rwork? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series



Message

gdpsnake -> rwork? (7/19/2007 6:04:28 PM)

I have all the versions of the campaign series which had MANY flaws. Does this release address any of those flaws or is it just a re-release?
Specifically, when playing the generated campaigns, my troops often got updated with loads of trucks and nothing else. It was sure hard to carry on a campaign when my men and tanks turned into trucks. Sometimes I would get a lot of AT guns and NO transport. In other words, the whole thing got screwy.
Minefields were always hard loaded and one could never place them - they tended to show up in incredibly stupid places as well.
The AI was clownish at best.
I haven't played in years so I can't remember all the gripes that even East Front 2 did not address. I do remember writing feverishly to the Talonsoft group about the campaign series and on several bugs in the battleground series and being somewhat abruptly told: "We are not going to do any more work on these games because fixing them won't generate any more income. Live with it."
At that point I shelved the games and didn't shed any tears when the company went under...gee...wonder why? Customer support?
So unless many of the old issues raised by customers past and present have been addressed, don't expect me to buy simple repackaging.

To that end, what SPECIFICALLY has been done to retool these products? Yes, I read the post on all the new units, OOB's and scenarios but I want to know if the programming has been worked on. More units that still turn into trucks and other CAMPAIGN flaws are what need fixing.



Jason Petho -> RE: rwork? (7/19/2007 6:23:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gdpsnake

I have all the versions of the campaign series which had MANY flaws. Does this release address any of those flaws or is it just a re-release?



Here is a general overview:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1476058

quote:

ORIGINAL: gdpsnake
Specifically, when playing the generated campaigns, my troops often got updated with loads of trucks and nothing else. It was sure hard to carry on a campaign when my men and tanks turned into trucks. Sometimes I would get a lot of AT guns and NO transport. In other words, the whole thing got screwy.


As much as I loathe Dynamic Campaigns, I have spent countless hours trying to fix the Dynamic Campaigns for the Germans in East Front. Now, with the impending 1.02 release, all upgrades are done on company basis. Hence, this should no longer be a bug.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gdpsnake
Minefields were always hard loaded and one could never place them - they tended to show up in incredibly stupid places as well.


Hasn't been looked at yet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gdpsnake
The AI was clownish at best.


The AI is still clownish. Keep in mind, the group that is dedicated to revising the Campaign Series have long been playing against Human opponents. We're quite surprised at the amount of people that play against the computer. This will eventually be looked at, but there are other pressing tasks at the moment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gdpsnake
I haven't played in years so I can't remember all the gripes that even East Front 2 did not address. I do remember writing feverishly to the Talonsoft group about the campaign series and on several bugs in the battleground series and being somewhat abruptly told: "We are not going to do any more work on these games because fixing them won't generate any more income. Live with it."
At that point I shelved the games and didn't shed any tears when the company went under...gee...wonder why? Customer support?


Fortunately, there's a new crew in town.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gdpsnake
So unless many of the old issues raised by customers past and present have been addressed, don't expect me to buy simple repackaging.


Many issues have been addressed, not all, but many.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gdpsnake
To that end, what SPECIFICALLY has been done to retool these products? Yes, I read the post on all the new units, OOB's and scenarios but I want to know if the programming has been worked on. More units that still turn into trucks and other CAMPAIGN flaws are what need fixing.


You'll be happy with the Dynamic Campaigns in East Front, as Germans. The other nations and games will be remedied as I have time.

Jason Petho



benpark -> RE: rwork? (7/19/2007 7:17:07 PM)

"We're quite surprised at the amount of people that play against the computer."

I'm not at all. It is generally known that the majority of players will fight vs. the AI. I would urge you to prioritize that area of updates.



Jason Petho -> RE: rwork? (7/19/2007 7:27:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: benpark

"We're quite surprised at the amount of people that play against the computer."

I'm not at all. It is generally known that the majority of players will fight vs. the AI. I would urge you to prioritize that area of updates.


I am interested in your statistics?

In my experience, especially for the last five years or so, most of the questions I have seen are related to human vs human play.

Jason Petho




lparkh -> RE: rwork? (7/19/2007 7:41:34 PM)

Here's another vote for vs the AI. Campaigns were always popular I believe and those by definition were against AI. I did all the campaigns so lost some interst in playing (the human built campaigns; the dynamic were too broken). Steel Panthers has a lot of people still playing dynamic campaigns I believe so I also suspect there are a lot of AI lurkers ;-)



Huib -> RE: rwork? (7/19/2007 7:56:29 PM)

My opinion is that any work on AI or campaigns is wasted time and energy really. The game is at its best at Human vs Human play and one of the best ever made. The AI will never be more than bad to mediocre no matter how hard one will work on it to get the bugs out and IMO will not attract a long living AI playing fan base. The reason the game has been around so long is for it's outstanding quality as a simulation in play against human opponents and the large fan base it has kept over the years. This heretage must have been one of the key reasons for re-releasing this game.
Over the years a large number of very good scenarios have been created, all for human vs human play.
We should invest in those areas the game is good at and not in those areas where the game has fallen short already in the past.
Make sure the AI and campaigns work as good (or bad) as they did in the Talonsoft version and then let's leave it at that.
I can understand that people like to play AI, but I don't think one can expect much from an AI developed over 10 years ago. I may sound blunt and short but if you want to play against AI there are better games around, if you like to play against humans this is one of the best.

Huib



benpark -> RE: rwork? (7/19/2007 8:10:25 PM)

Statistics. It seems Matrix should have something on file on how many people seem to play vs human or AI. I see nearly all of their games contain an AI, and that many conversations revolve around the subject of whether or not it plays well. That speaks volumes. The folks at Battlefront have said that the vast majority of players of their games are vs the AI (look at the number of registered users of the forums vs. people looking for MP games).



Jason Petho -> RE: rwork? (7/19/2007 8:15:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: benpark

Statistics. It seems Matrix should have something on file on how many people seem to play vs human or AI.


Unless there has been a poll regarding the Campaign Series usage, I am unaware of such statistics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benpark
I see nearly all of their games contain an AI, and that many conversations revolve around the subject of whether or not it plays well. That speaks volumes. The folks at Battlefront have said that the vast majority of players of their games are vs the AI (look at the number of registered users of the forums vs. people looking for MP games).


We are, of course, having a discussion about the Campaign Series, not everything else under the sun. My comments are relevent to the Campaign Series only.

Jason Petho



benpark -> RE: rwork? (7/19/2007 8:34:15 PM)

The AI seems to have won in your poll a while back. Here ya go, right from your own words:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=987835&mpage=1&key=��


quote:

"I so agree with this, and one of the primary reasons I don't like to play online. I just don't have the time to wait for my opponent to meander through a turn. That, and I prefer the longer scenarios.

70% vs AI
30% vs human via PBEM

Take care and good luck
Jason Petho"



Jason Petho -> RE: rwork? (7/19/2007 8:43:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: benpark

The AI seems to have won in your poll a while back. Here ya go, right from your own words:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=987835&mpage=1&key=��


"I so agree with this, and one of the primary reasons I don't like to play online. I just don't have the time to wait for my opponent to meander through a turn. That, and I prefer the longer scenarios.

70% vs AI
30% vs human via PBEM

Take care and good luck
Jason Petho"





Yes, which is still the case.

Keeping in context, most of my AI play is for initial playtesting, bug hunting and LCG creation and testing.

My point is that in my experience over the last five years, I have come across more human vs human users than those that play the AI. With the exception of here at Matrix. Note the "surprised" comment above.

Jason Petho




benpark -> RE: rwork? (7/19/2007 9:03:06 PM)

That would not be a shock if you are around human vs human players at the Blitz. That is rather unscientific in itself.

From your own poll "here at Matrix", it seems that many that have purchased this series again hope for some ongoing improvements to the AI. The hope for me with these re-issues that Matrix are doing is that upgrades will be forthcoming in all areas of the games. I don't expect revolutionary change, but a little can go far. If your vocal MP group has a set of issues that demand fixing, and that is the priority, fine with me, they deserve it as well as the next person that bought it.

My point being, again that I would hope that some attention is given to the game's AI in a near future patch. Is this sounding unreasonable?



benpark -> RE: rwork? (7/19/2007 9:05:00 PM)

Thanks for cleaning up my messy quoting skills.



Jason Petho -> RE: rwork? (7/19/2007 9:13:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: benpark

That would not be a shock if you are around human vs human players at the Blitz. That is rather unscientific in itself.


That would be assuming that my only experience in answering questions is at the Blitz. Which is not the case.


quote:

ORIGINAL: benpark
From your own poll "here at Matrix",


Again, noting my surprise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benpark
it seems that many that have purchased this series again hope for some ongoing improvements to the AI. The hope for me with these re-issues that Matrix are doing is that upgrades will be forthcoming in all areas of the games. I don't expect revolutionary change, but a little can go far. If your vocal MP group has a set of issues that demand fixing, and that is the priority, fine with me, they deserve it as well as the next person that bought it.


There are additions coming with the 1.02 patch that, although does not do anything to improve the AI's performance, can make playing the AI more challenging. Enhanced Concealment and Terrain Modifier rules, for example.


quote:

ORIGINAL: benpark
My point being, again that I would hope that some attention is given to the game's AI in a near future patch. Is this sounding unreasonable?


Will the AI be looked at in a future release? Yes.

Will the AI be looked at in a near future release? Probably not. Of course, 'near' is relative.

Jason Petho



Jason Petho -> RE: rwork? (7/19/2007 9:14:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: benpark

Thanks for cleaning up my messy quoting skills.


No problem!

Jason Petho



benpark -> RE: rwork? (7/19/2007 9:14:55 PM)

Good enough for my ears.



1925frank -> RE: rwork? (7/19/2007 9:57:33 PM)

I've always thought the Campaign Series, from its inception at Talonsoft, was driven and designed for human vs. human, and the AI component was little more than a concession to marketing.  How else can you explain the "Battle Generator" and the weak AI?

I'm an AI player.  Jason has thrown us AI players more than a few bones.  As a practical matter, I think the human vs. human component will always be what drives this game, and the AI component will simply have to benefit from its wake. 





rickier65 -> RE: rwork? (7/19/2007 10:42:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho


quote:

ORIGINAL: benpark

"We're quite surprised at the amount of people that play against the computer."

I'm not at all. It is generally known that the majority of players will fight vs. the AI. I would urge you to prioritize that area of updates.


I am interested in your statistics?

In my experience, especially for the last five years or so, most of the questions I have seen are related to human vs human play.

Jason Petho





I'm not sure where to find statistics, but I've been playing wargames since 1970, and computer wargames since the commodore 64 days. I almost always play against AI not against human opponent.

Rick



Jason Petho -> RE: rwork? (7/19/2007 10:55:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rick

I'm not sure where to find statistics, but I've been playing wargames since 1970, and computer wargames since the commodore 64 days. I almost always play against AI not against human opponent.

Rick



Yes, I understand that.. many players play many games solitaire.

Just trying to keep the notation revelent to the Campaign Series only.

Jason Petho



tide1212 -> RE: rwork? (7/19/2007 11:11:26 PM)

I played against the AI for years and really enjoyed it. I was very reluctant to play PBEM but got a very good mentor and was hooked on PBEM and now that online play has been fixed I get to play a couple of hours almost every night [:D]  



TAIL GUNNER -> RE: rwork? (7/19/2007 11:47:11 PM)

I think a simple check something along these lines would help our inept AI greatly:

If "attack_value" <or= "defender_modified_defensive_value" * .5
then "do_not_fire"

Something like that would cause the AI to not waste action points firing pointless value "1" or "2" shots from range that have no chance of hurting the defender.



rickier65 -> RE: rwork? (7/20/2007 12:21:37 AM)



Jason,

Of course, but I was including campaign series along with that. I bought the origianl East Front, and West Front, and also East Front II. And bought JT's Camp Serieis here just a few weeks ago. I've never played anything but the computer in the Campaign series. (just clarifying my earlier message).

Rick



1925frank -> RE: rwork? (7/20/2007 1:20:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tide1212

I played against the AI for years and really enjoyed it. I was very reluctant to play PBEM but got a very good mentor and was hooked on PBEM and now that online play has been fixed I get to play a couple of hours almost every night [:D]  


I think that's why I've never made the leap. Finding and navigating this forum is something I'm still patting myself on the back for. Also, I've got a passel of kids underfoot. I count myself lucky if I can go to the bathroom without getting interrupted. I'd probably drive any opponent crazy with the delays. I wouldn't imagine the players would play through an entire game. How does it work? Do players agree to play for an hour and then agree to meet on-line the next day? Is there like a chat box, or do you communicate like a regular e-mail with an attachment, with the attachment being the game?



rich12545 -> RE: rwork? (7/20/2007 1:30:36 AM)

I've been playing computer wargames for more than 25 years and I always play against the AI.  So I vote for attention in that area.  [;)]



Jim D Burns -> RE: rwork? (7/20/2007 2:05:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho
My point is that in my experience over the last five years, I have come across more human vs human users than those that play the AI. With the exception of here at Matrix. Note the "surprised" comment above.


The reason you haven’t seen any AI players still interested in this series over the past 5 years, is because they gave up on the series long ago.

Were you around back in the Talonsoft days (8+ years ago), you’d have realized 90% of the posts on the forums then concerned solitaire play issues. When Talonsoft went away, all those players gave up on ever seeing the series getting fixed and quit playing. This re-release was the hope that finally something would be done after all these years.

Those solitaire players have returned now with the new release in hopes that finally something has been done to fix the *issues* with the series.

I have finally purchased the game after reading you recent posts concerning fixing the dynamic campaigns. I truly hope you won’t give up on that goal as I am like most people who purchased this re-release, I’ll only ever play it solitaire and I will consider my money to have been wasted if the dynamic campaign isn’t finally fixed.

I realize the AI is a completely different kettle of fish, but things like replacement points generated between the larger sized battles, numbers of turns generated for larger battles, the truck issue raised by someone else, etc. all need to be looked at to at least make the dynamic campaign engine work as advertised.

Getting the setups to at least bunch organizations to within their parent HQ’s command radius would be awesome as well, but I realize this is part of the core program and would take some advanced programming to fix.

Jim



rickier65 -> RE: rwork? (7/20/2007 2:49:54 AM)

Jason,

I hope you don't take some of the posts here as criticism. I know mine arent meant that way at all. I just wantted you to know that I think there is a big pool of players who only, or mainly play against the AI, and that any work in the area of improving solitaire playability would be welcomed.

But again, this isn't meant as a criticism at all, I'm glad you folks got this game back on my radar.

As a point of reference, I actually used to play the old AH Squad Leader board game solitaire as well. (along with some old Civil War board games from SPI). So I have a pretty low bar for solitaire playability. (in fact, I'm only waiting for patch 2 to fix the horses and trucks that shoot back to get back into a campaign VS the AI).

Thanks for your hard work both on the game and in these forums ansering questions.

Rick



Jason Petho -> RE: rwork? (7/20/2007 3:04:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rick

I hope you don't take some of the posts here as criticism.


No, not at all. Tis understandable and relatively reasonable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rick
I know mine arent meant that way at all. I just wanted you to know that I think there is a big pool of players who only, or mainly play against the AI, and that any work in the area of improving solitaire playability would be welcomed.


It is noted, of course. Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rick
But again, this isn't meant as a criticism at all, I'm glad you folks got this game back on my radar.


Me too, I am a diehard fan of the Campaign Series.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rick
As a point of reference, I actually used to play the old AH Squad Leader board game solitaire as well. (along with some old Civil War board games from SPI). So I have a pretty low bar for solitaire playability. (in fact, I'm only waiting for patch 2 to fix the horses and trucks that shoot back to get back into a campaign VS the AI).


Hopefully it released soon... not sure what the hold up is!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rick
Thanks for your hard work both on the game and in these forums ansering questions.


No problem. Tis my pleasure!

Jason Petho



Jason Petho -> RE: rwork? (7/20/2007 3:10:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
The reason you haven’t seen any AI players still interested in this series over the past 5 years, is because they gave up on the series long ago.


Fair enough.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
Were you around back in the Talonsoft days (8+ years ago), you’d have realized 90% of the posts on the forums then concerned solitaire play issues.



Yes I was... and that's why I qouted 5 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
When Talonsoft went away, all those players gave up on ever seeing the series getting fixed and quit playing. This re-release was the hope that finally something would be done after all these years.


Duly noted.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
Those solitaire players have returned now with the new release in hopes that finally something has been done to fix the *issues* with the series.


One can only do so much!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
I have finally purchased the game after reading you recent posts concerning fixing the dynamic campaigns. I truly hope you won’t give up on that goal as I am like most people who purchased this re-release, I’ll only ever play it solitaire and I will consider my money to have been wasted if the dynamic campaign isn’t finally fixed.


No, I won't give up on fixing the Dynamic Campaigns. I may loathe them, but it is apparent there are a number of people who play them, so am I taking time out of my scenario design to fix them. Or do what I can, anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
I realize the AI is a completely different kettle of fish,



quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
but things like replacement points generated between the larger sized battles


I hope I fixed this with the 1.02 patch. Hope being the key word.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
numbers of turns generated for larger battles,


Haven't figured that out yet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
the truck issue raised by someone else, etc. all need to be looked at to at least make the dynamic campaign engine work as advertised.


The truck issue should be fixed with the new company level upgrades.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
Getting the setups to at least bunch organizations to within their parent HQ’s command radius would be awesome as well, but I realize this is part of the core program and would take some advanced programming to fix.


Out of my league, unfortunately. But hopefully someone else in the team can remedy that at a later date.

Jason Petho



1925frank -> RE: rwork? (7/20/2007 7:51:42 AM)

I vote we take up a fund to have Jason cloned.  I remember selling kool-aid on street corners as a kid for 10 cents.  They'd go easily for 25 cents today, perhaps even more on a hot day.  Maybe we'd get lucky, and some old duffer would throw us a dollar and tell us to keep the kool-aid.  There's a profit margin even Donald Trump would be proud of.  Then again, doesn't he run casinos, where people throw boatloads of money at him and get nothing in return?  Those of us with more capital could also sell popcorn.  I haven't been to a movie theatre for years, but even way back when a tub of popcorn cost about 4 dollars -- after the price of admission, which wasn't peanuts.  Set that baby up on a street corner, and it'd look like a bargain at 3 dollars a tub.  Why cloning, you ask?  Well, where else are we gonna find someone who does what Jason does and put up with all the grief too?  We're more likely to find a clone.



Brother Jayne -> RE: rwork? (7/20/2007 8:26:01 AM)

Hmm
I too am a vs AI player myself, and am rather intrested in the improvment of the AI.
Just my 2 cents



berto -> RE: rwork? (7/20/2007 8:58:30 AM)

I've been playing wargames for 45+ years, and in all that time 99% or more of my games have been either solitaire (board games) or against the AI (computer games).

No, I'm not the most social person, but more to the point, I play in fits and starts. I would surely give any on-line or PBEM human opponent the fits by my odd playing rhythms and schedules. I also like to stop every now and then to "smell the roses"--ponder my past moves, ponder my next move, admire the pretty counters and mapwork--"wargames as living works of art" as my wargaming brother puts it.

So, my vote, too, is a call for improved AI.

My guess is that AI-only players are the silent majority. Players who prefer human opponents by their nature participate more in public fora, while AI-only (aka solitaire) players tend to keep to themselves. Just my guess.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.328125