an alternative for solo play - thoughts welcomed (Full Version)

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



Message

RogerJNeilson -> an alternative for solo play - thoughts welcomed (11/16/2019 1:09:01 PM)

A bit of thinking, input welcome.

I have played a number of email games and am down to one final game now proceeding at a pace that makes a snail seem cheetah like - so be it. I cannot commit to the sort of regime of turns people seem to bash out here in the opponents wanted section, nor given my advancing years do i feel it honourable to embark upon a game that may well not complete. Additionally breaks for extended holidays get in the way of such commitments.

So I love the game and really am drawn to playing by myself, but the AI is a problem (it is in all games per se, so I am not ‘having a go’ here.

I am toying with doing a ‘head to head’ where I fight both sides. But how can this be done and maintain anything other than an ‘if-then’ exploration?

I have had two thoughts, and would welcome your considerations of these….. many brains are better than one tired old one.

The probability method.

Enter the brain of the high command at any point and consider the options in an area. Plan out the broad possible actions - and put them against a die roll. Thus as the Empire do we attempt to take X or Y or Z….. Once the decision is made then plan out to a significant degree the actions for that and then apply them until either the objective is attained, or until it is obvious the operation has ‘had its day’ All this is very broad brush and may well be added to by thinking about limitations on the amount of operations that could be undertaken at the same time etc etc

2. The Commander method.

Here instead of allowing a die roll to determine the strategic and operational actions, utilise the randomness of the commanders of units and task forces. I recall many decades ago a campaign system for ancients where the nature of the ruler was a complex matrix of characteristics which then would tend to influence his or her behaviour in the ‘world’ the inhabited. In this I am thinking of never appointing any commander but accepting whatever their capacities are and by some form of decision matrix deciding what they would do.


These are hardly developed thoughts so would welcome and contributions…….



fcooke -> RE: an alternative for solo play - thoughts welcomed (11/16/2019 3:31:10 PM)

might want to check in on your spell checker.....



RogerJNeilson -> RE: an alternative for solo play - thoughts welcomed (11/16/2019 3:40:23 PM)

Indeed... predictive text........

Roger



rockmedic109 -> RE: an alternative for solo play - thoughts welcomed (11/16/2019 3:51:37 PM)

Is there a way to induce multiple personalities?

I like the idea of playing both sides but I could not help myself.....I'd probably cheat.....and loose.

It would be a nice way of retelling history. An AAR showing both sides. But I'd be afraid that total knowledge would eventually degrade interest in the game.



Dili -> RE: an alternative for solo play - thoughts welcomed (11/16/2019 4:29:43 PM)

I don't think it will work tactically. All that small decisions cannot be foreseen.



kbfchicago -> RE: an alternative for solo play - thoughts welcomed (11/16/2019 5:48:34 PM)

Roger,

Have had similar thoughts for similar reasons.

I'd be tempted to lay out the IJ strategy with high level objective timeline (through at least mid '43). e.g. list of priority objectives every 30-60 days and where KB will support and when, priority of effort, etc.. For allies create multiple strategies with a semi-annual refresh, put them in sealed envelopes and randomly pick. e.g Sir Robin, where the US will draw the line in CenPac and NorPac for defense, Aussie priorities, etc.. I'd write the random Allied plans first. Likely pulling one for US, one for Aussie/NZ, one for Brits, at least two choices each, ideally three. In both cases view as Political leadership orders with the military following them to the best of their ability. You likely need to do a reset at mid '43 and again mid '44.

I don't think you could make both sides, Allied and IJ, random. Too likely to get some really odd and undesirable situations you'd be very tempted to modify.

For more tactical play, go to three day turns (or at least two day, tracker supports 2 but not 3 if you plan to use it). Let the tactical AI keep you from micro-managing yourself into schizophrenia.

I would not limit your commanders as you suggested, perhaps prioritize them with the better ones aligned to the priority objectives laid out in the IJ timeline and periodic Allied objectives.

Kevin



GetAssista -> RE: an alternative for solo play - thoughts welcomed (11/16/2019 8:10:53 PM)

You can employ randomness in a variety of ways. E.g. play your usual AI game, but between turns flip a "1-3% coin" (any RNG that can give you an event of said probability). If flipped successfully - switch sides and play the other side until you successfully flip again.



BSG -> RE: an alternative for solo play - thoughts welcomed (11/17/2019 1:09:15 AM)

The entire thrill of the game is in not knowing what's going to occur where so I think this would get pretty boring.

Perhaps you could take up someone else's old game ? I'm completely new to this but couldn't you just download someone else's game , set the computer to take up as the other player and then go from there ?



inqistor -> RE: an alternative for solo play - thoughts welcomed (11/17/2019 11:53:05 AM)

You can probably run game on continuous, and only pause, and issue commands for ONE side, when something important occurs.

So, historical start, then orders for Allies (because Japan started war), then after first base falls, only new orders for Japan. Allies again, when new invasion occurs.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.65625