Does it always go like this?? (Full Version)

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



Message

wild_Willie2 -> Does it always go like this?? (10/27/2004 12:42:42 PM)

Hi, I have been playing WITP for several months now, and reading this forum was of great help to me.
But now I have a question. I have been playing as the allies’ in scenario 15 now for the last few weeks, and am now somewhere in October 1942. By now my heavy’s (B17, 24’s with a little help of Hudsons and B25’s) have literally decimated the cream of the Jap air force on the ground at Kendary and Rabaul. I have destroyed a total of 1300 zeros (1000 on the ground), 1100 Betty’s (950 or so on the ground) as well as a score of other airplane’s. The AI would send new meat to the B-heavy grinder as fast as I would blow them up on the ground… It was even stupid enough to send a couple of carries into range of my 200 + B17’s and 120+ B26’s, with had (of course) a predictable outcome. (scratch’s 3 flattops). The result is a decimated Jap air force and KB…….. While I still have my carriers and my air force even gets stronger by the day (just recaptured Kendary, and surrounded Rabaul by the way :) The AI keeps sending al its subs into the Coral sea, and I keep blowing them out of the water there with my ASW taskforces stationed at Munda.
The worst part is: I AM PLAYING THE AI ON VERY HARD…..

Are the scenario’s always as easy when playing against the AI?, if so, there is no real reason for me to continue playing this game because there is no challenge. Once Kendary is fully operational, I will station my 200 + heavy bombers there and that will be the end of it….

Is this outcome just a fluke, or is this result normal when playing the TERRIBLE AI………..?

Maybe I will try the war once more playing as the Jap, maybe a challenge there (although I doubt it playing the AI) [>:]



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/27/2004 12:47:33 PM)

You have internet access, try PBEM. The only way to fly. Totally different experience.



pompack -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/27/2004 6:09:02 PM)

I should learn to read the entire post before I answer



strawbuk -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/27/2004 7:22:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

You have internet access, try PBEM. The only way to fly. Totally different experience.



Yep - and see the stuff about setting yourself house rules/historic limits vs AI for a more fulfilling experiecnce. No AI is great, patch (aaaargh) should help it a bit.



Tankerace -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/27/2004 9:35:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

You have internet access, try PBEM. The only way to fly. Totally different experience.


Hey Ron, that reminds me. Once 1.3 is out, are we stil on for our game?



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 12:45:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

You have internet access, try PBEM. The only way to fly. Totally different experience.


Hey Ron, that reminds me. Once 1.3 is out, are we stil on for our game?


Yep...I'll suck it up and eat rice cakes, raw fish, generally hang out with the little people.



Tankerace -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 12:45:44 AM)

[:D]



Buck Beach -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 1:10:52 AM)

This is definately not good news!! I don't want to be a PBEM player, I want to have fun playing the AI. If what you say is typical this game is not going to be any more fun for me. It means that we can over exploit the AI weakness. Christ there are other games out there that offer a better challange for us AI player. Please someone say this is a mistake.



kaleun -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 1:17:41 AM)

The AI is supposed to be better in the patch, but that is provided that you play historically; if you stray too far of historic pathways, then it cannot compensate.[:(]

I used to be mostly AI player, but have since moved to exclusively PBEM so this is not a problem for me, but I understand the frustration.....



Thayne -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 1:21:47 AM)

Since you mention B17s and B24s, I would like to know the altitude that you were bombing at.

There is a bug (to be fixed in the patch) that allows these bombers to do a significant amount of damage if they bomb above 32,000 feet.

I was doing a significant amount of damage to Japanese airplanes at Rangoon using this tactic, until I found out about the bug. Since then (and until the patch comes out), I have given B-17s a ceiling of 30,000 feet.



Charbroiled -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 1:22:18 AM)

I started the campaign, but stopped once I heard about the patch. Tried a few of the scenerios, and did pretty good as the Allies. I'm sure the Japanese would be a challange because of lack of replacements. I'm trying to get a friend I've known for 20 years up on the game so that we could PBEM, because I figure that I could only get it 3-4 turns per week...times 52 weeks/year = 208 days of WITP a year. When the War actually lasted around 54 months.....times 30 days/month (more or less) = 1620 days of war.......1620/208=.....it would take us a little under 8 years to finish a campaign. It looks like I'll have to keep this guys as a friend for awhile.....unless he kicks my butt.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 1:23:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

This is definately not good news!! I don't want to be a PBEM player, I want to have fun playing the AI. If what you say is typical this game is not going to be any more fun for me. It means that we can over exploit the AI weakness. Christ there are other games out there that offer a better challange for us AI player. Please someone say this is a mistake.


Hey, Buck. Have you even tried PBEM? I'm not sure why you have an aversion to it but I was the same for awhile. Would I have to wait too long, would my opponent drop after a setback, whatever? Well.......it's the only way to go for me now. I especially like the banter.



pasternakski -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 1:28:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

This is definately not good news!! I don't want to be a PBEM player, I want to have fun playing the AI. If what you say is typical this game is not going to be any more fun for me. It means that we can over exploit the AI weakness. Christ there are other games out there that offer a better challange for us AI player. Please someone say this is a mistake.


You've got a staunch ally here, Buck. Nearly all computer wargames used to be designed as "you against the computer." That was the whole idea. Now, we see poor AI design apologized for by "PBEM is so much better" and "Well, the AI just doesn't have the capability to be competitive."

I didn't come to Grigsby's games for that. I've been buying them for twenty years, and now, in the long run, I feel short changed.



dpstafford -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 1:33:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
You have internet access, try PBEM. The only way to fly. Totally different experience.

I can't understand why anybody would waste their time playing against the AI. Even if the AI were good. (Which I don't think it can ever be in a game this complex).



Charbroiled -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 1:34:30 AM)

I don't feel short changed at all myself. I think that this AI is much better then the original PacWar, and I had many hours of enjoyment with it. I just don't expect much of a tactical challenge from a computer AI on ant game other then chess. (p.s. I think I over estimate the length of the war on my last post)



kaleun -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 1:44:55 AM)

And the reason why a computer can give you a good game of chess is the AI's use of a database, plus the limited number of pieces limits the total amount of moves.

I wonder if Deep Blue (I think that was it) would have beaten Ksparov, had Kasparov been allowed access to a database.
[8|]



pad152 -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 1:54:20 AM)

Some things to do with the editor to help the AI (Japanese).

1. Give the AI more and better pilots. Operational losses alone will eat all of the replacement pilots.

2. Allow all Japanese airgroups to upgrade to better planes.

3. Give the Japanese some extra (oil, industry, aircraft production).

4. Reduce the accuracy of allied bombs (devices).

5. Increase the accuracy of Japanese bombs (devices).

6. Allow better Japanese aircraft to become available sooner.

7. Give Japan some extra airgroups and ships.

8. Increase the AV support from 30 to 90 for all AV engineer units.

9. Increase support for all land units.

10. Allow all air groups to start with max aircraft.


==================================================================
Play the Japanese against the Allied AI on hard! You'll be suprised just how little Japan gets vs. the allies.[X(]

Just remember playing the Japanese is like sitting at a blackjack table in vegas with all of your money, sooner or later you are going lose it all. [:D]



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 2:25:28 AM)

Because ive gamed on line for years- and basicly some players can be real jerks. Every thing has too be just right for them ,especially if their losing. I enjoy playing against the AI, but will one day Pbem, and i am not saying that all players are this way. But i have played against (on line) some real winners. If they drove a car , they would be tailgaters.[:D]
quote:

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
You have internet access, try PBEM. The only way to fly. Totally different experience.

I can't understand why anybody would waste their time playing against the AI. Even if the AI were good. (Which I don't think it can ever be in a game this complex).



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 2:56:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

This is definately not good news!! I don't want to be a PBEM player, I want to have fun playing the AI. If what you say is typical this game is not going to be any more fun for me. It means that we can over exploit the AI weakness. Christ there are other games out there that offer a better challange for us AI player. Please someone say this is a mistake.


You've got a staunch ally here, Buck. Nearly all computer wargames used to be designed as "you against the computer." That was the whole idea. Now, we see poor AI design apologized for by "PBEM is so much better" and "Well, the AI just doesn't have the capability to be competitive."

I didn't come to Grigsby's games for that. I've been buying them for twenty years, and now, in the long run, I feel short changed.


I would like to be able to play vs the AI as well, as I can pick and choose when and how long I wish to play. But a good AI is probably never going to happen for a game of this scale...ever. I am finished investing time vs the AI in games of this size because they are just simply disappointing. So, it's PBEM, head to head, or solitaire.



fbastos -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 2:57:41 AM)

quote:

I am finished investing time vs the AI in games of this size because they are just simply disappointing. So, it's PBEM, head to head, or solitaire.


Solitaire you mean you against yourself?? :-o

F = confused :)

F.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 3:10:49 AM)

Solitaire head 2 head. Final giveaway that ones life blows the big one and it's time to either get out of the cocoon or cash in your chips and make room for useful people.[8D]



Thayne -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 3:29:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dpstafford
I can't understand why anybody would waste their time playing against the AI. Even if the AI were good. (Which I don't think it can ever be in a game this complex).


Just for starters . . .

(1) Because many PBEM opponents enjoy finding loopholes in the rules to exploit in order to gain a nonhistorical advantage. Computer AIs are designed not to do this.

(2) Because a PBEM opponent is not always available when I want to play. The Computer AI is always there.

(3) Because a PBEM opponent might either seriously outclass or seriously underclass my abilities. I can adjust a computer's skill level.

(4) Because the computer does not mind if I decide that I am simply not interested in playing any more and quit . . . or that I want to start over.

(5) Because I can write a DAR about my campaign and post it above without worry that my opponent is going to learn my strategy and use the information against me.

Thayne
Editor in Chief
Thayne News Campaign Reports

(P.S., wild_Willie2, if you look at my DAR, you will see a game vs. the AI which seems to be going pretty well. I am at May 10, 1942 right now. I adopted some house rules to make the game more interesting -- rules that I think should have been in the way the game was designed to start with.)



dinsdale -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 3:35:38 AM)

Deep Blue was built to defeat one of the greatest Chess players of all time. There are plenty of affordable chess games which will defeat standard players.

Yes, Chess is a much easier game to create an AI for, but as long as this excuse is trotted out, time after time, for game after game, then there will never be enough demand, and thus never resources spent, to make a competent AI.

No doubt there are plenty of FPS players who thought DOOM1 had great graphics and nothing more was necessary. Fortunately for that hobby, there's been a market for pushing the boundary in graphics and every year they have improved. Sadly those of us who like wargames are too often satisfied because there is a game, so excuses are made for every flaw.

All other aspects of gaming have improved over the last 10 years, except AI. Of course games sell more when they can stack features on the marketing hype, and not if they claim to have a great AI.

We have the AI we want and deserve, and ultimately, that's as much our fault as the developers.



denisonh -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 3:43:00 AM)

How long did it take to perfect Deep Blue?

How many times has the basic modeling (rules for chess) for the game change during that span?

To make a decent AI would take a significant amount of time, and would be something difficult to make under constantly changing conditions.

If it was that easy, the DoD simulations the the US military would have decent AIs to work inside thier multi million dollar combat simulations.

They don't.

What do you want for a game that cost $70?


quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

Deep Blue was built to defeat one of the greatest Chess players of all time. There are plenty of affordable chess games which will defeat standard players.

Yes, Chess is a much easier game to create an AI for, but as long as this excuse is trotted out, time after time, for game after game, then there will never be enough demand, and thus never resources spent, to make a competent AI.

No doubt there are plenty of FPS players who thought DOOM1 had great graphics and nothing more was necessary. Fortunately for that hobby, there's been a market for pushing the boundary in graphics and every year they have improved. Sadly those of us who like wargames are too often satisfied because there is a game, so excuses are made for every flaw.

All other aspects of gaming have improved over the last 10 years, except AI. Of course games sell more when they can stack features on the marketing hype, and not if they claim to have a great AI.

We have the AI we want and deserve, and ultimately, that's as much our fault as the developers.



dinsdale -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 3:57:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

How long did it take to perfect Deep Blue?

It's irrelevant. Why does a state of the art, one of a kind machine and program need to be invoked every time the word AI is used? Should I repeat what I said, or did you read any of the post?


quote:

If it was that easy, the DoD simulations the the US military would have decent AIs to work inside thier multi million dollar combat simulations.

They don't.

What do you want for a game that cost $70?

What I expect is an evolution from what was available 10 years ago.

Obviously that's too much to ask, and wargamers wonder why this is a niche market these days. Buggy whip manufacturer mentality.



denisonh -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 4:11:31 AM)

Ever done any programming? Just curious.

Programming "expert systems" to recognize patterns in complex environments and then formulate actions/reactions/counteractions ain't like writing postcards. Then change the parameters midstream while programming.

Many would say the current model is incomplete and has a number of issues, and therefore requires changeing. The second, third and fourth order effects of model changes can have significant effects on the programmed routines of the AI. The grand campaign has how many day turns, how many hexes, how many units, etc..? The possibilities and permutations that have to be considered to formulate a plan are expansive.

Enough to boggle the mind (and a free thinking one at that)

I have done some postgraduate work in combat modelling and simulation programming, and if it was that easy it would have been done before.

It just ain't that easy.

If it was, you wouldn't still be waiting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

How long did it take to perfect Deep Blue?

It's irrelevant. Why does a state of the art, one of a kind machine and program need to be invoked every time the word AI is used? Should I repeat what I said, or did you read any of the post?


quote:

If it was that easy, the DoD simulations the the US military would have decent AIs to work inside thier multi million dollar combat simulations.

They don't.

What do you want for a game that cost $70?

What I expect is an evolution from what was available 10 years ago.

Obviously that's too much to ask, and wargamers wonder why this is a niche market these days. Buggy whip manufacturer mentality.



dinsdale -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 4:29:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh
Ever done any programming? Just curious.

Christ. [>:] Have you ever done any sewing? If not, then I hope you never pass comment about clothes.

Anyway, yes it's my profession, but I believe that's not only irrelevant to the discussion but also encourages the sort of behaviour which another poster who insists on shoving his credentials into every post. Further, as this is hardly the venue to discuss the specifics of AI, or indeed of discussing breakthroughs in AI which are in use within industry, then it does not require being a programmer to participate.

quote:


It just ain't that easy.

If it was, you wouldn't still be waiting.

Do you think it's been easy to bring each new generation of graphics breakthroughs? Even before getting to software, do you think it's been easy moulding this generation of hardware?

Easy isn't relevant, if it were then there would only be "simple" discoveries. The problem isn't the difficulty, it's the lack of resources spent in R&D. All I tried to say was that we, in our meek acceptance of every game in this genre, who are part of the problem.

No doubt in 2014 you'll still hold the position that whatever AI is shipped with a game is fine. Though I doubt wargames will still be around.



denisonh -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 4:34:44 AM)

Comparing Graphics and AI is like comparing is like painting a house is to designing a house.

The complexities are a little more difficult.

And complexity is relevant. It is the dealing with all the permutations of decisions within decisions and trying to quantify these that makes any decent artifical decision making difficult.

I prefer PBEM play at any rate, so you can keep your patronizing comments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh
Ever done any programming? Just curious.

Christ. [>:] Have you ever done any sewing? If not, then I hope you never pass comment about clothes.

Anyway, yes it's my profession, but I believe that's not only irrelevant to the discussion but also encourages the sort of behaviour which another poster who insists on shoving his credentials into every post. Further, as this is hardly the venue to discuss the specifics of AI, or indeed of discussing breakthroughs in AI which are in use within industry, then it does not require being a programmer to participate.

quote:


It just ain't that easy.

If it was, you wouldn't still be waiting.

Do you think it's been easy to bring each new generation of graphics breakthroughs? Even before getting to software, do you think it's been easy moulding this generation of hardware?

Easy isn't relevant, if it were then there would only be "simple" discoveries. The problem isn't the difficulty, it's the lack of resources spent in R&D. All I tried to say was that we, in our meek acceptance of every game in this genre, who are part of the problem.

No doubt in 2014 you'll still hold the position that whatever AI is shipped with a game is fine. Though I doubt wargames will still be around.



fbastos -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 4:51:33 AM)

Hey, hate to interfere with the discussion, but consider CiV III... it's also very complex, with plenty of rules, but the AI is very sharp.

A good AI can be done, if one spends enough time on it, and plenty of testing.

F.



denisonh -> RE: Does it always go like this?? (10/28/2004 4:53:14 AM)

CIV III AI cheats, and the complexity of CIV III is much less then WitP.

Much much less than WitP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos

Hey, hate to interfere with the discussion, but consider CiV III... it's also very complex, with plenty of rules, but the AI is very sharp.

A good AI can be done, if one spends enough time on it, and plenty of testing.

F.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.25