RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

KarlXII -> RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) (12/22/2010 4:07:02 PM)

#1 for me definetely!



MengJiao -> RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) (12/22/2010 4:20:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mifune

#1 and #3 for me


I'm tired of replaying 1941.

I've seen it in a dozen games.

I'm making an April 1942 scenario where both sides have some offensive potential. It's kind of weird that
the 1942 campaign opens with the German offensive rather than the point before 2nd Kharkov where both sides have lots of
options.



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) (12/22/2010 4:38:21 PM)

While I realize that redmarkus has clarified his opening post a bit, I still see the choices as too much a dichotomy.  I have played only a few days now, and I am not qualified to really state what I am seeing from the AI - is it consistant things, does there seem to be different types of reactions based on my move, are there coded responses (Moscow defense comes to mind)?

My point here is that I want a historically-based AI opponant that nonetheless can suprise me with both wonderful moves and perhaps some boneheaded ones at times. I will end up playing against humans eventually, and with only the starts of three GCs so far, I cannot really estimate how well this has happened.  I progress slowly, learning things and adding levels of management to what I do - right now I have seen signs of both these things I want, but who knows, I also see signs I have a hell of a lot to learn about this game.

I am not a snap judgement person - I will say this is the first game in a long while I have woken up at 5am on my holidays to play, and when I read here or in the manual about something I didn't know I get an interesting little thrill and want to try it out.  I expect to be playing this a long while.

So really, I have no answer.



Franciscus -> RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) (12/22/2010 6:33:40 PM)

#2



Johnus -> RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) (12/22/2010 6:50:59 PM)

#2



Pford -> RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) (12/22/2010 8:29:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MengJiao


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mifune

#1 and #3 for me

I'm tired of replaying 1941.
I've seen it in a dozen games.
I'm making an April 1942 scenario where both sides have some offensive potential. It's kind of weird that
the 1942 campaign opens with the German offensive rather than the point before 2nd Kharkov where both sides have lots of
options.


Agreed. The current list of scenarios seems to feature the Germans steam-rolling the Russians, or vice versa. I can think of a few more interesting ones, for example, a couple featuring Erich von Manstein:
1- Back Hand Blow. A hypothetical 43 scenario based on Kursk not happening. The Axis on the defensive but with a substantial mobile reserve.
2- Winter Tempest, the failed relief of Stalingrad. Just 2 or 3 turns but potentially an interesting puzzle.



wodin -> RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) (12/23/2010 12:39:51 AM)

I haven't bought the game for two reasons...one the scale isn't really for me...and two as it's a monster game I know that the AI will give out over the campaign ...it would have taken god knows how long to give it a good allround AI. I'd probably only have played it from the Axis side which as it happens it seemed that more work on the Russian AI was done, so that is a bonus. Still if I loved division scale games I'd have bought it even if the AI was amazing.

Also I imagine the reason there aren't any scenarios where each side attacks, defends and counter attacks is that the AI would have been way to intensive to programme and test for it to work...again it's prob due to the size of the game.



LarryP -> RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) (12/23/2010 12:46:14 AM)

quote:

1. Play against an AI that uses clever tactics, but which will play very differently from the historical human generals (for example, by giving up Minsk to defend further back).


That's my answer.



MengJiao -> RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) (12/23/2010 1:10:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin
Also I imagine the reason there aren't any scenarios where each side attacks, defends and counter attacks is that the AI would have been way to intensive to programme and test for it to work...again it's prob due to the size of the game.


I made an April 1942 scenario (based on the 1942-1945 campaign scenario). The Russians attacked and the German AI counter-attacked quite well. I suspect the AI will be seen to do better in scenarios where the player is not convinced they ought to be able to knock the other side out of the war in six months in 1941 if only the AI would behave. So far it seems to me that the AI's biggest strength is its surprising flexibility. It certainly seems capable of conducting an active defense.



wodin -> RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) (12/23/2010 1:22:56 PM)

@Meng....sounds promising then



PyleDriver -> RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) (12/23/2010 2:16:56 PM)

I've always have wanted an April 42 campaign game. I think I would have a better shot at Moscow with that start date...



Flaviusx -> RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) (12/23/2010 2:22:08 PM)

Jon, amusingly, I'd love an April 42 campaign from the Soviet side as well. So I can quit all those ridiculous salients before they get cut off. And put the defense in the south in good order.




LeeChard -> RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) (12/23/2010 4:33:23 PM)

#1 I definitely want the AI to have a free hand



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.625