RE: disapointing Victory (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

viking42 -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/3/2004 5:04:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarrossa

The "strategic genius" crowd who want to try thier alternate plan to defeat the enemy with absolutely no historical references except the toys of war involved. Play PBEM.



ok, that's the way i play, don't i have the right to play against the AI??? on a sincere way?? sorry then i made a mistake buying this game, that was not in the game specs, should i ask for repay?????

Just to say i fully disagree.....



barbarrossa -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/3/2004 5:18:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: viking42

quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarrossa

The "strategic genius" crowd who want to try thier alternate plan to defeat the enemy with absolutely no historical references except the toys of war involved. Play PBEM.



ok, that's the way i play, don't i have the right to play against the AI??? on a sincere way?? sorry then i made a mistake buying this game, that was not in the game specs, should i ask for repay?????

Just to say i fully disagree.....


No you can play anyway you darn well wish.

If you've poured the can of whoop-a** on everything, do what the Japanese would've done had they accomplished what you have.

I'll repeat...

Attack the Russians, that's what would've occured historically because Tojo was just iching to do it and had for years

I think you'll have fun, and it will definitely lengthen your game without messing with the VP's and all the Pandora stuff that might come along with doing that.



Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/3/2004 5:24:23 PM)

Thank you a lot ![:)]
This is just a game and a great game... no bad feelings to all... we discuss "too" serious... also, we have you and the other people from atrix who really care about our opinion and that is more as most (all ?) other companies do...

so, mucho gracias and keep going on ! [:D]



Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: This is why Close Combat sucked (9/3/2004 5:40:02 PM)

Sorry,
a simulation would do much more...
you need every exact detail about weather, sea, crew members (remember, if your look out in the recce plane has eaten to much beans, this could mess your war!), etc... the quality of weapons, machinery (no breakdown of engines occur - BIG Disadvantage for a simulation)... etc.. all is missing. But is this bad ? no, i do not think so. Cause it is abstract in the GAME... but also it must be possible to play ahistorical... we all do ahistorical things from turn 1 (or with alternate start even at turn 0)... so why are so many people thinking this is a simulation ? If the DE England is sunk by a mine at Day X BEFORE killing 6 subs in 5 days, what will this mean to your simulation ? If the Yorktown will be scutteled after Coral Sea, is the simulation gone ?

I would love a extreme detailed SIMULATION of all these things... you must look for everything, you get orders to achieve (say, you have to invade Midway, even if you know that you have only 2 japanese carriers and the other side has 3 ready american cvs...) etc...

A mission based AI/Game engine would be great. You as the player (and the AI) has certain orders, like "conquering these islands until x/y), if you do not make it - game over. Yeah, this suck but on the other side, this is reality...

An example...
with POW and Repulse, you can withdraw at turn one... but if your Area-Comander get the order to stop the invading force you CAN´T withdraw em. So, stay in port or ATTACK.
I can´t say if this is doable for the AI, too. But for the player, you get some certain orders... at last for the first 6 months of the war this should be doable... if we can achieve this, we have the "perfect" computer game... if we could make a simulation out of it, great.

By the way... if i concentrate al ML/DM in one large port (Truk) and lay in 6 months thousends of mines is this really not realistic. You should in your simulation make all weapons and ammo (do not forget the ammo-thing) seperate and then you have to load your ships individual.... so, if your Ammo-transport-convoi is messed up, your guns have no ammo... no bombs for your planes... bad bad situation. Honestly, i would love this game... but it would be too realistic. War is 99% statistic, boring calculations and resupply and 1% action. And here i speak about a computer game that support anyting with a great design... normaly you need soap, toilet paper, cloths, weapons, spare parts, engines, energy (and not only oil.. you have wood, coal, oil, light oil, heavy (crude) oil, gasoil, gas, high octane fuel (96 octan), low octan fuel, certain engines (at last around 50 different systems for one engine to maintanance.... well - have fun, if you are someone who works as a statistic... i want to do it more simple [:D]



Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/3/2004 5:47:36 PM)

barbarrossa, your comment is not helpful...

i do not think that one side in this discussion has the right to force the other to change its opinion. As many other people here mentioned, the most people play against the AI. And for both sides, i do not want to make certain rules to have the chance to "play" the game - but also i do not want to bash the game to much. I (and i think many more) just look for some "easy to impliment" improvements so we can have more fun - and i do not like the idea that some others attack me for not agreeing your opinion about this.

If we have a toggle about the VP... is this really bad for you ?
If you want to play historically, do it. I can´t see how this will work, but if you are happy, me too... just allow me, to be happy, also.

As the japanese, i allways would try to finish the chinese and the brits in india... cause a one sided war makes it much more easy to concentrate the defence perimeter... if this is cheating, the game would suck. But it is not cheating. True i would love an AI that can counter such tries, but if not, i still do not want to force myself to NOT do it. Not the game has to force the player but viceversa.

and after all, if we get this toggle that only the AI get the VPs... everybody should be happy...you to play historically and me for not beeing stopped if my plans work well and i collect "too" many point.

So, have a nice weekend, love and peace [:)] and lets kick some evil enemies (who ever it is, jap or ally) butts... at last i will do so now...
bye



Mr.Frag -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/3/2004 5:56:49 PM)

quote:

As the japanese, i allways would try to finish the chinese and the brits in india... cause a one sided war makes it much more easy to concentrate the defence perimeter... if this is cheating, the game would suck. But it is not cheating.


Just to clear this up as this is a very valid conversation point raised here ...

The Chinese units were made weak in the scenario so they don't stomp Japan. In the real world, Japan had been trying to deal with China for *YEARS*. They simply couldn't. They took some stuff and held it but didn't move forward as it would have prevented other activities.

The scenario strengths for Japan and China are aimed at a nice stalemate.

The issue you are raising here is a fundimental problem with all scenarios.

What is really required is 3 variations of a scenario:

1) Aimed at Japan vs Computer only
2) Aimed at Allies vs Computer only (the shipping version)
3) Aimed at Human vs Human play



barbarrossa -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/3/2004 6:01:37 PM)

Hey Frag,

If the Japanese player has run rough-shod over everything then hits the USSR and activates the red-horde, does that tip the VP ratio away from IJ and towards the Allies?



Mr.Frag -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/3/2004 6:03:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: barbarrossa

Hey Frag,

If the Japanese player has run rough-shod over everything then hits the USSR and activates the red-horde, does that tip the VP ratio away from IJ and towards the Allies?


Nope, unless you do it soon enough for Russia to come south, it's not going to make any changes really.



barbarrossa -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/3/2004 6:07:31 PM)

I would have thought all the soviet assets would be included in the "point system" once they become active. Just kind of add to the total....and lengthen the game. That would be logical to me. Another enemy to vanquish a big hairy hungry bear with T-34's.



Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/3/2004 6:07:43 PM)

well, this could one part of the "mess"...

as a player i take the game and try to "win" (attention win is meant in ellimination any enemy unit) or to cause the enemy maximum damage.

If i play as the japanese, i try to take out china, cause i want the americans to bleed to death later on and i would need the troops... but if i conquer china and maybe india, game is out. But why should i just hold on cause i create a third front (burma, pacific + china...)

my strategy is allways to concentrate on the weakest enemy, kill him and then go on (something the germans should have done in 1917 with italy...) So your troops will be more and more superior to the enemy (or in witp-conditions) not too much inferior in numbers...

so, if the game "sucks" (not really, or i wouldn´t play nearly any freetime i have) in this, it should be fixed. Even if i think that in a total war with "ONE" target (china out of the game) after sra conquered, it could be done.

It is my aproach, not everybody has to copy.. but still it is true that the game should have avoided most serious "bugs" before the customer has it. Or, like now, we get the input.

But yes, you have the point.
I too think it is an allied vers. computer version, but even here i think it has serious flaws (even more as the japanese side).... these designed scenarios would be a solution, and honestly WE all could do our part in developing such scenarios.... like give the japanese 10 cv more in 1941, so the allied player has to deal with much more, or for the japanese ver the ai weaker troops in china (you still should be able to kill the ai in china, but only with a large part of your troops and with costs in your potential defence force...)

hm, what do you think, is it doable ?

and again, i do not want to be part of the beta-basher-team... if it sound accidentaly so, i have to apologize - you did a great job, and i want you still as a workhorse for me [:D]



Mr.Frag -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/3/2004 7:06:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

well, this could one part of the "mess"...

as a player i take the game and try to "win" (attention win is meant in ellimination any enemy unit) or to cause the enemy maximum damage.

If i play as the japanese, i try to take out china, cause i want the americans to bleed to death later on and i would need the troops... but if i conquer china and maybe india, game is out. But why should i just hold on cause i create a third front (burma, pacific + china...)

my strategy is allways to concentrate on the weakest enemy, kill him and then go on (something the germans should have done in 1917 with italy...) So your troops will be more and more superior to the enemy (or in witp-conditions) not too much inferior in numbers...

so, if the game "sucks" (not really, or i wouldn´t play nearly any freetime i have) in this, it should be fixed. Even if i think that in a total war with "ONE" target (china out of the game) after sra conquered, it could be done.

It is my aproach, not everybody has to copy.. but still it is true that the game should have avoided most serious "bugs" before the customer has it. Or, like now, we get the input.

But yes, you have the point.
I too think it is an allied vers. computer version, but even here i think it has serious flaws (even more as the japanese side).... these designed scenarios would be a solution, and honestly WE all could do our part in developing such scenarios.... like give the japanese 10 cv more in 1941, so the allied player has to deal with much more, or for the japanese ver the ai weaker troops in china (you still should be able to kill the ai in china, but only with a large part of your troops and with costs in your potential defence force...)

hm, what do you think, is it doable ?

and again, i do not want to be part of the beta-basher-team... if it sound accidentaly so, i have to apologize - you did a great job, and i want you still as a workhorse for me [:D]



You have probably noticed playing that the AI handling China doesn't really do much on either side. It has been programmed to expect a draw type situation. The Chinese troops have been weakened at the start to prevent an Allied player from kicking Japan out.

The last major fix, done because of my test game was to weaken the Allies in Burma. This solved the problem of the Allies being able to do unhistoric things like holding Mandalay/Rangoon/etc, but in reverse it makes it much easier for a Japanese player to sweep the board here.

As we run into these types of situations, it becomes more and more clear that a separate set of requirements exists for player vs AI based on which side they are playing.

As these types of changes can all be done through the scenario editor, it is really just a matter of identifying the weak spots through game play then going in and fixing them through some unit placement and tuning of base sizes. Consider this as a simple change: If you increased the sizes of the Chinese held bases at the start of #15, this would automatically impose a higher garrison limit on Japan should they capture the base, cutting back on the number of free troops available for further conquest. Simple fix, but only works on Japan vs computer. If it was played as Allies vs computer, it would be horror! Same can be done by setting higher fort levels at starting bases, setting % disabled, setting readiness higher, etc.

The nice thing to all of this ... none of this requires *any* change to the code so the devs can get on with fixing real stuff and adding features.

The only thing that needs to be agreed to to be able to gather a valid set of what needs to be done is everyone playing the game with the same difficulty level so the reports all apply to a level playing field.



mogami -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/3/2004 7:11:55 PM)

Hi, Very early in the debates over AV, upgrades, production and all I suggested that all that was required was a file for each type of game.
All we need now are for a few of our designers to go back and make 3 files for every scenario.
In all scenarios where the human is to play Japan raise the values for a few Allied bases
(USA) remove upgrade paths from airgroups and remove all factories in place for when AI runs Japan. Then this file would be an excellent game for a Human versus Allied AI.
Even if you still wanted to use the Auto victory here the number required would be higher.

Do the same for Japanese AI. Raise a few of it's base values, give it a larger prewar stockpile for supply/resource/fuel increase it's pilot pools a little you get the picture.

In the Human versus Human version make everything as historical as possible and the players just decide on any rules for turn 1 before they start. I don't think too many rules are required past turn 1.



Oliver Heindorf -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/3/2004 7:38:18 PM)

not reading the entire posts here but what I have seem is enough to say :

I certainly have the feeling that some people spent more time to talk about WitP instead playing it [8|]



samuraigg -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/3/2004 8:33:56 PM)

quote:

I feel for ya, man! All you wanted to know was: "hey I kicked ass, can I play longer?


I understand too viking, I brought this point up weeks ago, asking for a toggle for the auto victory. I might be the first person (post release) to post on the forums and ask for it.

By and large a whole bunch of people came to support the idea, voicing that they would like a toggle. A very small minority was extremely vocal in opposing it, for whatever ridiculous reason. Hence the Godzilla vs Mothra.

Frankly, I don't know where the hell the whole AI discussion came from. Its completely irrelevant to the issue of an auto victory toggle.

BTW, do I get to be Godzilla? [:D]



Nikademus -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/3/2004 9:15:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oliver Heindorf

not reading the entire posts here but what I have seem is enough to say :

I certainly have the feeling that some people spent more time to talk about WitP instead playing it [8|]


heh. You have a point. I think any Japanese player (AI as an opponent excepted) who tries to conquor India is going to have a real problem facing the Australians and Americans in the Pacific. The Japanese do after all have only so many LCU's [:D] Wont even mention the large # of Commonwealth units avail too. Course if they are all in Burma.......

From what i've heard from the AAR's China can be the morass it historically was if a human player is smart and doesn't allow the Japanese army to engage it in ..... 'ahem' "Decisive battle" Against the AI of course i'm having a field day. [:D]

I plan on having a field day against Frag too [:'(]



Mr.Frag -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/3/2004 9:17:20 PM)

quote:

I plan on having a field day against Frag too


Yea yea yea ... go send another harrassing note to Pry ... he's tired of seeing them from me [:'(]



BartM -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/3/2004 10:34:03 PM)

wow [:(]

okay, everyone back into their corners for round two... come out swining ! [8D]

I personally place all areas under computer control except south and central (as the allies) and place all northern control under the computer as Japan. Main reason ? as Mr Frag has said, this is a stalemate area, and really, the less human involvement the better, as that area really doesn't have much to do with the "Pacific" war the allies fought. The units released are done so through the game at certain times, which simulates the relief of areas in China (ie Japan has captured a certain area and sat for the last year or so because doing more would litteraly drain Japan).

Again I'll say, it was a huge mistake to deviate from PAC and letting the players have control of China and Russia (aw well, great idea, bad idea). I still agree the AI needs some attention, and we have all read that Matrix is working on it (so really isn't more to say to that about the AI)... I for one would take longer turns and a larger download and overall larger game to have a more compitent AI (perhaps a vote is needed if anyone at Matrix is really interested ?)

from playing so far, and seeing the different styles that can be done, and seeing the HUGE different choices that can be made, I still think this is the best upgrade to PAC (I still played it up until Witp came out, poor PAC now sits there wondering when I will return to play)...but taking all this in, from all sides, the AV is really fine as it is, (my personal vote), as it really is the goal (or was) for Japan to make the Allies sue for peace. The goal for the Allies ? to annilate the Japaneese people. was just how it was back then. perhaps... just a thought there....

AV for Japan side only ? (if possible) making the allies sue for peace...
AV removed for allies... as this was never an option for US and her allies. The total and complete surrender, which, went against the grain of the Japaneese people at the time, so litterally as the allies, your fighting every man, woman and child, as it was then ?

If in fact this isn't possible, then super deal [;)] The AV stands as it is... playing either Japan or the US, and when AV comes, sit back, relax and relish in the thought you saved thousands of young boys lives (on both sides)

as for us all, perhaps less coffee... and deep breath... and realize the EVERYONE is passionate about this game [sm=00000023.gif] hehe good, bad or indifferent, opinions are like ... well you know the rest :)

[sm=00000924.gif]



anarchyintheuk -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/4/2004 12:18:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: viking42

your the first guy to understand me in this story [:(]

all the others are fighting a kind of ideological crusade which was absolutely nothing to do with what i expressed in the first lines........ and no one seems to have seen the point.....

very sad, btw........ [:(]


Sad, but not unusual.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/4/2004 12:46:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr. smith

viking42:
I feel for ya, man! All you wanted to know was: "hey I kicked ass, can I play longer?" and it turned into this big Godzilla vs. Motha without the zippers in the back of the rubber suits (which should be fitted for a few posters [sm=crazy.gif])

I think you turned out to be the somewhat bumbling but semi-helpful Japanese scientist who eventually gets repeatedly stomped on by Godzy and Motha while they fight in the ruins of Tokyo. [:D]
.


LOL[;)]



RUPD3658 -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/4/2004 1:18:58 AM)

Check the latest thread by Kid. This issue is now dead. The next patch will allow the auto victory to be overridden.

Frag, sorry about the flak you took over this issue. Hope a few vocal (but nasty) posters didn't turn you off to being a beta. Your imput and support are appreciated. [&o]



pry -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/4/2004 4:16:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

I plan on having a field day against Frag too


Yea yea yea ... go send another harrassing note to Pry ... he's tired of seeing them from me [:'(]


If the river don't rise you can have them Saturday night...



Mr.Frag -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/4/2004 4:54:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

I plan on having a field day against Frag too


Yea yea yea ... go send another harrassing note to Pry ... he's tired of seeing them from me [:'(]


If the river don't rise you can have them Saturday night...


Sure, get his hopes up again [:D]



brisd -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/4/2004 6:52:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oliver Heindorf

not reading the entire posts here but what I have seem is enough to say :

I certainly have the feeling that some people spent more time to talk about WitP instead playing it [8|]


I read it all and I've come to the same conclusion. Of course, some of those 'players' are on my ignore list now so they can spout all they want about Godzilla and rant about toggles.

I have no problem with wanting a toggle or for those who explain why there should be no reason for one. I can see Mogami's idea for 3 versions of each scenario but I'd prefer to play historical base levels/OOB, etc. and let my operations dictate the course of the war. If I decide to expand Japan's aircraft industry, good for me, I should pay for it appropriately. Same with conquering China, I think the forces were there, just the leadership was lacking. If the USA wants to take little islands in the pacific while I take big VP cities in India, that's a fair trade to me. [;)]



Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Customers (9/7/2004 10:26:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
quote:

The Customer is ALWAYS right, no matter what.

One of the nuttier notions ever uttered (not saying it originates with you). Customers are often idiots that have no idea what they're asking for. Consider Hitler and the ME262.

At best, the customer must be made to feel as though he is right and that his request has top priority (Perhaps available as an option on a future model, in the meantime would you like to lease this one or purchase it outright?) while getting the customer to shut up and buy that which is available.
I worked for a company that completely agreed with your assessment… they no longer sell products in that field. It didn’t matter that the supplier of the products was right (and he was), because the customer found someone who would listen to them… right or wrong.



Culiacan Mexico -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/7/2004 11:09:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Let me restate this as some of you just don't seem to get it:

You don't play with restrictions when you play against the AI. You handicap the AI by restricting it with other then "Very Hard…This is about people wanting to play at baby level because they want to win at all costs…
Actually, I play at “Very Hard” and hope playing as the Japanese the Allied AI will beat the crap out of Japan… anything else will not be satisfying. I do expect to ‘win’ an operation now or then; and to take a bloody toll as the allied juggernaut rolls over Japan, but win?

When I first heard about WitP, I though it was an updated version of Pacwar… a strategic level game, but it isn’t. This is an operational game on a grand scale and the full war scenario can take a very long time to complete against the AI and for PBEM who knows how long that could take. If there is no challenge/enjoyment in planning a solid, well thought out defensive plan for the Solomon Islands (even knowing in the end it will not be enough) in this game as the Japanese… then what good is the game? Victory points are good for helping the AI in it’s planning/programming, but I am not interested belaying my joy until I see the final score. I want to enjoy the game as the ‘Testers’ seemed to in the AAR I read before I bought the game: a good surface combat intercept, an air strike that achieve good results, etc.

If the AI needs help, so be it. Let the AI peek at my objectives or forces levels (the Allies did that historically anyway to some extent), and if that isn’t enough give the AI more, just please let me know in advance what they are: quicker fatigue recovery, quicker engineer builds, etc. so I can plan my operations accordingly.

I don’t want to win at all costs… I want to lose, but enjoy the game while I am doing it.



Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/7/2004 11:15:11 AM)

beer !



BlackVoid -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/7/2004 5:22:39 PM)

Two thoughts about all this:

1. In ANY strategy game, beating the AI is not too much fun. Especially with a game like WITP, the amount of effort you have to put into it, the reward is very little. It is too easy. This game (and 9 out of 10 others) for me can only be enjoyed when playing another person. Personally I do not care too much about the AI.

2. For people who want to play the AI, this is really not the game. It is not really an AI, but a script. The problem is not with feints or ahistorical deployment, it is the scripted nature of the "AI". The program should evaluate threats to all bases based on recon, then deploy accordingly. Withdraw or delay when the threat level is too high. I understand the problems with writing such an AI, because I am writing one myself for a much simpler game. If this is such a big issue for many players, maybe 2 by 3 should consider an AI rewrite, but this is not my decision and frankly I would rather have them making the game better.



Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/7/2004 5:27:36 PM)

well, if this is true then
a.) 2by3 should write it on the game (PBEM-only...AI sucks)
b.) the game will be "better" if the AI is better.

just my 2 cents...

the problem is, we all critizise the game... it is great and good. i have the editor, i create great superiority for the "other" side... so the AI problems could be balanced out by more and better enemy weapons... i created an japanese side you will have problems to beat... they have around 20 large cve more and 10 cvl more... and a huge production rate... so if my tests are finished, i will start a real game as the allies... later on i will create the same for the japanese player against the allied ai... but these scenarios have nothing to do with the historical event... i would love a more historically game with a better ai... wishes, ah...[;)]



Mr.Frag -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/7/2004 6:03:30 PM)

quote:

I don’t want to win at all costs… I want to lose, but enjoy the game while I am doing it.


The perfect attitude for this game. It's about playing the game, not about winning or loosing.

The *win* or *loss* is a thing that comes along to simply tell you that it's time to start up again.

It's a funny thing that is very much against human nature, but once you get past it and are no longer hung up on that, things become far more fun.

The "win at all costs" leads down the path of excessive micromanagement to the point that you start loosing the fun and replace it with frustration. Most of the posts that are complaint based can be read quite clearly to be "I can't micromanage well enough because of ..." or "I did ... perfectly and lost, it's broken".

Relax, take a step back, then remember the intent of the game is to let you become part of the past in an epic way. It is about being able to be there, not winning or loosing.



ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: disapointing Victory (9/7/2004 6:27:22 PM)

Even a highly "scripted" AI can be made to play "better". Afterall the AI knows the intimate details about how the game is programmed, it knows all the forumulas, precisely, so it should know exactly how much force is needed to prevail in a particular operation based on its knowledge of the enemy forces there. There is no reason, during the first six months the Japanese AI could not have been programmed to operate precisely as experienced players operate as Japan. Only sending heavily escorted TF's into known harm's way, always invading with overwhelming force so as not to bog down into an infamous "death spiral". Only attacking targets under establish Japanese Air Zones of Control. Only supplying the important bases and leaving the others for much later, thereby ensuring there is always adequate supply on hand for operations. Performaing all the player tricks of maximizing pilot experience at the front and so on.

Developers can make the AI play "perfectly" if they wanted to. And that is not the same as having it cheat, just always playing to absolutely maximize its performance under the rules (formula) in place. But they seldom do this. I don't know why, but probably so as not to discourage new players the first time through.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.828125