RE: Customers

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: Customers

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: Customers

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Customers - 9/3/2004 1:15:55 AM

Mr.Frag

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

quote:

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

More like 80% for 10%.

(in reply to Oznoyng)

Post #: 121

RE: This is why Close Combat sucked - 9/3/2004 1:18:26 AM

Mr.Frag

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

quote:

We won guys, let Frag whine all he wants.

Because of your mouth, no more fixed games for people who want them. I have better things to do with my time. Happy trails.

(in reply to samuraigg)

Post #: 122

RE: exploit? - 9/3/2004 1:20:01 AM

ZOOMIE1980

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Popoi

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.

Excellent point! Goes hand in hand with my complaint about the lack of communication on behalf of the developers/testers. I have no real problem with the points Mogami and Frag make concerning how to play and why things are done the way they are done. I try and play according to what they say, knowing that doing so is going to maximize my enjoyment.

Problem is, these points are only found HERE. And I'd be willing to bet less than 1% of the purchasers of this game EVER read this forum. You look in the other informational areas, the game web site, the Matrix blurbs, and the manuals, and you see NONE of this. Not any of it. There is not a sinlge note in the manual about HOW to play the AI vs how to play a human. The only mention we have of Japanese production, reasearch and deployment is the "player has full control". Well what does that mean? To players of other GG's titles that have that in them, the meaining is CLEAR AS DAY! TO others it means what it says. No mention of dead-end upgrades, fixed upgrades or anything, just FULL CONTROL.

The real irritation comes when they get mad at players for making these perfectly LOGICAL and perfectly REASONABLE conclusions when they bought the game only to find out differently afterwords! They are getting mad at players because players are making some false but UNDERSTANDABLE AND REASONABLE assumptions! The only ones making UNREASONABLE assumption are them

1) Most players read the forum. Patently FALSE. Not even close to reality

2) Most players play PBEM. THe AI is only for training. Again FALSE, not anywhere close to reality.

3) Players will not get mad when advertised features are not there in the fashion expected once they have been imparted the infinite wisdom of the beta testers. Well we know how that has gone down!

(in reply to Popoi)

Post #: 123

RE: exploit? - 9/3/2004 1:22:47 AM

samuraigg

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

quote:

Because of your mouth, no more fixed games for people who want them. I have better things to do with my time. Happy trails.

The toggle is going to be looked into by the devs, looks like a great fix for me.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 124

RE: Customers - 9/3/2004 1:25:50 AM

tsimmonds

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

quote:

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.

Actually, I think what most of us have on our desktops are at least that powerful already. But we know what you mean. Baaaaaaaaaaadass computer!

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to dr. smith)

Post #: 125

RE: Customers - 9/3/2004 1:27:01 AM

ZOOMIE1980

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng

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.

While I agree with that, for the most part, at least two of these requests are by far more than 20% of the customers, at least of the ones posting here. Upwards 80% supported some sort of change in the RD/Upgrade model. Probably about 80% or so want to continue on after auto-victory. We "fire" customers here periodically as well. But equating this request and the upgrade thing with a few troublesome customers is off the mark. These are widely requested features. And most aren't complaining, just requesting. Frag has a way of turning a request into a complaint or a whine, though.

(in reply to Oznoyng)

Post #: 126

RE: This is why Close Combat sucked - 9/3/2004 1:27:30 AM

ZOOMIE1980

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

We won guys, let Frag whine all he wants.

Because of your mouth, no more fixed games for people who want them. I have better things to do with my time. Happy trails.

Like what?

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 127

RE: exploit? - 9/3/2004 1:31:04 AM

mogami

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

Hi, Find a hex the AI uses for convoy and then targeting that hex is not an exploit becuase you have developed your intell and used it. However the next game you play you start with an exploit if you want it. You don't have to do the work that lead to the discovery the first time round. (when you had assets deployed in hexes that did not provide targets)
Many players begin games and then start over but bring with them the knowledge learned in the games they retart. They use this and then think "boy the AI is bad"

In actual war. When important things (like real lives and items that cost a lot of money to produce) are at risk commanders never learn details of enemy behavour for long periods.
If however they had certain knowledge they would "exploit" it. Really we are all trying to "exploit" something in every contest we engage in. Find the enemy weak point in the line and exploit it with an attack that creates a breakthrough. However we have to do the work. We have to search out the weakness and understand it for what it is. If we know before hand a perfectly safe approach that we use we cannot claim to have done anything.
The AI will change some of it's habits. It does not play every game just the same but it still only has a limited amount of choices and over time you will see something and think "The AI is doing xx,yy like it did in game number 2" and then without having anything except knowledge not gathered in this game deploy your forces.
The AI is not altogether weak and it should achieve surprise from time to time. Then again is has been directed to do certain things based on what occured in WWII (not in the current game because no one can know in advance what will happen) When you recognize the pattern knowing you are playing a machine you can take advantage. When I play the AI and I see that "oh there it goes again building up ships at base xx,yy" I don't just move every bomber I have to range of base xx,yy First I fly my recon like always. When I find something through the game mechanics that in any other game against any other opponent I would think worth developing I take the action to develop it on map. I have a lousey record on this forum making myself understood. I only mean I don't shift gears just because I know what the AI is doing unless I can convince myself my on map commander with the data I have from just the game being played would come to the same conclusions.
I know where every unit on the map is. If I see a unit in the combat animation I know where it has moved from. I know all the ships. All the airgroups. I could as Japan compose a turn 1 using every allowable routine of WITP that would knock your socks off. And I doubt there is a Japanese player that can invent anything I did not right away understand the who and whats of as soon as the first animation was shown. I know where and how to set up allied defense from Karachi to USA. If I needed a force to punish the enemy with I know where what I need is and how long it will take to get there. One turn 1 I set objectives for Japanese units 120 turns in advance because I want them to be at 100 when the day comes for their attack. If I chose I could be the master exploiter of WITP versus AI or human. (I'd use Mr Frag for my mirth) However there is no enjoyment for me in that. I still as Japan operate in the dark. And as Allied player I only do what the game dictates I do. I don't think anyone would enjoy playing me in "Exploit" mode. And I would not be proving anything.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Popoi)

Post #: 128

RE: This is why Close Combat sucked - 9/3/2004 1:31:58 AM

John B

Posts: 100
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline

One problem is whether we want WitP to be a game or a simulation. My understanding when I bought it was that it was primarily a simulation, maybe more a learning tool about the Pacific War than a "game" for competitive play. Now as a simulation, played historically or ahistorically against the level of AI which best suits the individual player, it seems to me to work OK. In my second play of the Campaign Game (restarted after the patch) I'm through to May 1942, playing Allied against AI "Hard". So far the AI has a points lead of just under three to one. I can't see it reaching 4:1 unless I make a major blunder, as the fightback is beginning,and the Japs slowing down, but I also doubt my reaching a winning margin until well into 1945.

Now played competitively and disregarding to some significant degree historical realities, its probably fairly easy to bamboozle the AI, which is never going to have the flexibility of a human opponent. But playing that way, sooner or later the point is reached where what is being played isn't WWII in the Pacific,as it actually could have happened, but an increasingly abstract "game" with only slightly more resemblance to historical reality than say Civilisation III. Again its perfectly valid to play the game in this way, but there's no reason to expect an AI programmed to react along more or less historical lines, to cope. If indeed the aim is to play "to win" as a competitive game, then getting the necessary score early is maybe what the players should hope to do. However if they want to press on beyond that, maybe a mechanism whereby the auto-victory can be disabled would be good, even though the final result would as a "game" rather than a "simulation". Then everyone can chose which way they want to play.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 129

RE: exploit? - 9/3/2004 1:38:17 AM

ZOOMIE1980

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Find a hex the AI uses for convoy and then targeting that hex is not an exploit becuase you have developed your intell and used it. However the next game you play you start with an exploit if you want it. You don't have to do the work that lead to the discovery the first time round. (when you had assets deployed in hexes that did not provide targets)
Many players begin games and then start over but bring with them the knowledge learned in the games they retart. They use this and then think "boy the AI is bad"

In actual war. When important things (like real lives and items that cost a lot of money to produce) are at risk commanders never learn details of enemy behavour for long periods.
If however they had certain knowledge they would "exploit" it. Really we are all trying to "exploit" something in every contest we engage in. Find the enemy weak point in the line and exploit it with an attack that creates a breakthrough. However we have to do the work. We have to search out the weakness and understand it for what it is. If we know before hand a perfectly safe approach that we use we cannot claim to have done anything.
The AI will change some of it's habits. It does not play every game just the same but it still only has a limited amount of choices and over time you will see something and think "The AI is doing xx,yy like it did in game number 2" and then without having anything except knowledge not gathered in this game deploy your forces.
The AI is not altogether weak and it should achieve surprise from time to time. Then again is has been directed to do certain things based on what occured in WWII (not in the current game because no one can know in advance what will happen) When you recognize the pattern knowing you are playing a machine you can take advantage. When I play the AI and I see that "oh there it goes again building up ships at base xx,yy" I don't just move every bomber I have to range of base xx,yy First I fly my recon like always. When I find something through the game mechanics that in any other game against any other opponent I would think worth developing I take the action to develop it on map. I have a lousey record on this forum making myself understood. I only mean I don't shift gears just because I know what the AI is doing unless I can convince myself my on map commander with the data I have from just the game being played would come to the same conclusions.
I know where every unit on the map is. If I see a unit in the combat animation I know where it has moved from. I know all the ships. All the airgroups. I could as Japan compose a turn 1 using every allowable routine of WITP that would knock your socks off. And I doubt there is a Japanese player that can invent anything I did not right away understand the who and whats of as soon as the first animation was shown. I know where and how to set up allied defense from Karachi to USA. If I needed a force to punish the enemy with I know where what I need is and how long it will take to get there. One turn 1 I set objectives for Japanese units 120 turns in advance because I want them to be at 100 when the day comes for their attack. If I chose I could be the master exploiter of WITP versus AI or human. (I'd use Mr Frag for my mirth) However there is no enjoyment for me in that. I still as Japan operate in the dark. And as Allied player I only do what the game dictates I do. I don't think anyone would enjoy playing me in "Exploit" mode. And I would not be proving anything.

I do the exact same thing in hotseat games with myself. I know the Japanese are planning to send a large invasion force to east end of New Guinea in Apr 42 to attempt to take Port Morseby before the big USA divsions begin to arrive. But as the Allied side, I intend to maintain current operations until my recon and sigint tell me something differently. Only THEN will I start to develop a counter.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 130

RE: Customers - 9/3/2004 1:42:10 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

The Customer is ALWAYS right, no matter what.

One of the nuttier notions ever uttered (not saying it originates with you). Customers are often idiots that have no idea what they're asking for. Consider Hitler and the ME262.

At best, the customer must be made to feel as though he is right and that his request has top priority (Perhaps available as an option on a future model, in the meantime would you like to lease this one or purchase it outright?) while getting the customer to shut up and buy that which is available.

quote:

This isn't fine art, it a mass-market, off-the-shelf, boxed consumer software product (admitted not very massive").

One of the characteristics of "off the shelf" products is that you buy and use them "as is." You don't buy a radio and complain that it's not a television.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Oznoyng)

Post #: 131

stuff - 9/3/2004 2:28:20 AM

Popoi

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

Mogami

"Then again is has been directed to do certain things based on what occured in WWII (not in the current game because no one can know in advance what will happen) When you recognize the pattern knowing you are playing a machine you can take advantage. When I play the AI and I see that "oh there it goes again building up ships at base xx,yy" I don't just move every bomber I have to range of base xx,yy First I fly my recon like always... "

I can't speak for how the devs made the AI, but if they made an AI that behaves EXACTLY like the force they represent in the game did in WWII, that's REALLY cheap programming in my opinion. That's not even AI, it's just a script. And again, i might just set up the game to continous and Comp vs. Comp.

If you know that the machine will build ships in base X at the start of the game, either because it's scripted or because the AI determines that it's the best base for this that's fine and perfectly reasonable since the AI doesn't carry past knowledge. And we can't really do anything about that.

But I'm talking about "natural" events, where i'm just using a thought process a "normal" commander would do.. I see through recon that his ASW is weak in area A, so i send in submarines there and lo, he is sending unescorted oilers through here, and the AI does nothing to counter my complete shutoff of his fuel transports! That's what i'm talking about being poorly designed AI.

_____________________________

Corsairs hurt

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 132

RE: changes to be made - 9/3/2004 2:43:41 AM

Kikka

Posts: 16
Joined: 3/16/2002
From: Jax, FL
Status: offline

How do you guys know they're looking into changing the aircraft upgrade routine or possibly adding the auto-victory toggle?

Thanks!
Ed. by Kikka to get signature thingy in, hopefully.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Kikka -- 9/2/2004 7:46:44 PM >

(in reply to Popoi)

Post #: 133

RE: stuff - 9/3/2004 2:46:06 AM

steveh11Matrix

Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

I think this thread has ceased to be useful: is there a moderator in the house?

Steve.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Popoi)

Post #: 134

RE: stuff - 9/3/2004 2:58:38 AM

mogami

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

Hi, Popoi. OK I am not an expert on WITP AI set up. This is just how I understand it.
The Japanese AI has several "gambits" It might go to South Pacific it might go to Central Pacific it might go to India. It decides the gambit early in the game and certain bases have their values adjusted to reflect the AI gambit. If it is looking to South Pacific then bases required for India move are lowered in value while those in South Pacific raise. (not VP but a value used only by the AI)
The AI will react to things like your cutting off oil supply but not as rapidly as a hman would. The AI may not consider it worth while early in your effort and only when it needs oil will it take measures to counter and it might not do a good job.
If you direct action towards one of it's high value bases it will react faster and stronger then if you threaten one of the bases it considers of no importance. (you might consider the base priceless but if the AI does not agree it might simply ignore you and then later realize you are hurting it from that base and again make weak, ill timed counter moves.
If you sneak into a base it has given a high value to you could see the AI send force after force to take it.
The Allied AI wants to bomb you. It will try to locate high value ships but it mainly directs action to capturing bases for heavy bombers. It will not move units from restricted HQ.
The Allied AI is very easy to exploit early in the game. Just move too far too fast and get beyond where the AI has decided to defend and it will send TF by you to go to it's pet area. (and you just bomb the parade of TF as they sail by) However if you advance normally the AI will recognize what you are doing and not commit suicide. I mean the base the AI decides is important will not be a base that exposes it to such attack but you can after it picks the base move behind it and the AI will not see the danager before you have extracted a high toll where a human would see the problem as soon as you landed. (does that make sense?) If you stay in your aircontrol and jump to the next base it does not confuse the AI as much as you suddenly appearing 1000 miles out of your air control and taking as yet empty/weak base. The AI would in time form a defense line but you move beyond that early and the Ai goes about setting up the line regardless because the front line bases are still under it's control. The AI divides the map into zones. Each zone it has a "defend" bases and a "capture" base. Often these bases are for periods later in game but if you active the zone prematurely you upset the AI. This is not possible against a human because when you grab the undefended rear base the human knows you are not prepared and simply comes and takes it back as soon as he can. The AI however ignores the move unless it causes it problems and then it cannot accurately access exactly what steps to take to recapture the base.

I have not seen a problem with the Japanese AI early in a game. I'm sure that to a degree my Japanese playing style bothers it in the SRA. (I stay in air cover but I go for the size 4 airfields early on and then have aircontrol over much of SRA so it spins it's wheels for a while)

If we pretend for a moment that WW2 was fought between two AI we can say the Japanese AI preformed well in phase one (when Japan had a good well thought out plan) While the Allied AI did terrible (weak units and no plan) The Japanese AI after that becomes rather weak and ill timed making bad moves and countering late while the Allied AI became rather methodical but solid. The AI will not produce a master piece of Operations tied together with logic and execution. Both the Japanese AI and later the Allied AI are more what I call "brute force" Against a human with resources of space and time it is easy to counter. It produces historic results early in SRA and later in other areas. But it is slow. Most players can run circles around it once they gain control.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/2/2004 8:12:02 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Popoi)

Post #: 135

RE: stuff - 9/3/2004 3:32:43 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

I think this thread has ceased to be useful: is there a moderator in the house?

Steve.

Really! Kinda like a back alley brawl.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to steveh11Matrix)

Post #: 136

RE: stuff - 9/3/2004 3:45:46 AM

neuromancer

Posts: 627
Joined: 5/30/2002
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

I think this thread has ceased to be useful: is there a moderator in the house?

Steve.

Really! Kinda like a back alley brawl.

Indeed, but aren't some of the moderators involved in said brawl?

Who watches the watchers?

BTW: BAD Kikka! No Japanese Me-262s! Bad!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 137

RE: stuff - 9/3/2004 3:54:32 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Wow, this thing spiraled out of control in one Hell of a hurry.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to neuromancer)

Post #: 138

RE: This is why Close Combat sucked - 9/3/2004 10:23:48 AM

Sneer

Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
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.

Here you are wrong cos 4:1 and AV is possible on terms you wrote in this post.
Ahistorical operation which are out of WWII schedule will be not seen by AI. so if you want to take GIlbert ISL or cut off Kwajelein you can do it in mid 42,
same in Salomon campaign
same for Burma campaign where AI leaves half of the forces in Karachi
same for CV engagement if you go with KB on comunication lines

and all besause AI is dumb

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 139

RE: stuff - 9/3/2004 11:07:30 AM

steveh11Matrix

Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

Mogami, out of the smoke and bullets of this thread, that was a great summation of how the ai works. Thanks for posting - posts like this one should never be ignored, but especially so when in a thread like this one where tempers have got "a little frayed".

So, that's the ai in a full map campaign. How does it do in small map games? I mean, for example, South Seas Hypothetical: Anyone tested it out? Fascinating premise for a game: No Midway, KB is alive and well and going to turn up, while there are fewer transport assets for the Allies than you might wish. Main bases are Truk, Noumea and Brisbane. Best of all, the situation is hypothetical so there can be no problem with trying something 'different', or editing to include new/fewer forces, or changing deployments. But I'm not sure how the ai handles small map scenarios, so I can't comment on it.

Steve.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 140

RE: disapointing Victory - 9/3/2004 1:55:05 PM

Adnan Meshuggi

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline

Sorry...

if a human play against the computer, it should be "allowed" to try out all methods to beat him. The fun in a computergame is not to "klick-informations about a historical event - klick - next event..." but "damned, these yellow little people kicked me out of xy, how can i stop em..." or viceversa...

if this is "cheating", the game is worthless. If it is true that there are only event-orientated scripts "react" at certain points, the ai need URGENTLY a reprogramming. Just like stupid aliens in Doom2 compared to more smarter AI-Bots in FarCry... and even they suck...

Sure, against a human it is different, but still nobody can tell me "it is silly"... or the conclusion is to say "the game is silly, do not buy it"...

Or has the programmer heared to much to some people who declared, any game that does not follow exactly the historical event is silly ?

Honestly, i love the game. I use the editor to improve the both sides (each side in a different scenario), so i can take the other side to try to beat the enemy...

In BTR it was frustrating... you were far ahead the point system and started to think about how to give the enemy points !
I want a difficult AI to challange, not to create "silly" houserules to not cheat the AI... if i send an unescorted convoy i do it for a purpose... just look at PH... if we would talk in a paralell universe, we would talk about "how silly this was", or look at Operation Cerberus... with logic we would say "no chance, that is a stupid silly move".... hell, i want to make such moves to kick out the enemy - high risk but maybe high sucsess ?!?

So, just let us improve the situation by increasing these damned victory levels... so nobody can achieve an autovictory...

thank you and no bad feelings to anyone... in the end, it is just a game...

_____________________________

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 Mr.Frag)

Post #: 141

RE: This is why Close Combat sucked - 9/3/2004 2:12:04 PM

Adnan Meshuggi

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline

look, yes. If you "cheat" then thi sis no problem...
but the ai has so many downsizes, that you need a second computer to remind yourself about the things you have not to do...

i just want a av-ignoring thing AFTER it was reached (can�t say if this is so difficult)

also, the whoe AV-stuff should be thrown away and replaced by something different - my personell view. If i remember BTR, i must laugh about the point-system.

In reality, they would not care about points. Same in Witp. The allied side had produced just more ships and planes to counter the huge losses. Point.
And i would love to see the ai react this way. It get kicked and withdraw, collect strengh and come back.

But what should i do with Port Moresby or Lunga ? give it up so silly ai come in and can conquer and NOT been slaugtered ? This is the problem. The ai loose in silly turns too much equipment. Do you think the americans had been so stupid to come with 3 CL and 3 DD against the KB, 6 BBs, 8 CA and 40 Destroyers in 5 Taskforces, with cap from 200 fighters and 300 Betties waiting for them ? No, they would have withdrawn and try another way. But the silly victorypoint-system force the ai into death.

Now tell me, what should i do ? Give up Lunga ? Just wait with 2 CA and 3 DD to let the AI win ? That is my problem with it.
As i said, i would play PBEM, but my time system is not very helpful to the other side... and i want to play the game, not wait until someone has time. My opinion is, if i spent with all around 90 Dollars for a game, i should get some fun back. And if i have fun, i should not be forced to end it to a point the enemy can fight back. Cause with loosing all carriers in 42 and 43 and heavy losses in china the allied side still should win. If you can invade west coast, the game is wrong, not the player.

Also, a suggestion, why could we not just count vp for the AI ? So problem is solved ?
Just asking...

_____________________________

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 142

RE: disapointing Victory - 9/3/2004 2:53:15 PM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

It's on the list.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)

Post #: 143

RE: disapointing Victory - 9/3/2004 3:35:04 PM

aspqrz02

Posts: 1024
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

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.

The problem I see is that *Japan* doing better is impossible. Literally.

The US was expending about 15% of the total wartime resources on the PTO, and about 75% on the ETO.

If, by some miracle, the Japanese had done *vastly* better than historically, the US would simply have transferred resources from the ETO to the PTO.

Ergo, a more realistic option for Japan getting to 2:1 or 3:1 or 4:1 would be to vastly speed up the reinforcement rate of the US, bringing in units far in advance of their official arrive by date, and also boosting the replacements available for existing units.

There would, of course, be a victory penalty for this since such a change means that the *main* war, the war in Europe, will, perforce, be extended or much more bloody for the US.

But a Japanese "victory" in the sense of the Japanese winning, or even getting a real armistice, is simply, on such a basic level, silly.

YMMV, of course! :-)

Phil

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 144

RE: disapointing Victory - 9/3/2004 3:46:01 PM

aspqrz02

Posts: 1024
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

[quote ]
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]

The problem is that there is no way that Japan should be *allowed* to achieve a major disparity in victory points beyond, I would guess, 25-50% more than historically. Certainly 2:1 would be a trigger, I would think.

Remember, the PTO was *not* the only war being fought.

And it was *not* the *major* theater of ops for the US.

The US committed around 15% of available military resources to the PTO and around 75% to the ETO.

If the Japanese were to, by the intervention of Alien Space Bats armed with Orbital Mind Control Lasers, for example, do amazingly better than they did historically (the 2:1 threshhold, I would suggest) then the US would begin to transfer forces from the ETO.

How would this be represented?

Easily. Bring forward the arrival date of all units, at least land and ground ones ... you might need to do some special research for the availability of naval replacements ... to represent the commitment of forces previously committed to the ETO and increase the replacement rate for aircraft/infantry/armour/engineers/artillery/vehicles ditto, to represent the increased committment on that level.

There would be a "victory level" penalty for this, representing the fact that the war in Europe would be extended in duration.

But the *real* victory would be that the Japanese were *going down* no matter what.

Or, in short, the game should prevent the Japanese achieving a too wide victory margin beyond a certain point.

That's my .02c anwyway.

Phil

(in reply to steveh11Matrix)

Post #: 145

RE: disapointing Victory - 9/3/2004 4:11:09 PM

viking42

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

Ok i want to recenter a bit the discussion

you guys all think i have used intel against the AI and exploited his stupidity.

THATS FALSE

First of all, I have never told the AI is stupid: when i took suva, the AI changed very fastly his AK path to AUSS so that my bettys couldn't make any victim. I have never found a naval supply path which i used to raise my VP's
I have choosed not to attack the islands before having secured china, that was a strategical decision which might be ahistorical but is not meant by me to loose the AI --> i didn't know the AI coudl be disoriented by players behavior before this tread

My high level of VP's has two origins:
- first is use my CV's only all together, to make an unbeatable force which plunders systematicaly the coast of australia and attracts some lone US cv's which are then sunk (my super-kb has in '43 about 450 planes on it, supported by an AO fleet with 3 CVE's, thats 90 fighters to protect my oilers)
- second, my burma airfields are within range of the indian ports near dacca and within fighter cover, i have sunk nearby al AK's there with a big betty concentration.

I was not sinking AK's for score (i really don't care about score) but to slow down allied supply, so simple is it, the only score which interrests me is the sunken ships amount!!!

I don't see where i "made use of the AI weakness/stupidity" i'm a bit hurt by all those people thinking i was "cheating" the AI, i played as a rookie in the beginning of the campaign, learning bit by bit and taking decisions which i found better than the japanese ones in '42 , is that "bad" not doing exactly what the japanese did?

I had stopped all conquest because even with such an hich VP, i was still afraid of the US and really hoping the would mopping me up till tojo's bed ( i like defensive play) and my victory came absolutely unexpected, i haven't even seen an essex class which was supposed to kick my ass.

I am no keeping playing with my save modified by Mr frag, just to see if the AI will counterattack in 44, that's all i want.

So i never cheated the AI, never was unfair with the AI, never using the AI stupidity (only two times when the attacked suva), and never told the AI was poor cause i just don't know it yet (waiting 44)

Mogami and Frag helped me a lot with their post when i was rookie, i can't take that back from them. But i dot not agree with people which are in early '42 saying the AI is intelligent and defending a camp in this stupid argue fight, man can't even know before '44 if the AI is reactive.

I AM PLAYING WITP VANILLIA cause i started GC first day and didn't want to corrupt it with the patches

< Message edited by viking42 -- 9/3/2004 2:18:11 PM >

(in reply to aspqrz02)

Post #: 146

RE: disapointing Victory - 9/3/2004 4:19:20 PM

barbarrossa

Posts: 359
Joined: 3/25/2004
From: Shangri-La
Status: offline

I've been playing my one game since I loaded it on my HD. No restarts. Historical setting. This is not a "wimpy" setting for those who maintain self-control by not taking advantage of historical knowledge and doing something that would never have happened historically.

I think you have a few camps here in the arguement.

Methodical historical guys who want to employ the same strategic moves and calculate the risks like me.

You've got the "Command and Conquer" crowd who want map domination. Play some RTS and you'll be happy, or PBEM.

The "strategic genius" crowd who want to try thier alternate plan to defeat the enemy with absolutely no historical references except the toys of war involved. Play PBEM.

And that ultra-aggressive "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" type that actually accomplishes that goal in which the Japanese '41-'45 were never able to. Actually, from reading "Japan's War" by Hoyt -- defeating China, holding the natural resources of DEI and the like. Okay big, mean "Co-Prosperity Sphere" types....Tojo wanted to attack the Russians once all this was accomplished historically. So do that, it should lengthen your game quite significantly.

_____________________________

"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe

"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model

(in reply to aspqrz02)

Post #: 147

RE: stuff - 9/3/2004 4:23:23 PM

ZOOMIE1980

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Popoi. OK I am not an expert on WITP AI set up. This is just how I understand it.
The Japanese AI has several "gambits" It might go to South Pacific it might go to Central Pacific it might go to India. It decides the gambit early in the game and certain bases have their values adjusted to reflect the AI gambit. If it is looking to South Pacific then bases required for India move are lowered in value while those in South Pacific raise. (not VP but a value used only by the AI)
The AI will react to things like your cutting off oil supply but not as rapidly as a hman would. The AI may not consider it worth while early in your effort and only when it needs oil will it take measures to counter and it might not do a good job.
If you direct action towards one of it's high value bases it will react faster and stronger then if you threaten one of the bases it considers of no importance. (you might consider the base priceless but if the AI does not agree it might simply ignore you and then later realize you are hurting it from that base and again make weak, ill timed counter moves.
If you sneak into a base it has given a high value to you could see the AI send force after force to take it.
The Allied AI wants to bomb you. It will try to locate high value ships but it mainly directs action to capturing bases for heavy bombers. It will not move units from restricted HQ.
The Allied AI is very easy to exploit early in the game. Just move too far too fast and get beyond where the AI has decided to defend and it will send TF by you to go to it's pet area. (and you just bomb the parade of TF as they sail by) However if you advance normally the AI will recognize what you are doing and not commit suicide. I mean the base the AI decides is important will not be a base that exposes it to such attack but you can after it picks the base move behind it and the AI will not see the danager before you have extracted a high toll where a human would see the problem as soon as you landed. (does that make sense?) If you stay in your aircontrol and jump to the next base it does not confuse the AI as much as you suddenly appearing 1000 miles out of your air control and taking as yet empty/weak base. The AI would in time form a defense line but you move beyond that early and the Ai goes about setting up the line regardless because the front line bases are still under it's control. The AI divides the map into zones. Each zone it has a "defend" bases and a "capture" base. Often these bases are for periods later in game but if you active the zone prematurely you upset the AI. This is not possible against a human because when you grab the undefended rear base the human knows you are not prepared and simply comes and takes it back as soon as he can. The AI however ignores the move unless it causes it problems and then it cannot accurately access exactly what steps to take to recapture the base.

I have not seen a problem with the Japanese AI early in a game. I'm sure that to a degree my Japanese playing style bothers it in the SRA. (I stay in air cover but I go for the size 4 airfields early on and then have aircontrol over much of SRA so it spins it's wheels for a while)

If we pretend for a moment that WW2 was fought between two AI we can say the Japanese AI preformed well in phase one (when Japan had a good well thought out plan) While the Allied AI did terrible (weak units and no plan) The Japanese AI after that becomes rather weak and ill timed making bad moves and countering late while the Allied AI became rather methodical but solid. The AI will not produce a master piece of Operations tied together with logic and execution. Both the Japanese AI and later the Allied AI are more what I call "brute force" Against a human with resources of space and time it is easy to counter. It produces historic results early in SRA and later in other areas. But it is slow. Most players can run circles around it once they gain control.

AI seems to be missing some sanity checks. Granted, every check consumes another set of CPU cycles in the turn resolution. But with a handful of sanity checks coupled with some matching response routines, the AI could make a decent shot at countering outrageous human moves.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 148

RE: disapointing Victory - 9/3/2004 4:30:44 PM

dr. smith

Posts: 221
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: lost in space
Status: offline

viking42:
I feel for ya, man! All you wanted to know was: "hey I kicked ass, can I play longer?" and it turned into this big Godzilla vs. Motha without the zippers in the back of the rubber suits (which should be fitted for a few posters

)

I think you turned out to be the somewhat bumbling but semi-helpful Japanese scientist who eventually gets repeatedly stomped on by Godzy and Motha while they fight in the ruins of Tokyo.

In the old PacWar I always wanted to do a little more when I got AutoVict, and that's all you wanted to do. Once you invest a HELLUVA lot of time in the game, you don't want to be cut off when you still want to do more. But it should NOT be a start of game toggle, but one you can changed at any time. Spent too many hours doing a boring click-fest to "Total Victory", way past the time the AI presented a challenge.

(in reply to viking42)

Post #: 149

RE: disapointing Victory - 9/3/2004 5:00:57 PM

viking42

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

your the first guy to understand me in this story

all the others are fighting a kind of ideological crusade which was absolutely nothing to do with what i expressed in the first lines........ and no one seems to have seen the point.....

very sad, btw........

(in reply to dr. smith)

Post #: 150