Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

You consider a couple of random waypoints AI???

The AI plans paths to avoid know air concentrations. THAT is AI, not random waypoints as you would think as a solution. It never stops amazing me just how trivial people tend to think of things when complaining about stuff, yet they come back with even crappier solutions then nothing at all.

Any idiot can write a random number generator. It does not equal AI.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeckingFury

The way you want the AI to behave can only be achieved thru pbem against another human. I really dont understand the "PBEM takes too long" responses. If I was going to sit thru and waste time waiting for the AI to complete its move why not do the same with a human? takes just as long. Only thing you can not do with a human is reload when the AI opens that can of whoop ass.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Zoomie, this is 1941-1945 ... I think you need to pull out some history books. Start with Coral Sea, move on to Midway then come back and post just how silly what you just said is.

I understand that most folks are not old enough to remember WWII, but come on, at least try and get your complaints in within a couple of decades of reality. What are you going to complain about next? subs not having enough range because their nuclear reactor keeps running out of fuel?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Well, Mr Frag or whatever your real name is

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

So gee, let me get this straight, I tell you the AI is actually got better then your little silly system of random waypoints and you still complain about the game not having it. Have a nice day, you're not worth my typing effort.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
S-O-L-I-T-A-R-E!!!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
S-O-L-I-T-A-R-E!!!!!!

Umm, that would be S-O-L-I-T-A-I-R-E, genius.

If you are a person of such sophistication as you claim, you would realize that you're not going to win allies or influence people by being shrill and overbearing.

I advocate stronger investment in, and research into, improved AI, as well, but you're not going to get it this way.

If you are, as you purport to be, a fellow former U.S.A.F. officer, consider me embarrassed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ZOOMIE. Since SWAGMAN knows exactly what this game really needs, and you are
such a genius at writing code---why don't the two of you get together and do this game
right? I for one would cheerfully buy another game on this subject that actually had
an AI that would provide a truely intelligent opponant. And if you two can do it, you
can sell your "brilliant AI technology" to 2by3 and a lot of other companies too stupid
to build one on their own. Then everybody will have exactly what they want.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Ooops, the grammer ... police again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Like I'd said above..., I would love to see a better AI in games. YOU are claiming
you can make one. So please DO so, and show all these game designers HOW.
Players everywhere are awaiting such an AI with baited breath and open wallets.
So get to work on it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Ooops, the grammer ... police again.

Someone has to do it. We try to help you conceal your ignorance behind properly spelled, if mis-applied, words.

You are not "calling a spade a spade" here. You are being unnecessarily belligerent, argumentative, and self-serving.

But, now that I see your true colors, Mr. Spade, I don't foresee being able to make any progress in your case, so goodbye.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Actually I intend to. But I have a day job that keeps my kids in college. I get paid to write financial settlement software, commodity price forecasting tools, and medical software, so I haven't exactly got the time during the day to devote to it. However, on my own time, I am indeed developing just such a system. In fact, it is my main personal time hobby.

It may take four or five years, but I'll prove Mr Frag and Mogami dead wrong by the time I'm done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
I remember one of Gary's original classics, North Atlantic '86. The strikes against carrier TF's even way back then, were resolved brilliantly. Unless you had whittled down the number of picket ships you almost NEVER even got a shot on the carrier. You had to progress through the screening ships first as the carriers were in middle of the TF. If you tried to bore in on the carrier you got shot down (or your missles were jammed or shot down themselves) long before you could get to the capital ships.

It seems the resolution engine has gotten more stupid over the years and the largest ships invariably take the greatest number of hits, which is not usually the case. Maybe in WWII it was without the availablilty of SAMs and such. But even then, an attacker had to brave several layers of lead walls of AA to get deep into the TF where the carreirs or battleships or transports existed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Zoomie, this is 1941-1945 ... I think you need to pull out some history books. Start with Coral Sea, move on to Midway then come back and post just how silly what you just said is.

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Screening vessles were used even in WWI. Someone else needs to read some history. BTW, I'm a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy. I could teach Military History in any University in the country, smartass.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Actually I intend to. But I have a day job that keeps my kids in college. I get paid to write financial settlement software, commodity price forecasting tools, and medical software, so I haven't exactly got the time during the day to devote to it. However, on my own time, I am indeed developing just such a system. In fact, it is my main personal time hobby.

It may take four or five years, but I'll prove Mr Frag and Mogami dead wrong by the time I'm done.

Well then, when you finally complete your "masterpiece", I'm sure Mogami, Frag, and I
will be among the first to bow down and "observe the mistletoe on your shirt-tail". But
until you actually PROVE that you can do it, maybe you should lay off complaining about
the efforts of others. The guys at 2by3 are trying to put their kids through college by
designing and selling games. I'm sure they are giving us the best effort they can because
they need sales to feed their own families. I'm sure they would like to be "proved dead
wrong" whenever you get around to it as well, as they could sell more games if the AI's
were improved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
I remember one of Gary's original classics, North Atlantic '86. The strikes against carrier TF's even way back then, were resolved brilliantly. Unless you had whittled down the number of picket ships you almost NEVER even got a shot on the carrier. You had to progress through the screening ships first as the carriers were in middle of the TF. If you tried to bore in on the carrier you got shot down (or your missles were jammed or shot down themselves) long before you could get to the capital ships.

It seems the resolution engine has gotten more stupid over the years and the largest ships invariably take the greatest number of hits, which is not usually the case. Maybe in WWII it was without the availablilty of SAMs and such. But even then, an attacker had to brave several layers of lead walls of AA to get deep into the TF where the carreirs or battleships or transports existed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Zoomie, this is 1941-1945 ... I think you need to pull out some history books. Start with Coral Sea, move on to Midway then come back and post just how silly what you just said is.

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Screening vessles were used even in WWI. Someone else needs to read some history. BTW, I'm a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy. I could teach Military History in any University in the country, smartass.

Don't want to be disrespectful, but being a graduate of some higher education institution says nothing about your qualifications - see George Bush. Screening vessels were used even before WWI, but that's not the point here. You claim that in real life the largest ships in a TF 'usually' does not 'invariably' take the greatest number of hits, which I translate as 'usually, other ships than the largest one take the greatest number of hits'. This might be true in your missile age 1986 Nato vs. WP battles, where you have to take out the screen first, but WWII is a different matter. As Mr. Frag has pointed out, Coral Sea and Midway (and the other three CV vs. CV engagements) clearly show that the biggest ships received most of the enemy's payload, despite being screened. I dare to say that air attacks in WWII usually went straight for the highest-value target. This even applies to LBA attacks - for an example and to close the circle, say P-R-I-N-C-E-T-O-N.

Btw, this also applies to most WWII surface engagements. Morison repeatedly states that in the early age of radar-controlled gunfire, target plotters usually selected the biggest 'blip' on the screen. Or in the words of a well-known Rear-Admiral: 'We want the big ones, get the big ones!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
I don't get the degree of defensiveness here at all. Never have. Every aspect of this game project is outstanding save one. Every single one, but THIS ONE. This is the ONLY complaint I've got about the whole thing. I personally think the nit-pickers on this forum are entirely too anal. Who really cares if the "F" variant of an aircraft type makes it into the game or not? Or that PT boats are precisely modelled in a grand strategic game? Something tells me, if the amount of effort had been put into AI technology the past three years on this game, as was given to having every single infantry squad, air squadron and every last transport accurately named, we'd have a hell of a lot better computer player than we are going to get.

And yes, I intend to continue to pursue AI development as it pertains to turn based wargaming in my free time. And rest assured, if I ever come up with something useful, and 2by3 is still around then, they would be the first to get it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Perhaps you would like to do a little bit more reading, you are still wrong. Keep hitting the books.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
I don't get the degree of defensiveness here at all. Never have. Every aspect of this game project is outstanding save one. Every single one, but THIS ONE. This is the ONLY complaint I've got about the whole thing. I personally think the nit-pickers on this forum are entirely too anal. Who really cares if the "F" variant of an aircraft type makes it into the game or not? Or that PT boats are precisely modelled in a grand strategic game? Something tells me, if the amount of effort had been put into AI technology the past three years on this game, as was given to having every single infantry squad, air squadron and every last transport accurately named, we'd have a hell of a lot better computer player than we are going to get.

And yes, I intend to continue to pursue AI development as it pertains to turn based wargaming in my free time. And rest assured, if I ever come up with something useful, and 2by3 is still around then, they would be the first to get it.

It's not so much "defensive" as a challange to "put up or shut up". NOBODY is arguing
that the AI (in this game or most others) is good, It SUCKS! They almost always do.
EVERYBODY would love to LOVE to see a competent computer opponant for wargames.
My comments were only meant to encourage you not to disparage other's attempts
until you can actually provide "a better mousetrap". When and if you can. the rejoicing
will be heard around the world. But if you can't offer a better alternative, your comments
just come across as "cheap shots" and "snipeing from the bleachers" by someone not
willing to get down on the field and "play in the game". So tell your kids to work their
way through college (I did), quit your day job, and give us the "holy grail". Otherwise,
please limit yourself to sending "coding tips" and suggestions to the people actually "in
the game" if you have any to offer. That would at least be helpfull.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Perhaps you would like to do a little bit more reading, you are still wrong. Keep hitting the books.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Every poster for the past two years on this forum that brings this up gets the same treatment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
That's probably fairly correct, early on, like Coral Sea and Midway. Carrier tactics were still in their infancy at that time. In fact, those battles actually formulated the genre. But by late 1944 and in to 1945, when fleet tactics concerning carrier operations began to reach a level of maturity, the US had pretty much relegated their largest non-carrier ships, specifically battleships and heavy cruisers, to performing nothing but AA duty to such a degree that very little actually got through to the carriers by then. Even Kamikazi attacks seldom got close to a carrier by spring of 1945, getting shot down well before they got close.