Playing both sides (Full Version)

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



Message

jbdenney -> Playing both sides (12/14/2017 2:39:39 PM)

Just curious if anyone has successfully played both sides (No AI) in a game? Would this count as a sign of complete insanity with no life?



bartrat -> RE: Playing both sides (12/14/2017 2:58:24 PM)

Could be fun but a little confusing; yes I have no life to speak of..... [and perhaps a little crazy]



Yaab -> RE: Playing both sides (12/14/2017 3:22:07 PM)

Tried, but failed.

The games inolves too much mental planning to forget it once you switch to the other side. I guess it could be doable if the game shipped with a between-the-turns amnesiac drink of sorts.[8|]



chemkid -> RE: Playing both sides (12/14/2017 3:53:39 PM)

.



jbdenney -> RE: Playing both sides (12/14/2017 4:13:59 PM)

I just keep hearing how the AI can get broken and can be screwy and I am not up to committing to a PBEM Game(Out side of Wife, Job, Family, Life I also play World of Warcraft). I just start wondering if it is possible to get in a good full game where both side play a reasonable game.

BTW - I have a hard enough time remember what I am doing from one turn to another on one side - it should not be too hard to "forget" what the other side is doing.



GetAssista -> RE: Playing both sides (12/14/2017 4:25:51 PM)

Try GC AI for yourself. Can be pretty entertaining if you follow certain rules (Hard+ difficulty, no veering too far from historical pace of events, letting Japan conquer stuff in 42) and scenarios (AndyMac's Ironmans give AI more assets to waste)



Alfred -> RE: Playing both sides (12/14/2017 4:47:22 PM)

There is nothing wrong with the AI.  Most players have been defeated by the AI.  That includes those who most vociferously deride the AI but because of their egos will never admit to it.  Every time a solo player quits a game after losing a battle, that is an AI victory.  There are many more instances of that occurring than is commonly admitted publicly.

BTW what most people usually refer to as the AI is in fact not an AI.  Just goes to show how little reliance can be made of all those reports that the "AI is awful".  What is true AI is what drives the mechanics of the game.  Those are things like

  • target determination
  • prosecution of attacks
  • logistics
  • training

These are all under the hood activities.

What is mistakenly called the AI is the script which governs the overall strategic prosecution of the war.  These scripts are written by a human person so when the "anti AI" posters complain, they are really complaining that their "human" opponent wasn't good enough.

The problem with scripts is that they have very limited flexibility to respond to abnormal human actions.  Plus by repeatedly playing the same scenario the individual components of the various scripts become known.  There are only so many possible ripostes which a script writer can factor into their script.  Particularly when the script writer has to base their script on plausible historical actions.  An Allied player who determines on 7 Dec 1941 to completely disregard Japanese AI moves and instead focus on landing an Allied army at Tokyo no later than 1 March 1942 will defeat any script.

Time after time I see human players make stupid moves which the computer opponent never makes.  Nor does the computer opponent ever ask for a mulligan, a request which is by no means uncommon in PBEM games.  Then there are the many HRs agreed upon for PBEM which make play easier for the humans but those same humans are totally opposed to extending the charity to the computer opponent.  Often on the basis that the AI cheats (which is not really true, the AI follows exactly almost every single rule which applies to a human player) which they then use as a justification to pull every single possible trick and cheat against the computer.

Alfred




JeffroK -> RE: Playing both sides (12/14/2017 6:38:44 PM)

I played about 4 mths of head to head against myself. Afterall, I'd played many monster board games solo.

My plan, not always kept, was to play 1 turn per day so that the JFB made his moves and you saved and entered the AFB turn the next day.

I had lots of rules about having recce and Naval search before reacting to enemy moves.

Worked OK, but took lots of time, my thoughts for "next time" was to make a set of strategy cards so that a random line of attack was taken for either side.

If you dont want to commit to a PBEM.....



jbdenney -> RE: Playing both sides (12/14/2017 7:44:06 PM)

Thanks for the Info - reassure me for playing the AI (for lack of a better term).

I do t want to "recreate History" but on the other hand I try real hard to not use 20/20 hindsight. I look at the situation as the people on the ground in 1941 saw it - i.e. not knowing the Japanese (or American) weaknesses. It sounds like I should not have an issue breaking the AI.

I am actually kind of "scared" when I think of trying to play as the Japanese.



Lowpe -> RE: Playing both sides (12/14/2017 10:29:58 PM)

Absolutely never thought of playing both sides of the same game. Certainly it is doable, and most likely very fun.

How I play the AI is to set combat reports off, so the turn begins and ends with no pause. I always use at least two day turns. Then I simply look at the combat report, or use a third party program.

I have great faith in my local commanders, the ai, to pick targets, react, etc. I find that part of the game truly excellent.



geofflambert -> RE: Playing both sides (12/14/2017 10:33:19 PM)

I'd like to play both sides and have the US team up with Japan to beat up the Brits.



cardas -> RE: Playing both sides (12/14/2017 10:42:36 PM)

I've definitely considered playing a solitaire game but haven't really gotten to it. As JeffroK suggested if I ever do I intend to create some pre-set strategies that I'd have to follow.

If you are playing on your own you're of course able to more easily add a political dimension to the game, even political positions that didn't really happen in real life. While that's also of course possible against another human it's probably easier on your own as you are always the final arbiter on what's appropriate. You could as an example decide that the US will in no way assist any of the other allies. Then you'd play as if you essentially have a separate Commonwealth (+Dutch & later French) war vs. Japan and another that's US vs. Japan with no coordination at all between them.



InfiniteMonkey -> RE: Playing both sides (12/15/2017 2:25:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jbdenney

I just keep hearing how the AI can get broken and can be screwy and I am not up to committing to a PBEM Game(Out side of Wife, Job, Family, Life I also play World of Warcraft). I just start wondering if it is possible to get in a good full game where both side play a reasonable game.

BTW - I have a hard enough time remember what I am doing from one turn to another on one side - it should not be too hard to "forget" what the other side is doing.

You need to find someone whose style and commitment matches your own. PBEM does not required you do x turns per day or per week, it requires that you and your opponent establish an expectation and communicate when RL gets in the way. Find someone that can handle the fact that you periodically may have to go MIA for a week or two (or more) because of RL. I'm betting that many of the AI players that do not play PBEM do so because they are intimidated by the demands of x turns per day or week. I'm also betting that a lot of those same players would find opponents willing to play a more relaxed turn schedule.

As for the remembering part, CRS disease sucks and it is coming for all of us... I use OneNote to plan my operations. When I get derailed for a week or two by RL, I can pick up where I left off just by reviewing my notes of active ops.



Chris21wen -> RE: Playing both sides (12/15/2017 6:38:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I'd like to play both sides and have the US team up with Japan to beat up the Brits.


That might work. Doubt it though.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Playing both sides (12/15/2017 6:56:04 AM)

Officially, I would never admit that I'm playing with myself. Unofficially though, I confess that I'm playing h2h between PBEM turns. I'm role-playing and try to keep strategy and pace pretty historical, so the strategic hotspots are rather obvious (like defend / take Singers, Java, PM, Burma). Within this frame, I try to keep the daily decisions based on what can be seen on the map and not on knowledge of what the other side is doing. IOW what needs to be done will be done and there is no shying away from potential disastrous actions. Sending assets to their doom can be painful at times. It is a slow-going game and RL plus the PBEM help to clear the cache (brain) to create some sort of FOW. This - plus the inevitable mistakes one makes in games against AI / PBEM as well - often lead to unexpected results for both sides, like losing Boise on the second day of the war or having the Kuantan invasion savaged by LBA and Force Z. For me it's a great way to playtest a mod to check the changes made on both sides and to test different tactical setups. YMMV of course.



LeeChard -> RE: Playing both sides (12/15/2017 1:32:03 PM)

I haven't tried it because my experience trying to play 'World in Flames' was
very unsatisfying. I can't seem to enjoy it if I know exactly what the other side has in mind.



rustysi -> RE: Playing both sides (12/15/2017 2:42:29 PM)

I get what is said above, and with this game I understand it would be difficult due to its length. I just can't forget how much better I got at a game like Third Reich playing it that way. I think you'd find so many things that you'd do differently by attempting this feat before hand. Rather than getting a rather 'rough' lesson while in a PBEM. Alas, for me I doubt I'll do it as I'm chomping at the bit to get into a PBEM. Just have to play my current game out past my usual auto-vic in '43. I really need to see if I'm burning too much of this or that as I definitely want to get to the 'end game'.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.0625