maximum cheating

maximum cheating (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> WW2: Road to Victory

Message

gwgardner -> maximum cheating (9/25/2008 8:40:02 PM)
Hopefully the next patch will address the AI. I suggest the developers allow maximum cheating by the AI. Even if fog of war is set less than 20 hexes by the player in preferences, let the AI have max vision. Give it full info on any enemy units within sight. In short, the developers should not limit the AI's info, so that it can make the best possible decisions. For defense, while the cities are of crucial importance, the AI needs to maintain a front with at least linked zones of control. It needs to maintain depth, to help in dealing with breakthroughs. Making the AI algorithms follow a few simple rules like that will make it far better than what is available now. In my current game, I gave the AI Allies the most production points in preferences, but ended up plunging through Luxembourg to Paris totally unabated. Not a single enemy unit oppsed me all the way, letting me surround Paris. I even hit end turn three times in a row without any attacks on my part, and still the Allies AI did nothing to set up a front. On offense, much the same. Let the AI take advantage of any info available with regard to the enemy in front of it. Breakthroughs by the AI have to be sustainable, followed up by plenty of infantry, and protected against multiple-hex counter-attacks. All of the above is no doubt obvious - I just hope the developers are actually working on it.

geozero -> RE: maximum cheating (9/25/2008 9:36:54 PM)
I'm not sure that complete FOW is right for a strategic level game. If this was a tactical or even operational level, I can see that FOW would work and you "could" sneak units here and there and not have intel on enemy. But in a strategic level game, moving corps sized units, air groups or capital ships would have been detected. In fact they were almost always detected by the other side. Sure a few smaller units might sneak through, but major units would be seen. Then again, if FOW is meant for PBEM this is also odd. Generally most people will tend to play the sequence of fighting pretty much historical, i.e., attack Poland, rush back to the west, attack low countries/France, maybe Scandanavia, then rush back east to attack Russia by mid-1941, otherwise they are too strong later, and triggers could bring them into war anyway. Also Africa, Yugoslavia, and Greece might be attacked/defended, etc. So any smart PBEM player would prepare for these things. FOW doesn't make the game any tougher on the AI, and once you understand the war sequence, it's fairly simply to prepare.

balenami1291 -> RE: maximum cheating (9/25/2008 10:07:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geozero But in a strategic level game, moving corps sized units, air groups or capital ships would have been detected. In fact they were almost always detected by the other side. Sure a few smaller units might sneak through, but major units would be seen. I agree but I think Fow is not erased at all Early Days of sepetmber 1944 West front. Allies was preparing the all times' greatest airborn operation. No adverse conditions for Intelligence: Total air superiority Not so heavy weather for air reconnaissance Great Sized ,scatered and nor difficulty to search ready-to-fight units: Dutch resistance activity. I prefer to quote wikipedia because has very better english than mine: quote: ORIGINAL: Wikipedia Several reports about the German movements by the Dutch resistance had reached Allied command by September 10, including identification of German armour units. Although planning was in its later stages, SHAEF Chief of Staff General Walter Bedell Smith flew to 21st Army Group headquarters to suggest several possible changes in the plan which Montgomery was unable or unwilling to institute. When an aerial reconnaissance flight returned with pictures clearly showing German tanks only 15km (9 miles) from the British drop zones, they were dismissed by Montgomery, with the (unfounded) assumption that the tanks were non-serviceable. So I think a limeted FOW activity can exsist in Strategic level since Intelligence activity sometimes is not so good or High commanders, that don't read unit force value upon it, can take the wrong decision just my 2 cents

Mike Dubost -> RE: maximum cheating (9/26/2008 2:47:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gwgardner Hopefully the next patch will address the AI. I suggest the developers allow maximum cheating by the AI. Even if fog of war is set less than 20 hexes by the player in preferences, let the AI have max vision. Give it full info on any enemy units within sight. In short, the developers should not limit the AI's info, so that it can make the best possible decisions. For defense, while the cities are of crucial importance, the AI needs to maintain a front with at least linked zones of control. It needs to maintain depth, to help in dealing with breakthroughs. Making the AI algorithms follow a few simple rules like that will make it far better than what is available now. In my current game, I gave the AI Allies the most production points in preferences, but ended up plunging through Luxembourg to Paris totally unabated. Not a single enemy unit oppsed me all the way, letting me surround Paris. I even hit end turn three times in a row without any attacks on my part, and still the Allies AI did nothing to set up a front. On offense, much the same. Let the AI take advantage of any info available with regard to the enemy in front of it. Breakthroughs by the AI have to be sustainable, followed up by plenty of infantry, and protected against multiple-hex counter-attacks. All of the above is no doubt obvious - I just hope the developers are actually working on it. I would not have the AI cheat, but I would make it less predictable. After a series of experiments, I found that the AI USSR always declares war on Germany on 1Jan1942 if not already at war. I could have the whole front stacked with units after a conquest of the UK (I also had higher than normal production to pull this off as part of my experiment), and the DOW would still be issued. I could abandon the East Front entirely, and the AI would still hold off until this turn. Total predicability renders the contest moot, although it does provide a decent laboratory for experiments, since the only changes will be small shifts of luck, plus whatever changes I make.

geozero -> RE: maximum cheating (9/26/2008 3:09:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mi1291 quote: ORIGINAL: geozero But in a strategic level game, moving corps sized units, air groups or capital ships would have been detected. In fact they were almost always detected by the other side. Sure a few smaller units might sneak through, but major units would be seen. I agree but I think Fow is not erased at all Early Days of sepetmber 1944 West front. Allies was preparing the all times' greatest airborn operation. No adverse conditions for Intelligence: Total air superiority Not so heavy weather for air reconnaissance Great Sized ,scatered and nor difficulty to search ready-to-fight units: Dutch resistance activity. I prefer to quote wikipedia because has very better english than mine: quote: ORIGINAL: Wikipedia Several reports about the German movements by the Dutch resistance had reached Allied command by September 10, including identification of German armour units. Although planning was in its later stages, SHAEF Chief of Staff General Walter Bedell Smith flew to 21st Army Group headquarters to suggest several possible changes in the plan which Montgomery was unable or unwilling to institute. When an aerial reconnaissance flight returned with pictures clearly showing German tanks only 15km (9 miles) from the British drop zones, they were dismissed by Montgomery, with the (unfounded) assumption that the tanks were non-serviceable. So I think a limeted FOW activity can exsist in Strategic level since Intelligence activity sometimes is not so good or High commanders, that don't read unit force value upon it, can take the wrong decision just my 2 cents You're discussing a battle which is operational level, not strategic. In any event, the Allied intel was not that good, in fact missed several key German units including an SS armored division...ooops. Read "A Bridge Too Far" by Cornelius Ryan if you are referring to Operation Market Garden. Resistance groups seldom made any good intel reports, granted there were many, but in the strategic sense it did not do all that great. OTOH, the German intel for this battle about Allies was not so good, but primarily due to lack of air recon power. This brings up an idea... what if FOW was based on air supremacy? I'd sure love to see that. Realistic. And perhaps another reason to build air units.

comrade -> RE: maximum cheating (9/26/2008 9:10:58 AM)
We are aware of these weaknesses. We work on the algorithm of improving AI defence. Not in the next patch (which is coming very soon) but the following one: the AI will try to maintain a front line rather than static points of defence. We're also considering some additional AI improvements like better front-balancing (AI can stack up hordes of units in one place - we don't want that) and some algorithm that would prevent the AI units to move to positions where they can be cut off without combat.

gwgardner -> RE: maximum cheating (9/26/2008 3:50:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: comrade We are aware of these weaknesses. We work on the algorithm of improving AI defence. Not in the next patch (which is coming very soon) but the following one: the AI will try to maintain a front line rather than static points of defence. We're also considering some additional AI improvements like better front-balancing (AI can stack up hordes of units in one place - we don't want that) and some algorithm that would prevent the AI units to move to positions where they can be cut off without combat. That is awesome. I look forward to all the improvements. Thx.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.921875