Joined: 4/16/2004
From: Mars
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dr. smith

Well, when some people say "the customer is always right" it scares me. Some customers are whack jobs.

/agree. Most companies could reduce their workforce by 50 percent if they could terminate 20 percent of their customers.

(in reply to dr. smith)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: disapointing Victory Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

1.219