Beta Testers: Winning % ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory



Message

jchastain -> Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/3/2005 7:43:58 PM)

I love this game. And I really love the detailed battle sequences. But over a matter of days, as I have begun to understand the dynamics of the detailed battles, I find myself winning the vast majority of fights - even when greatly outnumbered. While the AI knows the basics, a disciplined players can almost always prevail. So I am curious: To the beta testers, do you find yourself able to win most of the time once you finally comprehend how everything works? What percentage of games that you play do you now find yourself winning? And what percentage of detailed battles do you win? Thanks!



SLTxDarkknight -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/3/2005 8:03:27 PM)

I have found that dependent on scenario, and how late in the scenario you are things are easier earlier, can get a bit hairy at times but ultimately I win a vast majority of the battles



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/3/2005 8:12:29 PM)

I entered the beta kind of late and had to play a lot of catch-up. I rarely played games out to conclusion so I cant really give you a winning percentage.

I did point out in the beta that it seemed like the vast majority of us were winning tactical battles with inferior forces (even though we didnt fully understand what was going on). I have lost a few battles here and there, but not as many as I think I should have given some of the force mismatches.

I know the tactical AI has been tweaked since then and it does do better now. I'm sure there is still room for improvement and once they have time to get through the issues being presented here and on the bug forum, they'll probably go back and try to tighten it up more.

Obviously you can increase the game's difficulty level to present more challenge, but how you feel about AI 'cheats' is likely to determine whether that is satisfying or not. On the flip side, you could give MP a try and see how you fare against other people. [;)]



bluemonday -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/3/2005 8:58:45 PM)

I feel like the tactical combat is almost an exploit - you can seriously outperform the AI if you fight the tactical battles. The only limitation is time.



wodin -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/3/2005 9:01:37 PM)

Oh dear,

I was getting all hyped up for this game. For me though if someone is constantly beating the AI so soon after release it is very off putting indeed.

Will this be tweaked in a patch?

If so I will buy.



ess1 -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/3/2005 9:06:18 PM)

I think that the option of allowing a Tactical Battle with pbem has to be the answer.
I did post my misgvings on this in another thread.



bluemonday -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/3/2005 9:11:20 PM)

I'm not sure how allowing tactical battles in PBEM would help anything. If anything it would unbalance the game further. With the Quick Combat option, the AI has a much better chance, and thus players wouldn't be at so much of an advantage. If you allowed tactical battles in PBEM you'd tip the balance towards nations that fought a lot of big battles early, like France or Austria or Russia.



ess1 -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/3/2005 9:22:58 PM)

I,m sorry, perhaps I did not make myself clear.
The pbem option would be for human players. I do not see what advantage that would give to AI Nations.



bluemonday -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/3/2005 9:38:14 PM)

I see - I misunderstood you. I thought you meant human players should be able to use Tac Combat in PBEM against the AI. My mistake.

But how would your solution (of allowing the human players to fight tactical combat against each other in PBEM) help the situation?



ess1 -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/3/2005 9:50:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bluemonday

I see - I misunderstood you. I thought you meant human players should be able to use Tac Combat in PBEM against the AI. My mistake.

But how would your solution (of allowing the human players to fight tactical combat against each other in PBEM) help the situation?

As someone that plays wargames (HPS & BG) only by pbem within a club I have assumed that those wargamers would have a "best man won" satisfaction.
Without a save function might not be a good idea though. Of course, all those taking part would have to agree to tactical battles.
We are provisionally starting up one within the Napoleonics Wargame Club.



ravinhood -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/3/2005 10:22:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Oh dear,

I was getting all hyped up for this game. For me though if someone is constantly beating the AI so soon after release it is very off putting indeed.

Will this be tweaked in a patch?

If so I will buy.



I'm with you there Wodin and because of it have since ordered SUPREME RULER 2010 instead since what I'm reading about the AI in it is far greater than most any game out there, the AI gangs up on you, you can find yourself in 3 front wars in no time and be crushed to itty bitty pieces if you don't watch your P's and Q's. ;)



Reiryc -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/3/2005 10:56:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Oh dear,

I was getting all hyped up for this game. For me though if someone is constantly beating the AI so soon after release it is very off putting indeed.

Will this be tweaked in a patch?

If so I will buy.



I've never met an AI I couldn't beat the heck out of within a couple days or less after learning the system, have you?

Unless the AI is given massive cheats which isn't an improved AI, but rather handicapping which is different, then I would expect most humans to beat an AI within a couple days or less.



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/3/2005 10:59:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

I've never met an AI I couldn't beat the heck out of within a couple days or less after learning the system, have you?

Unless the AI is given massive cheats which isn't an improved AI, but rather handicapping which is different, then I would expect most humans to beat an AI within a couple days or less.


Exactly. There is nothing wrong with AI in the game. Its just thats its an AI. When you do the tactical battles, the AI doesnt do stupid things or make bad moves. But it simply cant plan and execute the way a skilled human player can.



willgamer -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/4/2005 12:54:58 AM)

quote:

But it simply cant plan and execute the way a skilled human player can.


Depends greatly on who you ask. There are many of us whose goal is role playing/immersion who could care less about exploits to beat the AI.

Perhaps that would make a good polling question someday: What is your main reason to play CoG? Win/Roleplay/Other... [:)]



Uncle_Joe -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/4/2005 2:22:29 AM)

No exploits needed...just sound tactics and some advanced planning.

There are no 'tricks' that I've needed to use. There are no 'sucker punches' or anything of the sort. Its simply a good grasp of the tactics, the terrain, and the capabilities of the troops involved.

If your definition of 'roleplaying' means making dumb moves or somesuch on purpose because it might have actually happened that way, then you are more then entitled to do so. From my point of view, I try not to do anything that wouldnt work historically on the battlefield.

But like it or not, we have FAR more info and control over the battles than our historic counterparts did. So, unless you are putting severe restricitions on yourself and what you can order, then you have a tremendous advantage. And that advantage in the hands of an experienced gamer is enough to tilt the balance in some situations.




Ralegh -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/4/2005 2:23:34 AM)

If you go into detailed battle with a good force mix and adequate morale, and some leaders, and aren't outnumbered too badly, then you should win the battle. Miss one of those and the issue is in doubt.

One thing that is making this seemed biased is that we normally brag about our biggest victories here on the forum - not the battles we lost.

At this stage, I would say that if you are one of those players looking for SUPER AI at the TACTICAL level, you should look elsewhere. Its good, but not super. If you want a challenging game over a long period, it is here - the AI is pretty good strategically and tactically, and there are POWER settings to allow handicapping.

Please note: even without handicapping, winning as Sweden or Turkey is very hard.



wodin -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/4/2005 3:29:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

I've never met an AI I couldn't beat the heck out of within a couple days or less after learning the system, have you?

Unless the AI is given massive cheats which isn't an improved AI, but rather handicapping which is different, then I would expect most humans to beat an AI within a couple days or less.


Actually it can take myself and others Im sure more than one or two days to beat an AI.

Maybe Im not a human...




jchastain -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/4/2005 3:36:37 AM)

Wodin -
You'll be able to reasonably consistently beat this AI in detailed combat within a few days. I'm pretty sure of that. The games are long enough that it will be much longer before you are able to actually win a full strategic game. But this is one of those remarkably fresh games that is just a little bit different and a whole lot of fun. If you don't play it, then you're really missing out on a great experience.



ravinhood -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/4/2005 3:52:23 AM)

quote:

Unless the AI is given massive cheats which isn't an improved AI, but rather handicapping which is different, then I would expect most humans to beat an AI within a couple days or less.


I include that as part of the beating process, the handicaps and advantages, so, no, not all AI's are beatable in a couple of days playing the most difficult level for me. If the AI is a pushover on the most difficult level, it's a pretty sorry game in my book.



Reiryc -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/4/2005 3:56:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

quote:

Unless the AI is given massive cheats which isn't an improved AI, but rather handicapping which is different, then I would expect most humans to beat an AI within a couple days or less.


I include that as part of the beating process, the handicaps and advantages, so, no, not all AI's are beatable in a couple of days playing the most difficult level for me. If the AI is a pushover on the most difficult level, it's a pretty sorry game in my book.


That has nothing to do with the AI though. There is nothing 'intelligent' about upping an attack factor or giving extra money to buy more units etc.

Handicapping doesn't make the AI better as in it will perform better moves or act more 'human' with intelligent unpredictableness, but rather it just gives the human more to fight against. Whether it more units or more morale or whatever...




Zap -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/4/2005 4:00:36 AM)

I was a sure bet for purchase of this game before reading these posts. I would still like to. I had convinced myself it was going to be a great game. Now, I want to buy it but I think I better wait for more feedback. Rethinking



ravinhood -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/4/2005 4:07:30 AM)

quote:

That has nothing to do with the AI though. There is nothing 'intelligent' about upping an attack factor or giving extra money to buy more units etc.

Handicapping doesn't make the AI better as in it will perform better moves or act more 'human' with intelligent unpredictableness, but rather it just gives the human more to fight against. Whether it more units or more morale or whatever...


Of course it doesn't make the AI smarter, but, it does make the AI more challenging and that has everything to do with the value of the game as a whole. The I part of AI should be taken out, but, it just sounds good I guess "intelligence", but, if you read the definition of intelligence, no AI has any because it requires the ability to "learn" and no AI can learn, so the advantages and handicaps are the importance of an AI in most all games. It should be called AO (artificial opponent), then there wouldn't be any confusion about intelligence, handicaps or advantages (or cheats some call them).

So when I'm asking about an AI, I'm not asking about it's intelligence, but, it's ability to be challenging or even win with overwhelming odds. Several of these posts are already showing the AI is fairly easy even when the human is outnumbered 2 to 1. That's the part I take most interest in. You give me 2 to 1 odds against another human and I'll crush them (given balance in the combat factors) and so the advantages and handicaps should be so with this AI to do the same, regardless of intelligence. If it can just use basic tactics, it still should win the battles.

Also, many people play the normal or lower difficulties and then describe the AI (many never even mention what difficulty they are playing on), it's rare I can find someone to play the hardest difficulties and then describe the AI "challenge" level. When I first get a game I go immediately and play the hardest difficulty and work my way down from there (if I have to). If I beat it first try out of the box on the hardest difficulty (RTW), that's a suky game, even if PBEM, or MP is superb, if it doesn't have a darn good most difficult level AI, it's crap in my book.



Reiryc -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/4/2005 4:08:13 AM)

Sad to hear it...

The game is a blast. Unless you're one of those anal retentive types then I wouldn't put too much stock into the majority of the complaints/concerns posted here. The AI atleast can keep a person interested. While it won't pull of the stunts a human will, it's still a decent opponent and the way the game plays it makes it fun.



Zap -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/4/2005 4:13:59 AM)

I said I was rethinking and reading but I lean in favor of the game. Every opinion counts for me. I just don't want it to be another game that sits in my no play pile. Your positive comments help.



ravinhood -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/4/2005 4:16:26 AM)

Well the total polls aren't in yet on this one, it's only a few days old, but, I'm sure someone will try out the most difficult level and give some feedback on the AI eventually. It just puts me on the fence to wait and see what the comments are.

If I were 20 again it probably wouldn't be such an issue, but, at near 50 I don't care to "waste my time" just playing a fair AI opponent. I want that "fix" of more challenge and my time worth it to try to defeat it, even if it means overwhelming numbers against me. I get this everytime I play a Combat Mission or Steel Panthers WAW game because I can make it almost impossible to beat. That's the "fun" I get out of computer games. ;)

I play some PBEM games, but, I find them too slow to reach the satisfaction level I'm looking for. So, that is why an AO (I'm going to call it AO heh), needs to be challenging and remain challenging for years to come. Much like the Civilization game which I still have never beaten the most difficult level. That makes it a great game.



Reiryc -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/4/2005 4:20:04 AM)

quote:

Also, many people play the normal or lower difficulties and then describe the AI (many never even mention what difficulty they are playing on), it's rare I can find someone to play the hardest difficulties and then describe the AI "challenge" level. When I first get a game I go immediately and play the hardest difficulty and work my way down from there (if I have to). If I beat it first try out of the box on the hardest difficulty (RTW), that's a suky game, even if PBEM, or MP is superb, if it doesn't have a darn good most difficult level AI, it's crap in my book


That's the thing... most people don't view AI like you do.

Most have complaints about the stupid moves an AI makes thus alluding to its 'intelligence', not the handicaps it was given. I've rarely heard someone complain that an AI wasn't given enough enough handicaps/cheats to overwhelm a person.

In my book, a good AI is one that doesn't or rarely makes moves that put it in a situation to suffer needlessly. A good example would be any panzer campaign game. I don't know how many times I've seen the AI park units in travel mode either right next to my units or right in my units line of sight. Thus exposing itself to increased damage and fatigue levels without atleast doing so because it was making a gamble on capturing a victory location or some other type move.

I think, atleast based upon the posts I've read in countless forums, people want to see an AI behave more intelligently or even with the unrealistic expectation in some cases, act more like a human opponent. So when answering the question of a good AI, I think people want to know about what the computer opponent does not how it's handicapped.




sol_invictus -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/4/2005 4:20:24 AM)

I would bet that if a person plays Sweden, Spain, or Turkey at Naploeon Level and changes the Power settings that they would get all the challenge they would want; at least for several games per Nation.

I never have liked cheating AI. It is no achievement to just throw the kitchen sink at the player and call that a challenge; epecially when it is very blatant. I find it boring. I can accept some slight bonus for the AI and if this keeps me honest and on my toes that is fine and all I expect from an AI.



Reiryc -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/4/2005 4:28:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

I said I was rethinking and reading but I lean in favor of the game. Every opinion counts for me. I just don't want it to be another game that sits in my no play pile. Your positive comments help.


I hear ya...

I think that this game provides quite a few situations where there is this 'unknown' quantity that keeps it interesting due to the numerous variables that affect the outcome of your decisions.

There are so many inputs into the economy, diplomacy, initiative etc that the game is interesting because you don't just learn a simple formula to master it. You get the feel of the game after a day or two of playing, but there is alot to learn when it comes to mastering it which makes it quite fun in my book.




Zap -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/4/2005 4:34:15 AM)

quote:

While it won't pull of the stunts a human will, it's still a decent opponent and the way the game plays it makes it fun.


The way the game plays for you does that mean the detailed invovlement with food, morale, and how you disburse your resources? You beat me to your answer in your above post. Let me ask you this; then one battle does not play a decisive factor but all the ingredients put together affects your win victory points.



Reiryc -> RE: Beta Testers: Winning % ? (7/4/2005 4:38:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

I would bet that if a person plays Sweden, Spain, or Turkey at Naploeon Level and changes the Power settings that they would get all the challenge they would want; at least for several games per Nation.

I never have liked cheating AI. It is no achievement to just throw the kitchen sink at the player and call that a challenge; epecially when it is very blatant. I find it boring. I can accept some slight bonus for the AI and if this keeps me honest and on my toes that is fine and all I expect from an AI.


I feel the way you do on this issue...



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.390625