RE: Very disappointed

RE: Very disappointed (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

Mike Scholl -> RE: Very disappointed (10/10/2009 9:21:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tomcat Mike, I agree with you. I wish we could clone the AE team. By the way, I hope I didn't offend you. I really have a lot of respect for some of you guys on this forum. Not a problem..., I probably could have expressed myself more clearly the first time. Problem with trying to be a "clever wordsmith" on the fly. [8D]

jdkbph -> RE: Very disappointed (10/11/2009 1:03:29 AM)
Wow. I was directed here after asking a question about optimum settings for frustration free gaming (vs the AI) in a another thread... and I must say the level of passion engendered by this AI vs PBEM debate is surprising. I've read solid arguments each way, and most points of view seem to have been covered. But there may be one other that has not yet been considered.... and it's the one that most affects my choice. I don't necessarily play these games to win. I could probably bore you with a wall of text explaining why that is, but the short version is that I enjoy a good naval history book, and I'll invariably find myself wondering what would have happened if so-and-so had done this instead of that. Winning or losing... so long as I'm good with the reasons for it (otherwise referred to as suspension of disbelief)... is completely incidental. JD

Feinder -> RE: Very disappointed (10/11/2009 1:13:57 AM)
As a long-time Classic WitP PBEMer, I've recently gotten AE. Frankly, I barely have time to continue my current WitP PBEM game vs. Bilbow, but we're sticking with it at least until the pilot-bug hits. But I figure I'll putter around against the AI in AE in some of the smaller scenarios, and wait for a few patches to go by, as I finish my WitP PBEM game. I'm in no rush. It took a while to refine Classic WitP thru patches, DB updates, and scenario modding. It's going to take the same degree of patience with AE. When I get the "feel" that the volume of screaming is down to the usual fan-boy banter, then I'll start up a PBEM campaign. -F-

Andy Mac -> RE: Very disappointed (10/11/2009 1:34:48 AM)
I have an Ironman Allied variant but its not up to patch 2 standard yet - I played it extensivelly in my Jap v Allied AI game. Its the same kind of thing a much stronger allies better prepared helping out the Ai in those places I know its weak. made it a lot harder when I got to late 42

P.Hausser -> RE: Very disappointed (10/11/2009 7:08:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Max 86 Some have tried the PBEM experience and found it to be lacking. My personal experience with PBEM boils down to this: 5% satisfaction, 20% get cheated, 75% quit before the game is over. Not a lot of fun there IMO. I have played 6 Full PBEM WITP games, ALL ended After 1945. And I have never experienced the things you talk about above. My experience was rather the opposite, I experienced: 100% satisfaction 0% cheateding / exploits 0% of them quit before the game was over I'm very surprised by the statistics you had experienced, I think it comes a lot down to how well you and your game partner communicate. (Use the phone, not only mail).. and then the rest is resolved with mutual maturity and mutual wives on fair game principals and a few House Rules. I have Only Good things to say about my PBEM experiences! [:)]

IronWarrior -> RE: Very disappointed (10/11/2009 7:15:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: P.Hausser and then the rest is resolved with ...mutual wives... I have Only Good things to say about my PBEM experiences! [:)] Sounds like it!!! [:D] How come my opponents never propose these kinds of house rules? [&:][:D]

Shark7 -> RE: Very disappointed (10/11/2009 3:27:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: P.Hausser quote: ORIGINAL: Max 86 Some have tried the PBEM experience and found it to be lacking. My personal experience with PBEM boils down to this: 5% satisfaction, 20% get cheated, 75% quit before the game is over. Not a lot of fun there IMO. I have played 6 Full PBEM WITP games, ALL ended After 1945. And I have never experienced the things you talk about above. My experience was rather the opposite, I experienced: 100% satisfaction 0% cheateding / exploits 0% of them quit before the game was over I'm very surprised by the statistics you had experienced, I think it comes a lot down to how well you and your game partner communicate. (Use the phone, not only mail).. and then the rest is resolved with mutual maturity and mutual wives on fair game principals and a few House Rules. I have Only Good things to say about my PBEM experiences! [:)] It really depends on your opponant, but I've had the same experience you have. One of my games recently hit a bug and my opponant has graciously offered to replay not just the last turn, but several turns back to fix it. So I can say overall, my PBEM experience has been pleasant.

JWE -> RE: Very disappointed (10/11/2009 3:38:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stuman JWE, what do you mean by CPX mode, and that you use an umpire ? I am not familiar with this set up. CPX is command post exercise. I play with a pretty well established group. There’s 2, 3, or 4 people on each side, each with their own responsibility. When somebody comes up with a neat scenario idea, anywhere from 2 to 6 months in duration, we build it, generate the ops orders, and fire it up. We run the game H2H (not PBEM) so it’s easy to change main menu settings. After both sides are done, the umpire runs the turn (usually 2-3 day turns) and sends out results. Sometimes the umpire will pull a surprise of his own (cheat). Sometimes, if you are just in a build up or recovery phase, the ump can run it on auto for a few turns based on each side’s op orders. When things get ripe, the group will get together somewhere, on 2 networked computers, have beverages, and play intense for a day, till resolution. So it is a combination of ‘manual’ and AI styles; sometimes one, sometimes the other. Because of this, we run H2H to keep the main menu options wide open. We are very trusting souls, and there is also the ump that can throw monkey wrenches of his own.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Very disappointed (10/11/2009 3:40:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 It really depends on your opponant, but I've had the same experience you have. One of my games recently hit a bug and my opponant has graciously offered to replay not just the last turn, but several turns back to fix it. So I can say overall, my PBEM experience has been pleasant. EXACTLY! You don't marry someone after a couple of e-mails..., so spend a bit of time getting to know a potential opponant. You are committing to spending a LOT of time with this person..., so find out if he seems like someone you would like to spend time with. A fellow doesn't have to be a bad human being to be a bad opponant for you---just someone that doesn't share what you are looking for in a game. Some people enjoy an "anything goes knife fight in a dark alley"..., others want a recreation of history..., and many are somewhere in the middle. Some want to do three turns a day, while others want three turns a week. Doesn't matter---as long as you are both looking for the same thing.

sfbaytf -> RE: Very disappointed (10/11/2009 10:00:28 PM)
PBEM has been a very pleasant experience for me. You can also get to meet some interesting people from other places. While I would like to see a human like AI I don;t see that possible with a complex game like this. Some of the brilliant things I've seen in PBEM games done, would be very difficult to get programmed into a computer. If you like games against the AI you may want to look into Strategic Command Pacific Theater. A more higher level and less detailed game, its a decent game against the AI.

Shark7 -> RE: Very disappointed (10/12/2009 12:33:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf PBEM has been a very pleasant experience for me. You can also get to meet some interesting people from other places. While I would like to see a human like AI I don;t see that possible with a complex game like this. Some of the brilliant things I've seen in PBEM games done, would be very difficult to get programmed into a computer. If you like games against the AI you may want to look into Strategic Command Pacific Theater. A more higher level and less detailed game, its a decent game against the AI. I wouldn't say its impossible to do, after all they managed to get a computer to beat the world chess champion... The problem is that I don't really think the AE team has an operating budget that would allow for 'Deep Blue' (the chess computer IIRC), and I know I don't have that kind of budget to buy it to play the game. [:D]

USSAmerica -> RE: Very disappointed (10/12/2009 1:07:53 AM)
A chess board has a grand total of 64 spaces and 32 units for an AI to consider. Add even 10 pieces on each side, and you are multiplying the number of AI calculations by a massive amount. Now, consider the smallest AE scenario. How many spaces are there on the board for the Coral Sea scenario? How many ships are there? Don't forget the air units, inclucing the air units onboard ships. There are probably a few more LCU's than the total number of pieces in a game of chess, for the Allies and the Japanese. Oh, and some of those spaces on the board are very different from others (bases/ports/airfields). Deep Blue plays chess by "brute force" calculations of all the possible moves. I'm 42 years old. Even if the developers had a thousand systems as powerful as Deep Blue to use, they will never be able to program an AI that can be as effective as a human in my lifetime. I am very impressed with the improvements Andy and company have been able to make with the AI in AE. Now, I need to go and play a turn for my evil Martian opponent. I never giggle to myself, picturing the look on my opponent's face as I sneak in an attack where he didn't expect it, when I'm playing the AI. [:D]

sfbaytf -> RE: Very disappointed (10/12/2009 2:46:38 AM)
Chess is a one dimensional game played on a flat plain. WitP is a multi dimensional game played on a 3d plain and that's just the beginning. There are the little nuances that come into play when you're in a PBEM game that computers have yet to display. There is an element of b.s. and bluff when you're playing another person-especially when FOW is turned on. For instance by making your opponent think KB is going to attack a certain sector you can elicit a response from your opponent even if you have no intention of striking. In PBEM campaign games there is a "tempo" that oftentimes takes place in different sectors. Some players are aggressive, some passive some both. The list goes on and on... When we start attaching microchips to cloned human brains you'll have your perfect AI opponent. That would be a world as far removed and foreign to you an me as much as todays modern world with computers and the other things we take for granted would be to someone living in the medieval ages.

fbs -> RE: Very disappointed (10/12/2009 3:34:45 AM)
Hahaha... I've been following development of chess programs for many years now. By 1980s most analysts thought that chess was too complex for a machine to consistently beat a grand master. That humans would always find a way of tricking the machine. That is most certainly true for chess programs that try to analyze the game in an "intelligent" fashion. What nobody expected was that processing power continued to grow exponentially and sheer brute force would do the trick. When IBM got Deep Blue analyzing 200 million positions per second, and applying no other intelligence other than simply counting the piece values, that was enough to beat Kasparov. That seems to be the winning approach - stop trying to be smart; programs cannot beat humans on intelligence. But they can certainly beat us on brute force -- and by doing that, their behavior looks smart. There must be some greater irony around all that... there is hope for me... hahaha... :^) Cheers [:D] fbs

Mynok -> RE: Very disappointed (10/12/2009 3:38:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: Kull PBEM vs. AI = Religion. Here people tend to be one or the other. There's a small group in the middle who may play PBEM and AI, but they are a tiny minority. The vast majority play the game only one way, they have strong reasons for doing so, and it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that any discussion is going to alter their opinions. That won't stop the rabid PBEMers from preaching to the conservative AIers, though. I think you have this one "dead on". Touch "religion", start a fight! Though I honestly believe most of the "PBEMer's" frustration lies with those "AI onlier"s" that seem to refuse to even try PBEM. Everybody's played against the AI, if only as a learning/practice aide. But many of the "AI only side" give the impression of having never even tried PBEM...., and religious "fundamentalists" of any stripe tend to annoy more open-minded folks. It's hard to see this "discussion" ending any time soon. Mea culpa. I have so much fun playing PBEM I really want others to enjoy it as well. That does get me overly aggressive in my encouragement at times, and to be honest, frustrated with those who won't even try it. But..... That being said, the other point about finding a good opponent is VERY valid. And it is definitely a commitment that shouldn't be taken lightly. Those who have pointed out the need to really get to know your opponent are dead on. That's what these forums help with tremendously IMO.

bretg80 -> RE: Very disappointed (10/14/2009 4:09:51 AM)
Here here. Many of us bought this game to play against the AI. Maybe we will some day graduate to PBEM, but for now I think it is reasonable to want an A/I player that doesn't cheat using excessive resources and unfair rules. So, with that said, can we not ask for a scenario that has the A/I playing fair. Maybe you can call it sub-par instead of normal. P.S. Thanks to the AE devs who responded to this thread explaining that normal is more normal than we realize. However, it seems that normal still cheats more than most of us would like. So can we please have an even less cheating scenario? Pretty please with sugar on top [&o]

Tomcat -> RE: Very disappointed (10/14/2009 4:34:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bretg80 Here here. Many of us bought this game to play against the AI. Maybe we will some day graduate to PBEM, but for now I think it is reasonable to want an A/I player that doesn't cheat using excessive resources and unfair rules. So, with that said, can we not ask for a scenario that has the A/I playing fair. Maybe you can call it sub-par instead of normal. P.S. Thanks to the AE devs who responded to this thread explaining that normal is more normal than we realize. However, it seems that normal still cheats more than most of us would like. So can we please have an even less cheating scenario? Pretty please with sugar on top [&o] I like your idea, and I also like what an earlier post said that sometimes some of us play just to exercise "what ifs" against a "reasonably historical" AI. Now, if I were a dev at this point I'd be asking guys like you and me, "what exactly do you mean by 'fair'. What exactly is the AI allowed to do, and what isn't it allowed to do?" If I were a dev I'd also be inclined to say something like, "Ok if we give you what you say you want you have to sign a pledge that you won't complain if the AI turns out to be too easy for you".[:)] But, I like these ideas as an option, and I'm also sensitive that we don't want to take any wind out of the PBEM sails.

jomni -> RE: Very disappointed (10/14/2009 5:10:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bretg80 So, with that said, can we not ask for a scenario that has the A/I playing fair. Maybe you can call it sub-par instead of normal. Yeah but you will win every battle and win the war in Dec 1942 no matter what side?

oldman45 -> RE: Very disappointed (10/14/2009 6:11:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: stuman JWE, what do you mean by CPX mode, and that you use an umpire ? I am not familiar with this set up. CPX is command post exercise. I play with a pretty well established group. There’s 2, 3, or 4 people on each side, each with their own responsibility. When somebody comes up with a neat scenario idea, anywhere from 2 to 6 months in duration, we build it, generate the ops orders, and fire it up. We run the game H2H (not PBEM) so it’s easy to change main menu settings. After both sides are done, the umpire runs the turn (usually 2-3 day turns) and sends out results. Sometimes the umpire will pull a surprise of his own (cheat). Sometimes, if you are just in a build up or recovery phase, the ump can run it on auto for a few turns based on each side’s op orders. When things get ripe, the group will get together somewhere, on 2 networked computers, have beverages, and play intense for a day, till resolution. So it is a combination of ‘manual’ and AI styles; sometimes one, sometimes the other. Because of this, we run H2H to keep the main menu options wide open. We are very trusting souls, and there is also the ump that can throw monkey wrenches of his own. Now that is the way to play a game like this!! I remember the weekend get togethers around a sand table usually micro armor. Once in a while we would set up the ships and slug it out. Anybody ever play a naval game on a basketball court?

stuman -> RE: Very disappointed (10/14/2009 6:33:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: stuman JWE, what do you mean by CPX mode, and that you use an umpire ? I am not familiar with this set up. CPX is command post exercise. I play with a pretty well established group. There’s 2, 3, or 4 people on each side, each with their own responsibility. When somebody comes up with a neat scenario idea, anywhere from 2 to 6 months in duration, we build it, generate the ops orders, and fire it up. We run the game H2H (not PBEM) so it’s easy to change main menu settings. After both sides are done, the umpire runs the turn (usually 2-3 day turns) and sends out results. Sometimes the umpire will pull a surprise of his own (cheat). Sometimes, if you are just in a build up or recovery phase, the ump can run it on auto for a few turns based on each side’s op orders. When things get ripe, the group will get together somewhere, on 2 networked computers, have beverages, and play intense for a day, till resolution. So it is a combination of ‘manual’ and AI styles; sometimes one, sometimes the other. Because of this, we run H2H to keep the main menu options wide open. We are very trusting souls, and there is also the ump that can throw monkey wrenches of his own. Now that is the way to play a game like this!! I remember the weekend get togethers around a sand table usually micro armor. Once in a while we would set up the ships and slug it out. Anybody ever play a naval game on a basketball court? That sounds like a whole lot of fun. Would be nice to try that some day.

Shark7 -> RE: Very disappointed (10/14/2009 10:31:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: USS America A chess board has a grand total of 64 spaces and 32 units for an AI to consider. Add even 10 pieces on each side, and you are multiplying the number of AI calculations by a massive amount. Now, consider the smallest AE scenario. How many spaces are there on the board for the Coral Sea scenario? How many ships are there? Don't forget the air units, inclucing the air units onboard ships. There are probably a few more LCU's than the total number of pieces in a game of chess, for the Allies and the Japanese. Oh, and some of those spaces on the board are very different from others (bases/ports/airfields). Deep Blue plays chess by "brute force" calculations of all the possible moves. I'm 42 years old. Even if the developers had a thousand systems as powerful as Deep Blue to use, they will never be able to program an AI that can be as effective as a human in my lifetime. I am very impressed with the improvements Andy and company have been able to make with the AI in AE. Now, I need to go and play a turn for my evil Martian opponent. I never giggle to myself, picturing the look on my opponent's face as I sneak in an attack where he didn't expect it, when I'm playing the AI. [:D] However, my point about no one being able to afford an AI that could play WiTP as smartly as a human is still valid. [:)] Chess is complex game and you have to play against a truely skilled opponent to appreciate it. The fact that a computer can be built that can (even through brute force) be able to analyze and react to a thinking grand master is quite an accomplishment. Even with all the brute force calculations, the computer still had to make a choice of one right move, in a sense 'out-thinking' it's opponent...maybe not in the conventional human way of thinking, but definately in an analytical manner. And something I like to quote every now and then (from a book I can no longer remember the title or author of sadly)... "If brute force doesn't get the job done, you aren't using enough."

Marty A -> RE: Very disappointed (10/14/2009 12:01:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 Anybody ever play a naval game on a basketball court? I did similar. each side was about 7m apart. i notice tiles on floor were 25cm square. i count squares between me and target and estimate distance in middle of tile. my opening shot called for full broadside. one guy on my team says no shoot 1 to get range. i smile and land 6 12 inchs hits on first shot. no one knew how i did it [:D]

morganbj -> RE: Very disappointed (10/14/2009 3:08:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 Now that is the way to play a game like this!! I remember the weekend get togethers around a sand table usually micro armor. Once in a while we would set up the ships and slug it out. Anybody ever play a naval game on a basketball court? Yeah, the old Jutland game. Was it an AH game? I think so.

oldman45 -> RE: Very disappointed (10/14/2009 6:47:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bjmorgan quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 Now that is the way to play a game like this!! I remember the weekend get togethers around a sand table usually micro armor. Once in a while we would set up the ships and slug it out. Anybody ever play a naval game on a basketball court? Yeah, the old Jutland game. Was it an AH game? I think so. I don't remember the rule set, I just remember 1/1250 scale ships and really long tape measures [:)]

Mike Scholl -> RE: Very disappointed (10/14/2009 8:31:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 I don't remember the rule set, I just remember 1/1250 scale ships and really long tape measures [:)] Either classic "Fletcher Pratt" or some dirivitive of it. Most addictive and frustrating experiances I've ever had. No dice to blame, and your successes and failures are right out in public view. Your ego hasn't really had a beating until you miss your target by several feet in front of 20 other players.

Halsey -> RE: Very disappointed (10/15/2009 7:38:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 quote: ORIGINAL: bjmorgan quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 Now that is the way to play a game like this!! I remember the weekend get togethers around a sand table usually micro armor. Once in a while we would set up the ships and slug it out. Anybody ever play a naval game on a basketball court? Yeah, the old Jutland game. Was it an AH game? I think so. I don't remember the rule set, I just remember 1/1250 scale ships and really long tape measures [:)] Sea Power... [;)] Publish by Alnavco , I think.[:D]

DivePac88 -> RE: Very disappointed (10/15/2009 7:44:57 AM)
For some reason somebody would always bring a dog, that would inevitably have a go at the models/counters.

morganbj -> RE: Very disappointed (10/15/2009 1:59:54 PM)
A dog? No, for us it was the girls volleyball team who needed to practice. We were at one end of the court and they decided that that was THEIR end to practice on. (There were two volleyball net configurations, one with the next in the middle, for matches, and another were nets were parallel tothe length of the court so that two nets could be up at the same time, one at either end. I say that to keep the cumudgeons from saying "It'a lie! It's a lie! The net is in the middle of the court.") So, we moved everything to the other end of the court. The game slowed down quite a bit as we were distracted by staring at all that perfectly formed booty.

Chickenboy -> RE: Very disappointed (10/15/2009 2:14:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bjmorgan The game slowed down quite a bit as we were distracted by staring at all that perfectly formed booty. [;)] I assume you refer to the lovingly crafted models of your opponents ships? Definitely worthy of stares of admiration.

morganbj -> RE: Very disappointed (10/15/2009 2:17:12 PM)
And the twin gun mounts on some of the vessles? Not bad. Not bad at all. But, that was 40 years ago (actually a little more), so my memory may be exaggerating things a little.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.7207031