Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please)

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 5:12:40 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline 		I don't (yet) have the game.

If one side has air superiority, can that side do more air recon than without air superiority?

Are there game mechanics designed with the intention to gain air superiority?
-

(in reply to Titanwarrior89)
Post #: 31
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 5:12:52 AM   
pompack


Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

#1 and #3.

Just an opinion: I don't think that #2 is even possible EXCEPT when done as seperate scenarios since the actions of the AI are inherently dependent on the path taken to the action decision point.


You're saying that you can't code a Soviet AI so that in 1941:

1. It is affected by shock and has 25% movement and admin points, etc.
2. It doesn't retreat for the first few turns.
3. The code that causes it to escape from pockets is deactivated for the first few months.
4. The General in command of STAVKA has minimal skills and cannot be replaced for the first few months.
5. Other Generals have reduced skills and no initiative for the first months.
6. It makes a defense line (e.g. with stacks) instead of defending in depth.

??????



No, I am just saying that after you have done that it is still not historical. Furthermore, even if I used MY opinion of historical instead of yours, it still would not work.

(in reply to Redmarkus5)
Post #: 32
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 5:32:28 AM   
PyleDriver


Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline 		Ok, I'm breaking this cone of silence. What in the heck are you talking about pompack?

_____________________________

Jon Pyle
AWD Beta tester
WBTS Alpha tester
WitE Alpha tester
WitW Alpha tester
WitE2 Alpha tester

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 33
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 6:20:09 AM   
Sheytan


Posts: 863
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline 		All three for me. I plan on a PBEM eventually of the Grand Campaign. To me at least that IS the holy grail of a game of this scope.

edited to add 1 and 2 seem to ask what you would prefer the AI to do. Since there is little info on how dynamic it is to date id say 1 and 2 are one of the same yes? At any rate if I misunderstood you I do not wish a AI to march lockstep in any particular direction, I want a AI opponent that can be dynamic and adapt to the situation. One other observation regarding this question on your part, I cannot think of any game that wasnt scripted to do something to mimic history that dosnt break FROM history once you play the first turn.

I did buy it although I had intended to wait, but I figured id give Matrix a boost and purchase it to help thier sales.



< Message edited by Sheytan -- 12/13/2010 6:33:08 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Titanwarrior89)
Post #: 34
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 6:55:17 AM   
jjoshua

 

Posts: 55
Joined: 9/9/2009
Status: offline 		I lean more towards #1....

But....Like other folks who are war buffs, well versed or not, and feel like we could all have done a better job 'quarterbacking' the Eastern Front much better than all the Generals actually involved back then; it would be tantalizing to have a 'Historical' set of scenerios; to see if each of our strategies would have had a different outcome to histories realities on the Eastern Front.

So...#2 does perk my interest as well. Not into PBEM

As for PomPack's comments.... I am guessing, and I am only guessing....is that he is saying that each of us have a set of different ideas of what is historical, and that nobody could tweak the AI to make it truly closer to the real deal, no matter what was done.

Looking at redmarkus4 ideas seems reasonable and feasible to me, but....

"Since I don't know 'Diddly Squat' about AI code...not sure what is possible and what is not."

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 35
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 9:01:47 AM   
wodin


Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline 		IF I bought the game I'd be buying it in the knowledge that the Axis AI isn't the best as the game goes on...however playing against the Russian AI early war is I believe good enough.....the game is to massive in scope for a challenging AI for both sides through the whole war...I reckon it would have needed another year or so to give it a good AI for both sides all though the war....from just reading the forum very little was tested with regards to playing the Russians against the Axis AI...I think anyone buying this game who thinks it's going to have a brilliant AI all through the war for both sides will be in the long run dissapointed....once people have the game for awhile I can forsee more posts asking for AI improvements..

It's one reason why I'm holding off until it hits the sale next Xmas...

_____________________________

My website


https://www.awargamersneedfulthings.co.uk/

(in reply to Titanwarrior89)
Post #: 36
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 9:54:39 AM   
jomni


Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline 		#1 then #3 but I will not play a grand campaign PBEM as I cannot commit that long.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 37
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 10:06:27 AM   
steveh11Matrix


Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline 		Once bought, I'll be playing strictly against the AI. Given that the 'outside influences' have been set by design to be historically fixed I'm actually quite surprised to hear that the Soviet AI doesn't attempt to re-create the early-war shock & "Hold Fast" orders, so I would have expected the #2 option to have been a priority. Once 1942 is reached, the AI would then act by avoiding being pocketed more, per historical actions.

But this is "just" a matter of AI scripting, isn't it? Is this something that's open to modding?

Steve.

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 38
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 10:13:25 AM   
Helpless


Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Is this something that's open to modding?


Yes

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to steveh11Matrix)
Post #: 39
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 12:14:32 PM   
BletchleyGeek


Posts: 4713
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		#1 and #3.

Regarding pompack "issue": I am glad 2by3 hasn't hardcoded that, quite historical Soviet perceived behavior, especially in the campaign game. If anybody feels like needing a "History Channel" Operation Barbarossa scenario, there's a scenario editor included with WiTE.

That's not to say that WiTE doesn't accurately depict Red Army capabilities (or liabilities) in the first years of the war, it does and it does very well:

1) Red Army logistics at the start of the war are inadequate to say the least, the SU motor pool will take a few turns to get to an acceptable level.
2) Most leaders are very bad and/or unexperienced.
3) Red Army units morale, training and mobility is much below the standard for the Wehrmacht.
4) Red Army command structure is far from optimal.
5) Red Army initial deployment is as hopeless as it was.
6) Many units start "frozen" or so underequipped/undertrained that they're practically useless.

About the "no retreat" orders... well, I think they can be easily simulated by setting up many more Red Army units to "Frozen" status (with the already included scenario editor).

And then there's the H2H factor (i.e. game needs to be interesting to both players). Once I played over e-mail TOAW's Barbarossa 41 scenario and it was so boring for both me and my opponent that we were overjoyed when we found out that both wanted to switch to Operation Blau 42 "monster" scenario made by a fan (perhaps the author of that scenario reads these forums: if so, many many thanks for that work).

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 40
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 12:32:06 PM   
solops

 

Posts: 814
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Central Texas
Status: offline 		#1 and No PBEM

_____________________________

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.-Edmund Burke
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; if it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.-Judge Learned Hand

(in reply to Titanwarrior89)
Post #: 41
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 12:50:55 PM   
Lannes


Posts: 85
Joined: 6/13/2000
From: france
Status: offline 		#1 and #3 for me

_____________________________

Christophe

(in reply to Titanwarrior89)
Post #: 42
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 2:09:30 PM   
Redmarkus5


Posts: 4456
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline 		Thanks everyone for the interesting and positive contributions so far. We do need to remember that English is not everyone's first language here and what may seem to be misdirected is generally well intentioned.

To clarify my thinking, I do understand that once the first move is made, the campaign is no longer historical - only the initial conditions can ever be historical. However, a good set of initial conditions and other limiting factors can be devised to constrain the options for both the AI and the human player. This has been done to a great extent, but there are some important gaps.

For example, when I played the GC vs. the Soviet AI, my AG South couldn't even keep up with the retreating Soviets who ran all the way back to Kiev on Turn 5. I hadn't yet broken their line when this happened.

This is a design and coding issue - not a problem that's beyond the capacity of 2by3 surely?

Finally, let me say that WiTE represents a fantastic effort in design and delivery. I have my FiTE boxes on my shelf and the thought of trying to turn that into a PC game is scary. I think that this game will deliver excellent PBEM value for players who are willing to live with a few simple House Rules. The AI will hopefully get there one day.

Please do buy the game. It is worth having now and the more players there are, the better the game will become. Remember, this is a niche market...

_____________________________

WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2

(in reply to Lannes)
Post #: 43
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 2:38:49 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Ok, I'm breaking this cone of silence. What in the heck are you talking about pompack?


Just disagreeing with redmarkus4 on principle dealing with the philosophical difficulties of creating a simulation that will always produce an exact replica of history. Actually another poster in another similar thread said it better: "if you want a simulation that exactly duplicates history read a book"

As to the philosophy, Brother Herwin in the WitP forum could explain it better (and at greater length) since he used to teach this stuff and I only studied it.

When you set out to create a mathematical model of conflict you face an initial challenge in your choice of temporal and spatial granularity: at very large granularity you can create a model where you push "start" and it will tell you who won the conflict; at the other extreme you can attempt to construct a model at such fine granularity that it will inform you that on the 14th day of the conflict Private John Smith was killed by artillery fire on the outskirts of Rodevenko. Once you create your model, you must run sufficient trials to achieve some level of statistical confidence in the results. You are then inevitably faced with the fact that your predicted results deviate from the results expected by the designer and/or the customers paying for the model. When that occurs the designer has four basic choices: 1) tweak the initial conditions, 2) change the math portion of the model, 3) add external constraints to the operation of the model, and 4) change the "expected results" in the mind of the designer/customer.

#1 is used most frequently but is constrained by reality since the initial conditions of a conflict of interest are usually known, at least at a high level. Note that one of the primary drawbacks (other than cost) of a fine-grained simulation is the fact that at a low enough level the initial conditions are NOT known and given enough flexiblity to change them the designer can produce pretty much whatever result a customer desires (which in the real world means that the customer has wasted his money unless that was the purpose of creating the simulation in the first place.\

#2 is rarely done to any great extent to the the exteme cost in time and money of any but the must superfical changes in the math model

#4 is unfortunately the rarest outcome in the real world of combat simulations; customers especially don't like to be told by computers that they had it all wrong

#3 is usually the choice after changing the initital conditions (#1) fail to produce the "expected result": for example, for an Armored Cav advocate, if the Russians fail to advance far enough on the first day (thus indicating that your Cav screen is sufficient) you add a constraints that eliminate traffic friction at the border due to "prior planning", increase the effectiveness of first day bombardments due to "prior registration". The point is that you can add as many special rules as you like and pretty much create any result that you like but that is doing nothing to increase the accuracy or the "historical nature" of the simulation.

So that is a lot of words to say that I don't believe that you should change a model that produces good results over a multi-year period by constricting it with a bunch of "special rules" in order to produce an historical result in the tenth week of the campaign (for example)

(in reply to PyleDriver)
Post #: 44
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 2:47:49 PM   
Redmarkus5


Posts: 4456
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline 		Hi Pompack.

Actually, I agree with you. Please take a closer look at what I am trying to say :)

I don't expect an exact replication of history, just a realistic set of constraints to keep things reasonably believable. This has been achieved in other excellent games, such as WiTP, but WiTE is not yet at that stage, IMO.

This has stirred up a huge number of comments, so it must be a sensitive topic for some reason.

Cheers,

Mark

_____________________________

WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 45
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 3:01:07 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Hi Pompack.

Actually, I agree with you. Please take a closer look at what I am trying to say :)

I don't expect an exact replication of history, just a realistic set of constraints to keep things reasonably believable. This has been achieved in other excellent games, such as WiTP, but WiTE is not yet at that stage, IMO.

This has stirred up a huge number of comments, so it must be a sensitive topic for some reason.

Cheers,

Mark



Oh I would not call it "sensitive" in the sense of people worrying about kicking over sacred cows as much as just plain "interesting". It was said earlier that people can "agree to disagree" but in an "interesting" thread people agree to agree but only at great length and after much pontificating

(in reply to Redmarkus5)
Post #: 46
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 3:04:51 PM   
Redmarkus5


Posts: 4456
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline 		OK, peace. If you take a look at my 'House Rules' thread, you will get a better idea of what I am trying to outline :)

_____________________________

WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 47
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 3:23:20 PM   
PyleDriver


Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline 		redmarkus4@ I really think in less than one week of playing this you can come to that conclusion. Play it, learn it, and let us know how you feel in a month.

_____________________________

Jon Pyle
AWD Beta tester
WBTS Alpha tester
WitE Alpha tester
WitW Alpha tester
WitE2 Alpha tester

(in reply to Redmarkus5)
Post #: 48
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 3:46:17 PM   
Redmarkus5


Posts: 4456
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline 		Sorry - what conclusion?

_____________________________

WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2

(in reply to PyleDriver)
Post #: 49
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 4:02:19 PM   
PyleDriver


Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline 		That this game doesn't have "a realistic set of constraints to keep things reasonably belelievable"...

_____________________________

Jon Pyle
AWD Beta tester
WBTS Alpha tester
WitE Alpha tester
WitW Alpha tester
WitE2 Alpha tester

(in reply to Redmarkus5)
Post #: 50
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 4:08:20 PM   
Redmarkus5


Posts: 4456
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline 		OK. I hear you and I'm open to being convinced. But if I see weird things in the first week (such as the whole Soviet southern front running away) am I not entitled to harbour some doubts?

Anyway, I am starting the Road to Kiev scenario and an AAR thread to show what I experience and illustrate how at least one noob customer plays the game. All comments and suggestions welcome!

_____________________________

WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2

(in reply to PyleDriver)
Post #: 51
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 4:26:41 PM   
PyleDriver


Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline 		Well the AI may do some strange things. It tends to be Moscow heavy. Once you jump into a few PBEM games agianst experenced Soviet players, you my be singing a different tune...

_____________________________

Jon Pyle
AWD Beta tester
WBTS Alpha tester
WitE Alpha tester
WitW Alpha tester
WitE2 Alpha tester

(in reply to Redmarkus5)
Post #: 52
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 5:08:09 PM   
IronWarrior


Posts: 801
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: Beaverton, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

I want to find out if my views are in the minority here.

Did you buy this game (or are you thinking of buying) primarily to:

1. Play against an AI that uses clever tactics, but which will play very differently from the historical human generals (for example, by giving up Minsk to defend further back), or

2. Play against an AI that gives you a reasonable facsimile of WW2 operational decisions, as per actual history (for example, by standing and fighting in 1941 even if a pocket is formed), or

3. Play PBEM vs. a human - anything goes.

Please post your thoughts.



Will be picking this one up soon and will be #3 (not necessarily anything goes). I only use the AI for learning a game.

I take issue with the way this poll was worded though. You can get #2 much more so with a human opponent using house rules (the AI will never agree to using house rules ).

_____________________________


(in reply to Redmarkus5)
Post #: 53
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 6:20:18 PM   
raizer

 

Posts: 276
Joined: 12/6/2010
Status: offline 		Stalin was in total shock when the germans came over on that june morning.  Stalin was not communicating for a few days.  The soviets defended in place, up against the front, cause thats where they were when germans hit them.  Stalin was not preparing any attack against Germany  at this time, in fact he was doing the opposite.  He was refusing to listen to his front line commanders "that something was brewing."  He refused to allow his air force to fly recon missions over the front.  The soviets captured a few sympathizers prior to the attack, debriefed them and learned on the invasion, but stalin refused to listen. Just as he refused to listen to the information the British were providing him about an upcoming german offensive.  He refused all these things because he was deathly afraid of giving the germans a pretex, a reason, to attack...the germans did anyways and stalin was paralyzed with fear, demonstrated by his inaction, during those opening days of the campaign.    

< Message edited by raizer -- 12/13/2010 6:21:24 PM >

(in reply to Titanwarrior89)
Post #: 54
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 9:52:37 PM   
steveh11Matrix


Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Well the AI may do some strange things. It tends to be Moscow heavy. Once you jump into a few PBEM games agianst experenced Soviet players, you my be singing a different tune...

But for those of us who don't WANT to play PBEM, does the Soviet AI act as if it had Comrade Stalin (and, by extension, Comrade Beria ) looking over it's shoulder?

It doesn't matter too much in the long run given the already posted answer that it's moddable.

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to PyleDriver)
Post #: 55
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 10:16:44 PM   
Howard7x


Posts: 213
Joined: 8/19/2006
From: Derby, England
Status: offline 		1 & 2 for me.

I enjoy playing human players and I must admit, the server based games seem so much more fluid and easy to do than the old PBEM systems.
For me it comes down to time and commitment. I love playing wargames but my lifes pretty hectic most of the time nowdays so playing against an AI means I can save it at any point and I have no pressure to resume the game or get a turn back to someone within the week or whatever.

I imagine a full campaign human vs human game would take some time, even with a great deal of commitment by both parties because you want to win more so will take time with your turns.
Where as against the AI, it doesnt matter so much and I dont care if I suffer a major defeat, you can learn along the way without looking completely dumb!

_____________________________

"In times of peace, a good general is preparing for war" - Gaius Julius Ceasar

(in reply to Titanwarrior89)
Post #: 56
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 11:53:34 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		#3 for me.

(in reply to Howard7x)
Post #: 57
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/13/2010 11:54:01 PM   
Redmarkus5


Posts: 4456
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline 		You can play the shorter scenarios vs. a human and they also sit there as saves until you are ready. And some of us humans are pretty dumb players too ;)

_____________________________

WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2

(in reply to Howard7x)
Post #: 58
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/14/2010 1:07:36 AM   
PyleDriver


Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline 		Steve@ I think Stalin would have wanted to defend Moscow the most. So the AI isn't far off... I have pressed alot, which was never taken into effect, that if Moscow is captured, moral should go down for the Soviets...

_____________________________

Jon Pyle
AWD Beta tester
WBTS Alpha tester
WitE Alpha tester
WitW Alpha tester
WitE2 Alpha tester

(in reply to Redmarkus5)
Post #: 59
RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) - 12/22/2010 4:04:23 PM   
Mifune


Posts: 787
Joined: 4/28/2005
From: Florida
Status: offline 		#1 and #3 for me

_____________________________

Perennial Remedial Student of the Mike Solli School of Economics. One day I might graduate.

(in reply to PyleDriver)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Paying Player's Poll (no testers please) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.594