What difficulty settings are people using?

[Hanny]

Just out of curiosity, what settings are people using.

As Axis i use hard v AI, and wondered what others tinker with to increase play experience.

[joelmar]

AI will still be dumb at hard. So not much play experience increase there, sorry about that.

[Telemecus]

There is an argument in some games that the harder levels make the AI dumber as it just becomes a grinding match - no subtle retreats ahead of bad odds and so on. I suspect there is a better set of AI options by manipulating the separate levels for logistics/admin etc levels rather than using the blanket hard etc levels for all of them. But that would take a lot of testing which I have not done or seen.

[Hanny]

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... =&#3312550

Joel appears to advocate a high morale setting for increased AI performance.

[Hanny]

This is also informative.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2569592

As Jon said, experienced players that want a challenge should not play on Normal level. Jon has been playing this game for over 2 years now and has probably made these first Barbarossa turns 100+ times now. The game has changed, rules have changed, and the AI has changed, but Jon's changed with them and basically he's light years ahead of the AI. We provide 5 play levels. At the normal level (which is what PBEM players should play), the AI is given only a very few intrinsic advantages that we felt were justified (to make up for basic things it just can't do like a human player) in order to keep it at a good level to entertain new players. We think Challenging level, which gives the computer some morale, supply, transportation, administrative and construction advantages is for the player that's learned the basics and wants more of a challenge. Any of the 5 different kinds of help for the AI can be individually set. The Hard level is expected to be a challenge for experienced players like Jon. The Impossible level is intended to make it very difficult for even the best player to win. The other play level is Easy, which gives the player advantages and is only intended for a player just starting out that wants to win while they are learning the rules. In the old SSI days we generally had 4 play levels (Easy, Normal, Challenging and Hard), and I don't know of any game where an AI could provide any kind of challenge to an experienced player unless set to Challenging or Hard.

As Gary likes to say, we provide a range of options so everyone can find what they are looking for. From beginner to experienced player we have something that will challenge you. If you want to crush the AI, you have that choice.

[joelmar]

However, the guy who plays the AI even a 100 times at challenging will be in for a big surprise and a lot of frustration when he plays against a human. To me, playing the AI is for learning the mechanics of the game, and it might help a bit with tactics, but is very misleading on strategy. Bottom line, if you aim to play against humans, don't play too long against the AI.

[Hanny]

ORIGINAL: joelmar

However, the guy who plays the AI even a 100 times at challenging will be in for a big surprise and a lot of frustration when he plays against a human. To me, playing the AI is for learning the mechanics of the game, and it might help a bit with tactics, but is very misleading on strategy. Bottom line, if you aim to play against humans, don't play too long against the AI.

I agree completely. Im somewhere between challenging and hard when v the AI, and was looking to optimise my single player experience.

H V H would be a huge investment, and from reading the AAR unless there is equal ability between the two, a lop sided outcome and early bath could easily be the outcome.[:(]

[joelmar]

@Hanny:
I guess maximising units resistance is the best you can do to improve the AI experience.

IMO the Soviet's best choice in 1.11.03 against a human is to run and use the Pskov defense, hang on and hope for the best, which can easily happen with that strategy if the German player isn't aggressive and right on point. With no running, the Soviets are in for big losses, that's a fact.

[Hanny]

ORIGINAL: joelmar


I guess maximising units resistance is the best you can do to improve the AI experience.

AI appears to have historical bonuses built in ( more manpower/production as Axis for instance) so the AI can perform a better game experience, so i *think* in addition to picking preferences, you can modify the game parameters via the editor to give yourself a greater challenge. As SU, you can script the Axis first turn and have it perform your well rehearsed best first turn you can come up with.

Not perfect, but better methinks for single play.

[joelmar]

I see your point about the first turn rehearsal, but I don't rehearse it honestly, it's boring to me. That said, I have studied it, I know the basic ideas and go along with those as best I can. I'm the kind of player who plays real slow, micromanaging everything and thinking everything thru. So I don't play many games. In fact, I have been involved in only 1vs1 game since I started playing last february, and we are currently only on turn 25 after 5 months. Luckily, I have a great opponent who go along with this and with who I have great exchanges, so it's all fun.

Even so, I understand playing the AI has less contraints and implication than playing against a real opponent. Myself, I played the AI for a while when I started, a few "Road to" scenarios and one CG for 13 turns, all at normal levels and all as Axis. But the way it kept leaving doors open everywhere, absolutely not like I would play myself if I was the Soviet player tended to make me play like a fool as Axis to try to grab everything at once... and I knew it. So I found no satisfaction at all killing the poor thing while learning very few important lessons, and I decided after a while to find myself an opponent and learn the hard way!!!

Anyway, I wish you find the best balance for your AI games! BTW, you are very knowledgeable on logistics and I appreciated your interventions elsewhere, quite interesting stuff, thanks for the time you put there, I learned a few things

[Hanny]

Good luck with your game,and thank you for your kind words. [:)]

[joelmar]

Thanks and my pleasure!

[SchDerGrosse]

Dear Sir,

I would like to draw your attention to the post made by heliodorus04:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4313560

"My standard German settings for a game of me-Germany vs. AI-Soviet are as follows:
Turn 1 through September 1943: All settings on 90 except Admin (more on Admin later).
September 43 to game's end: Morale back to 100.
Random weather and normal (i.e., severe) Blizzard effects.

Now, for the Soviets, I change various things at various times.
Entire game: Soviet Fortification 120 (or more)
Turn 1 through December 41: Soviet +1 DEFENSE
Turn 1 through December 41: Morale: 120, Logistics 120, Transport 110
Beginning October or November 42, I raise Morale, Logistics, Transport to 130
Beginning September 43, I raise Morale, Logistics, and Transport to 135-140 until the end of the game.

Soviet Admin:
The Soviet AI is not bound by the same Admin point restrictions that a human would be. You can leave it at 100 or set it to 400, and I never notice a difference.
German Admin:
The game starts with horrible inefficiencies built in to the German Army's organization. My classic example is 9th Army, VIII Corps, which has basically half the SUs of the Wehrmacht. The game engine punishes this... Further, some of the worst commanders are in charge of the most important units. These problems are fixable in time whichever Admin setting you choose for the Axis, but I'm impatient, lazy, and an efficiency expert, so I set the game (throughout) to Germany having 400 Admin setting."

I myself am struggling with the same thing (posted my sorrows here https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4741251, unfortunately did not really gain any response), despite being quite a lousy player (or at least a green one), due to the INCREDIBLE stupidity of the game's AI (leaving key cities empty; being COMPLETELY oblivious to the threat of ANY encirclement), I'am consistently stomping the computer on hard..

Anyways I will give a try to the aforementioned tweaks suggested by heliodorus04.

And as a side note:

I find it incomprehensible that the guys made such a great and detailed game, but completely neglected the fact to add the necessary "crutches" to the computer to make the game playable against the AI.

Yeah you can argue that WitE is "way too complex for the AI to handle it" and "you should play multiplayer" but seriously, what part of the player-base is actually playing the game in MP? 5%? Less? The rest of us would want an OK single player experience which the game is - seemingly - struggles to provide.

I'am a lawyer in real life so do not know anything about programming, but complex game or not, how hard could it be to "tell" the AI NOT TO LEAVE certain cities empty or PULL BACK when it is clearly and visible being encircled (and I'am not talking about surprise pockets forming due to HQ buildups).

Heck, there could be "locked" units or pre-made fortifications in certain areas to help the artificial unintelligence handle the player.

Or is it so difficult to tell the computer (when on the defensive) not to have a 1 line "deep" defensive line (if there are enough units obviously) or not to dilute its mobile forces and spread them around the front without any consideration?

And I haven't even touched the AI's passivity. It SHOULD know that OK there's a fortified position, and I might not take it with a single attack but I can wither the defenses down by multiple deliberate attacks because I have tons of men and material to spare.

You will of course correct me if I'am (as a layman) being silly but the above seem to be more than doable. Hammering the Germans as the SHC with infinite amount of reinforcements late war should be a simple line in the code.. Yet the AI just stares with puppy dog eyes at my defensive positions as it has "calculated" that it will not be able to break them in one go..

As for playing as the Soviets against the German un-AI... Lets not even get into it.

Anyways, end of rambling.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: as a layman I'am convinced that MUCH could be done with very limited coding to improve player vs. AI games (which I believe is way the majority of WitE players play).

[joelmar]

@SchDerGrosse:

"I'am a lawyer in real life so do not know anything about programming..."

"as a layman I'am convinced that MUCH could be done with very limited coding to improve player vs. AI games"

Sorry sir, those 2 sentences don't quite add up in my mind. If you don't know anything about programming, how can you be convinced of what it would take to make it work the way you want?

AI coding is probably the hardest part of Game design. And sadly, this game IS way too complex to easily get the AI to behave in an efficient manner with the coding ressources that the developpers have at their disposition. This is not Fortnite or Angry Birds with a big user base and big commercial revenues. It is a small operation based on a few wargame passionates. Developping such a game takes years, even without the AI coding. By example, Wite2 has been in develppment process for years, and it is still not done. And from what I understand of the 2x3 company communiqués, the AI has not been their main area of improvement, in great part for the reasons I mentionned.

And no, I'm not a game programmer, neither am I part of the developpment team. But I'm a professional programmer. So I have some kind of idea what it means.

[king171717]

ORIGINAL: SchDerGrosse

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: as a layman I'am convinced that MUCH could be done with very limited coding to improve player vs. AI games (which I believe is way the majority of WitE players play).

This game is much better playing against someone. In any game out there an AI can be figured out and out smarted. Because most games today are becoming more complex the AI is getting worse and worse. For instance, take civ 4 vs civ 6 ai. In civ 4 the ai could doomstack troops. (turn production into military power easier) But in civ 6 its force to be one unit per tile. So the AI can be out smarted all the time. Hence the AI gets bonus.
Playing against the AI in this game is for beginners and to get to understand the concepts. As its super complex. Once you figure it out, U should play against other players.

[uw06670]

To those telling everyone to play against humans as an excuse for the AI not to be better, please stop. Some people will play against humans exclusively, some will experiment, most will never play against a person.
Someone above said 5% of people play against humans, I would love to hear some real stats but I bet this is in the ballpark.

I have tried a few human games but won't waste time on it anymore for the following reasons:
1. WitE allows for ridiculous actions to be taken that the game was not designed to inhibit. Things that historically would never have happened given real life politics and other factors. To me this is more unforgivable than an AI that isn't challenging enough.
2. Similarly tactics which are based on real world principles like flanking, attacking unguarded rear areas don't cause enough disruption to the other player whereas in real life, it would have been unacceptable. There aren't realistic political consequences to letting Soviet Units run around in rear German or Rumanian areas. Perhaps commanders should be replaced at a minimum. Bombing Bucharest into rubble while no Rumanian air units are around to counter them should have led to rioting, but in the game there was no price to pay.
3. With rules changing constantly, an approach that worked in one game is suddenly no longer feasible in the next.
4. Humans either take too long to process their turns or expect fanatical dedication. And then after many hours invested they frequently flake out (and sorry to those I've played when I've been guilty of this)

I love the game in that I think it is an amazing tool to recreate experiences at an interesting scale. So much nuance that traditional board games just can't touch.

I hope that WitE2 corrects some of these issues found in MP games and gives us a competent AI as well.

[joelmar]

@uw06670

To those telling everyone to play against humans as an excuse for the AI not to be better, please stop.

It's not an excuse, it's simply the assessment of a fact. The AI is very bad, whatever settings are used, and since Wite 1 is not developped anymore, except for the data tweeks in the patches, it is like it is, forever. And I'm afraid that won't change much in Wite 2 because an efficient AI is very hard to get right and the developpers have limited ressources already stretched thin, so they focus on the game play area and the AI is secondary, as I mentionned in my precedent comment about the AI.

The thing is: this is a game. And everything is an abstraction, therefore there is nothing that is quite what it seems or should be in RL. Which is basically the same as any other wargame. So game mechanics and game engine are realities that none can escape.

I agree that rules change constantly with the patches, and that may be annoying. At the same time there are things that have been rooted out that were necessary IMO, like the cheap HQBU's that could be chained ad nauseam. And there are lots of complaints all the time from players about game balance, some of them thinking the game is axis oriented, some thinking it's the Soviets who have the advantage and everyone wanting the game to behave to their liking. So the modders create patches to try to please the players and keep the game going. But it's not easy to get right.

I am afraid your are hoping for things that won't ever happen.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

ORIGINAL: uw06670

To those telling everyone to play against humans as an excuse for the AI not to be better, please stop. Some people will play against humans exclusively, some will experiment, most will never play against a person.
Someone above said 5% of people play against humans, I would love to hear some real stats but I bet this is in the ballpark.

I have tried a few human games but won't waste time on it anymore for the following reasons:
1. WitE allows for ridiculous actions to be taken that the game was not designed to inhibit. Things that historically would never have happened given real life politics and other factors. To me this is more unforgivable than an AI that isn't challenging enough.
2. Similarly tactics which are based on real world principles like flanking, attacking unguarded rear areas don't cause enough disruption to the other player whereas in real life, it would have been unacceptable. There aren't realistic political consequences to letting Soviet Units run around in rear German or Rumanian areas. Perhaps commanders should be replaced at a minimum. Bombing Bucharest into rubble while no Rumanian air units are around to counter them should have led to rioting, but in the game there was no price to pay.
3. With rules changing constantly, an approach that worked in one game is suddenly no longer feasible in the next.
4. Humans either take too long to process their turns or expect fanatical dedication. And then after many hours invested they frequently flake out (and sorry to those I've played when I've been guilty of this)

I love the game in that I think it is an amazing tool to recreate experiences at an interesting scale. So much nuance that traditional board games just can't touch.

I hope that WitE2 corrects some of these issues found in MP games and gives us a competent AI as well.

My suggestion would be to play the smaller scenarios. Against a human there is less scope for the heavy micromanagement that will wear you down over a grand campaign - the scenarios play out more like a traditional wargame. Against the AI the smaller scenarios have less scope (in terms of map space and time) for the AI to make the kind of fatal errors it will inevitably make in a campaign game given enough time. With all but the largest scenarios it is feasible to play 'left hand vs right hand' if that floats your boat.

If your heart is set on the grand campaign then the AI is never going to give you a game that is competitive long term. So it's a matter of finding a human player (maybe by starting off playing the smaller scenarios to see how you 'gel') who shares a similar outlook in terms of turn speed and in terms of the balance between exploiting the game engine and playing 'historically'.

[SchDerGrosse]

ORIGINAL: joelmar

@SchDerGrosse:

"I'am a lawyer in real life so do not know anything about programming..."

"as a layman I'am convinced that MUCH could be done with very limited coding to improve player vs. AI games"

Sorry sir, those 2 sentences don't quite add up in my mind. If you don't know anything about programming, how can you be convinced of what it would take to make it work the way you want?

AI coding is probably the hardest part of Game design. And sadly, this game IS way too complex to easily get the AI to behave in an efficient manner with the coding ressources that the developpers have at their disposition. This is not Fortnite or Angry Birds with a big user base and big commercial revenues. It is a small operation based on a few wargame passionates. Developping such a game takes years, even without the AI coding. By example, Wite2 has been in develppment process for years, and it is still not done. And from what I understand of the 2x3 company communiqués, the AI has not been their main area of improvement, in great part for the reasons I mentionned.

And no, I'm not a game programmer, neither am I part of the developpment team. But I'm a professional programmer. So I have some kind of idea what it means.

OK, I knew I was shooting myself in the foot with those two sentences! [:D]

Joke aside, I meant what I wrote. I was not asking for machine learning, or intricate scripts for the AI to be able to "outsmart" the player.

My complaints regard the fact that there have been seemingly ZERO effort put in from the part of the programming team to make this game viable to be played in single player.

Are such measures really that hard to implement? (seriously, you tell me!)

1. Key cities are garrisoned by locked troops.

2. Certain areas have pre-made (possibly multi layered) fortifications with units assigned to them which can only operate within the boundaries of their "designated area", thus preventing the AI from railing them to Finland to avert "the crisis" caused by the appearance of a single artillery brigade..

I would even be OK with creating "ahistorical" extra formations for this purpose.

3. If there are'nt enough units to cover EVERY hex in the AI's flank, the un-AI shouldn't attempt breakthroughs then cry in the corner when an entire tank army gets cut off..

4. As mentioned before, mid to late war (when men and material are in abundance), the AI should consider "hammering" certain defensive positions with multiple deliberate attacks because now it seems that if the computer thinks that victory is not possible in one go, no attempt will be made.

5. Give the player the option to tweak (without hacking into the code..) the production/manpower values of the opposing parties.

This would especially help the German AI which in its current form is simply considered dead on arrival..


Do you see what I mean? I could list a dozen more ideas which (possibly) would give the AI the necessary crutches to be played against AND which are more sophisticated than just cranking the difficulty sliders to the high heavens and getting spanked by an X=X CV rating NKVD border unit. And yes. you may argue that suggestion X is silly and suggestion Y will not work but the point is that it took me like 30 minutes to come up with some kind of a solution. Don't tell me if the devs sat down, they could not have come up with viable options. They just did not want to because most of the player-base do not seem to care that the game is practically unplayable in single player.

Does it require some thought and actual playtesting? Yes.
One of the gentlemen here (a programmer who's name I unfortunately cant remember) wrote that he had played a hundred ore more times till early 1942 as the Germans against the AI.

That's a buttload of time and effort, part of which could have been spent on implementing some features to facilitate single player play...


And as a bonus:
A chap named XTRG (one of the very few youtubers with WitE videos) played the "Vistula to Berlin" scenario on hard as a supposed "challange" and he - despite him being good entertainer but a TERRIBLE WitE player - managed to pull off a decisive axis victory without utilizing any of the game mechanics and just pushing units into the front line willy-nilly and waiting for the clock to run out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln4VY6VXugE

His War in the West Unternehmen Wacht am Rhein "challange" was just as sad, the AI running all around the map like a headless chicken and him winning by giving random commands without any thought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUGPMPtk21s&t=155s

Whats my point? The developers not only do not care about the playability of the grand campaign but even the smaller scenarios arent properly scripted, because why bother? Lets just spend 50% of the development time getting the rate of fire of the MG34 as close to the historical values as possible...

[SchDerGrosse]

ORIGINAL: king171717

ORIGINAL: SchDerGrosse

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: as a layman I'am convinced that MUCH could be done with very limited coding to improve player vs. AI games (which I believe is way the majority of WitE players play).

This game is much better playing against someone. In any game out there an AI can be figured out and out smarted. Because most games today are becoming more complex the AI is getting worse and worse. For instance, take civ 4 vs civ 6 ai. In civ 4 the ai could doomstack troops. (turn production into military power easier) But in civ 6 its force to be one unit per tile. So the AI can be out smarted all the time. Hence the AI gets bonus.
Playing against the AI in this game is for beginners and to get to understand the concepts. As its super complex. Once you figure it out, U should play against other players.

You are probably right.

(Although there was a topic here where a fellow forumite commented "good A.I. doesnt sell", a statement which could be true for "regular" games but if it also applies to wargames then its a baffling concept.)

The problem with WitE grand campaigns is that:

(i) It requires a major time commitment and if the opponent (or myself) disappear mid-term for whatever reason it is quite a bummer for the other party (had two MP games in the distant past, both ended due to communication problems though I'am not blaming anyone, as stuff happens);

(ii) I presume pple here playing MP are at near-Pelton heights with regard to experience level, and beginners such as myself would be roflstomped. Someone wrote that if the Germans mess up the first 3 or so turns with the axis, then the game is as good as over.

Anyways.. I might be needing to wander into MP territory as I love this friggin game and it literary pains me that I cant play it due to the AI's complete lack of competency..