Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 2/21/2002 9:41:00 PM   
crusher

 

Posts: 115
Joined: 3/14/2001
From: philippines
Status: offline 		i can not wait to se this game. i think i will try UV while we wait to see the WITP.

_____________________________


(in reply to ratster)
Post #: 31
- 2/25/2002 11:17:00 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		I think the AI in Grigsby's Battle of Britain sucked! Playing either side, one finds the level of resource committment on the pinch here dash there side. Pretty bad when Adolph Galland and Werner Moelders fly less that 25 missions between them, when in fact they historically flew two or three a day in August 1940 alone! So little pressure that never once did the game not end before the first vp threshold. ie., AI did not satisfy requirements to continue game once. Real historical!!! How hard can it be to get AI to use maximum effort? Regarding UV and WITP, the primary difference should be with the AI; the scope being the other obvious one. I think WITP AI should be limited to Japanese as their realistic options were relatively limited after the opening moves (perhaps initiate play May 1942). Otherewise, this game should concentrate on H2H play. UV on the other hand, because of it's scope, can support relatively decent AI for either side. It's potentially more of a stand alone project.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to ratster)
Post #: 32
- 4/7/2002 7:00:09 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Any comments regarding AI in Battle of Britain? My worry is this. If they can't get AI to work on a "relatively limited" number of variables present in BoB, how in the world can they successfully attempt something on the scope of WITP? Gonna be a complicated endeavour to say the least, hopefully it won't deep six WITP. Maybe skip AI full campaign (PBEM only) and build competent AI for battle, operation, and campaign size scenarios.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to ratster)
Post #: 33
- 4/7/2002 8:21:43 PM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline 		Hello...

We are a different "they" than the "they" that wrote the AI for BoB. No deep six. We are writing AI for the full campaign. You will find the AI closer to that in PacWar than that in BoB as the AI code looks more like the AI code from PacWar.

Bye...

Michael Wood
____________________________________________________

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
[B]Any comments regarding AI in Battle of Britain? My worry is this. If they can't get AI to work on a "relatively limited" number of variables present in BoB, how in the world can they successfully attempt something on the scope of WITP? Gonna be a complicated endeavour to say the least, hopefully it won't deep six WITP. Maybe skip AI full campaign (PBEM only) and build competent AI for battle, operation, and campaign size scenarios. [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to ratster)
Post #: 34
- 4/7/2002 9:22:45 PM   
Paul Goodman

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Status: offline 		Well, if it works like PACWAR, it will be rather ineffective. However, my point is not that you should come up with an effective A/I. I only hope you will not delay the game trying to do the impossible.

Paul

(in reply to ratster)
Post #: 35
- 4/7/2002 10:56:44 PM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		Why are you all so pessimistic about the Matrix programmers' ability to create a decent AI?
Pacwar is so old compared to these games! Doesn't anyone think its possible these guys have learned a thing or two about programming the AI in the meantime? And given the massive increase in memory and technology that can be utilized now, I think the game will be ok.
BOB and BTR are different games put out by a different company. Yes, there were some of the same people involved, but I am confident that any shortcomings from those games have been learned, noted and will be corrected.
Releasing UV is a great idea for the reasons Mike Wood mentioned earlier in this thread. You gotta crawl before you walk...
Finally, I must say this: BTR is a great game if you have the patience for it. 700 turns is a lot when each turn takes an hour or so, but with the newest patches put out, its a helluva game...

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to ratster)
Post #: 36
Hey Madflava and Mike - 4/8/2002 12:18:05 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Madflava.

Hi there. Don't mean to sound pessimistic, but AI is an important part to any game. Look at how the AI in Close Combat disabled an otherwise great game. Reading the posts by individuals involved in programming AI (not necessarily on this forum) made me realise that this is the most challenging aspect of any good release. I had never realised it was so difficult. I never bought BTR because of it's lack of replayability, and the patches which followed never addressed the problem of low intensity commitment, regardless of side chosen. Have you played BoB, or just BTR? If you have, can you compare the two, or are the differences/improvements like comparing apples and oranges? I still play BoB on occassion, though, because it has such a nice historical flavour.

Mike Wood. Sorry. You are right...I forgot that design teams change with time. I was also just trying to get this thread going again to see where you guys were regarding AI development. No offense intended.:rolleyes:

RS

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to ratster)
Post #: 37
- 4/8/2002 1:50:12 AM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		I've never played BOB, just BTR. I admit, BTR is a cumbersome and buggy game in its initial form. There is a small but active support community for it though (it is no longer Talonsoft supported). These people make it a great game to play - through numerous OOB updates and bug patches. The website for anyone interested is http://pages.prodigy.net/jeanluc200/

I agree the AI is the most challenging part of game design. I've still got faith and will reserve negative comments until such time as they are needed (ie if the AI stinks in WITP). Either way PBEM looks to be awesome in both these games, and early AARs suggest UV's AI is fairly competent - causing some headaches for the playtesters...

Eagerly awaiting...

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to ratster)
Post #: 38
Re: Hey Madflava and Mike - 4/8/2002 2:14:35 PM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline 		Hello...

No offense taken. The AI is coming along quite nicely. We hope you enjoy playing the game as much as we have enjoyed writing it.

_________________________________________________

[QUOTE]
[B]
Mike Wood. Sorry. You are right...I forgot that design teams change with time. I was also just trying to get this thread going again to see where you guys were regarding AI development. No offense intended.:rolleyes:
RS [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to ratster)
Post #: 39
- 4/26/2002 5:21:44 AM   
Rex Bellator

 

Posts: 66
Joined: 4/26/2002
From: Kent UK
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Heath
[B]Hi Guys

Here are some of the more major changes your find like land combat... you now have a chance fight the China campaign, Soviets units will also be represented in the game.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I fully intend to buy UV and WitP regardless, but I notice no mention of the Burma campaign is included above.

Can anyone advise if it will be included , as it was in PacWar?

(in reply to ratster)
Post #: 40
- 4/26/2002 9:35:00 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline 		I think Burma would have to be in order to fit India in. The game would be incomplete without giving the Japanese the ability to storm India by land. Seems to me I saw a map, and it looked much like PacWar did. My guess is that you'll have at least as many options as you did in PacWar.

(in reply to ratster)
Post #: 41
- 4/27/2002 1:52:26 AM   
daniel123

 

Posts: 296
Joined: 8/30/2000
From: Orlando
Status: offline 		I am glad that UV came first. We now have a updated game to play without having to wait another year or so for the BIG ONE.
Do you remember a game called Road to Moscow, it disappered! Maybe if they had tried a version of the game for Stalingrad and proved the game machinery and moved on to the full game we would now be playing it. I watched the net a long time about that game and it was to bad it went south.

(in reply to ratster)
Post #: 42
- 4/27/2002 4:01:04 AM   
David Heath


Posts: 3274
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Staten Island NY
Status: offline 		Hi Guys

Please remember the reason we also did UV first was so we could improve or change things you want. Have them updated in UV and added to make a better WITP. For those of you who are going to order UV really get ready to have a playable and very detail wargame.

Lets face it, its now been 10 years since anyone made a full campaign game of WITP. Matrix and 2by3 are truly going to push for limits of what we can do. Matrix always listerns to our fans and we want to give you the game you always dreamed of. I am sure we won't get everything in the game but when was the last time you remember a game company asking for your imput to make a better game.

We hope you see our dedication and abilities once you try UV.

David Heath

(in reply to ratster)
Post #: 43
- 4/28/2002 3:49:41 AM   
Svar

 

Posts: 381
Joined: 9/7/2000
From: China Lake, Ca
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Heath
[B]Hi Guys

Please remember the reason we also did UV first was so we could improve or change things you want. Have them updated in UV and added to make a better WITP. For those of you who are going to order UV really get ready to have a playable and very detail wargame.

Lets face it, its now been 10 years since anyone made a full campaign game of WITP. Matrix and 2by3 are truly going to push for limits of what we can do. Matrix always listerns to our fans and we want to give you the game you always dreamed of. I am sure we won't get everything in the game but when was the last time you remember a game company asking for your imput to make a better game.

We hope you see our dedication and abilities once you try UV.

David Heath [/B][/QUOTE]

David,

I plan on buying both games as soon as they come out and applaud Matrix Games' commitment to their fans and addressing their comments. Keep up the good work

Svar

(in reply to ratster)
Post #: 44
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.938