Rommel in Africa scenario AI???

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: geozero
A gamer should not have to manually load the scenario into the editor to see whether or not it can be played solo. Asking the gamer to do this is not good PR because many people don;t know or want to know about the editor. They don't buy the game to design scenarios...they buy the game to PLAY.

The nail gets struck directly on the head.

A little surprised here that PBEM scenarios are not flagged.

[:-]

Ray (alias Lava)

[Catch21]

ORIGINAL: TheBloodyBucket
there isn't a way that I can see for the community to add ratings or reviews.

It's a good point. The Blitz site certainly allows for this. See http://209.164.73.216/scenarios/show_sc ... hp?game=21 for an example.

One lateral way into this is to maybe look at how much a scenario gets played. If you look at the stats, you can certainly tell that 2 Weeks in Normandy for example gets played a lot. The stats also give an idea of play balance. Again look at 2 Weeks in Normandy as an example.

Hope this helps.

[Bloodybucket28th]

General Staff,
 
Thanks for the link!  It seems that there are several sites that have almost all the elements of a package that would allow the user to judge what scenarios are suitable for play against the PO, but none that quite do so up front.  This is understandable because most of these sites are dedicated to ladder play, and the earlier versions of TOAW had a more anemic version of "Elmer", making solo play a less important consideration.
 
I'm new here so I don't know the rules about mentioning (ahem) other company's products, but the "Scenario Depot" for the Combat Mission series seemed to have about the format that would work well here, IIRC. 
 
I think this is a classic case of no good deed going unpunished.  Matrix beefs up the PO, and then gets flak for not identifying what scenarios work well with it.  I can see how it might be unfair for us to ask Matrix to "rate" user made scenarios, and it might be better left to the community to do this.  On the other hand, since Matrix included the material with the game, some now feel it is now up to them to define, or even improve, the content of the scenarios.
 
I know that as a player (really a player in waiting, the mailman hasn't been kind to me yet) I would rather have the main focus of scenario identification and even production rest with the multitude of users, rather than the comparatively limited resources of the publisher, for the purely selfish reason that it is likely to deliver more gaming to me faster. 
 
If there was standard format in the scenario design that would include a place for the designer or poster to rate the scenario for solitaire play, this might help.
 
 

[JWW]

Simply adding PBEM to the title of all scenarios that can't be played against Elmer (as well as a note at the start of the scenario briefing for all scenarios that only have a PO for one side would solve this problem. 

[Vincenzo_Beretta]

To sum it up, are we really saying that if a game has 170 scenarios PO-capable it is a "professional effort", while if it has 200 scenarios with some of them PBEM only then it is "unprofessional"?

Before losing sight of the land, it is worth noticing that *additions* never make a product worse, if they do not break something already existing. [:-]

[geozero]

With approx 130 new scenarios it should have taken a beta tester about 3-4 hours to load each in editor, locate the info, and identify which were  PO and which were PBEM only.  Why this was not done is beyond me...
 

  In the meantime...with the exception of the Balkans '12 scenario, I believe you can play any of the scenarios in the Classic TOAW against the PO, either side. You can also play any of Bob Cross's scenarios against the PO, either side. You can play Two Weeks in Normandy against the PO, either side. You can play the version of Anoymous Heroics that is in the Tutorials sub-folder against the Red PO, and the others there are either copies of, or derivatives of Classic TOAW scenarios, so they can be played against PO, either side. The others I can't personally vouch for, at the moment, and off the top of my head.

 
Can someone officially give a definitive answer as to whether or not the new AI updates will allow you to play the old scenarios correctly?  Something tells me that I doubt many of the original designers are going to go back and re-tweak their scenarios...at least not for a long time.
 
Same question posed to the designers of the 130 other scenarios being included.
 
Lastly, I think it would be tremendous if Matrix could put some sort of scenario depot online, as well as other data and tools to aid the community in future designs and conversions of older scenarios. 
 
Please remember that many of the consumers who will pick up this game are not designers or even historians. They just want to play.  Give them that ability... otherwise I'm afraid that "PO" might take on a whole new meaning.[;)]

[Catch21]

ORIGINAL: geozero
With approx 130 new scenarios it should have taken a beta tester about 3-4 hours to load each in editor, locate the info, and identify which were PO and which were PBEM only. Why this was not done is beyond me...

These scenarios were all volunteer efforts or at best on even the original scenarios I'd suggest well below minimum wage. The problem in scenario selection was with the quality of the PO/AI, not whether or not it existed. It won't help for instance in a Normandy 1944 scenario if all your German PO formation objectives are in Southern France- say Monte Carlo- for example. Or (maybe even better) Berlin.

If you have interest I've an Excel S/S from several years back now that did try to identify PO functionality by scenario. There may be newer scenarios out there and some may have been updated, but it might give you some help on this. Please PM me with your e-mail address if you'd like a copy.

[Catch21]

ORIGINAL: TheBloodyBucket
Thanks for the link! It seems that there are several sites that have almost all the elements of a package that would allow the user to judge what scenarios are suitable for play against the PO, but none that quite do so up front. This is understandable because most of these sites are dedicated to ladder play, and the earlier versions of TOAW had a more anemic version of "Elmer", making solo play a less important consideration.

I know that as a player (really a player in waiting, the mailman hasn't been kind to me yet) I would rather have the main focus of scenario identification and even production rest with the multitude of users, rather than the comparatively limited resources of the publisher, for the purely selfish reason that it is likely to deliver more gaming to me faster.

You're welcome. The 'old' TOAW had a terrible PO (Programmed Offering) or AI (Artificial Incredulity). But few players bothered with it once they'd used it to understand the mechanics and realized how hopeless it really was and how easy to beat. So once you'd done this you really either quit, went hotseat or PBEM.

With PBEM the stats I think really start to speak for themselves over time and given enough games. So that gives you who plays what and which side is most likely to win. I always looked over these before playing any game (not to mention my opponents' RBI!), though in tournament play you can get landed with some desperate challenges.

I look forward to Elmer. And like you, I'm waiting for the mailman.

[wolflars]

I look forward to Elmer

I gotta tell ya General Staff, Elmer ain't half bad, he has a few tricks up his sleeves, watch your flanks! But, like any other AI even he will eventually fall short of the cunning of a human opponent.[:)]

[Bloodybucket28th]

I suppose that depends on the human opponent.  If I ever meet an AI that makes up for it's lack of planning with desperate and ill-advised attacks, I'm afraid I'll have met my match.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: TheBloodyBucket

I'm new here so I don't know the rules about mentioning (ahem) other company's products,

Unfortunately, the rule states that you must now mail me £20. E-mail me and I'll send you the address.

Worth a try...

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: geozero
Lastly, I think it would be tremendous if Matrix could put some sort of scenario depot online, as well as other data and tools to aid the community in future designs and conversions of older scenarios.

Isn't thewargame.com owned by Matrix?

It has a scenario depot which includes designs compatible with all versions of previously published TOAW games. It is the logical venue due to the size of its readership for new scenarios for TOAW III.

A nice touch would be for someone to package up a "map.zip" of all available maps for budding designers. If someone doesn't do it... I just may.

Ray (alias Lava)

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lava

It has a scenario depot which includes designs compatible with all versions of previously published TOAW games. It is the logical venue due to the size of its readership for new scenarios for TOAW III.

I'd go for Rugged Defence, which is currently a pretty definitive scenario depot, and has COW stats about many of the scenarios which are included in TOAW III.

A nice touch would be for someone to package up a "map.zip" of all available maps for budding designers. If someone doesn't do it... I just may.

Since you can extract the map from any existing scenario, there would be several hundred in total, and the zip would be 50-100 MB.

Anyway, the quality of maps out there already is very variable. Designers really ought to make their own maps if they're serious about it. More important I'd say would be raising awareness about two excellent mapping tools designed for TOAW, which should still work for TOAW III since they don't interface with the program itself;

ODD:
http://www.tdg.nu/download/odd.htm
Bob Cross' Lat-Long program:
http://www.warfarehq.com/articles/toaw_ ... king.shtml

[pvthudson01]

Yeah Rugged defense has a Alamein scenario with British PO in it
 
http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/display_scenario.php?Id=478

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: TheBloodyBucket

I suppose that depends on the human opponent. If I ever meet an AI that makes up for it's lack of planning with desperate and ill-advised attacks, I'm afraid I'll have met my match.

How about if I make him corrupt the save file if he's losing instead...

Or I can make him simply refuse to load it, or take 3 days to load it or...

Have you ever played ELmer? I actually tried to make him do exactly that tactic (the one that you mention above, not the ones I suggested.) If he's losing and it's close to the end of the game, he should make desparate and ill-advised attacks, trying to achieve victory.

Ralph

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Lava

It has a scenario depot which includes designs compatible with all versions of previously published TOAW games. It is the logical venue due to the size of its readership for new scenarios for TOAW III.

I'd go for Rugged Defence, which is currently a pretty definitive scenario depot, and has COW stats about many of the scenarios which are included in TOAW III.

Well, perhaps the folks here should consider a sticky somewhere with links to all the places they can find scenarios for download.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Anyway, the quality of maps out there already is very variable. Designers really ought to make their own maps if they're serious about it. More important I'd say would be raising awareness about two excellent mapping tools designed for TOAW, which should still work for TOAW III since they don't interface with the program itself;

ODD:
http://www.tdg.nu/download/odd.htm
Bob Cross' Lat-Long program:
http://www.warfarehq.com/articles/toaw_ ... king.shtml

Valid points.

Don't know why but I've always been a little leery of "tools." Guess that's one of the reasons why I don't do much in the way of scenarios. Im not very "nerdy" and tend to mod other folks scenarios for my enjoyment.

Ray (alias Lava)

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lava

Don't know why but I've always been a little leery of "tools."

ODD's map scaler is great and really simple- you just load up an existing map image, plug in the scale in pixels per kilometre and it overlays a hex grid. Worth at least trying if you ever do want to make your own maps, since it does so much of the work for you. Of course if you don't then I suppose it's not for you.

Latlong is a bit more hardcore- but it doesn't suffer from the projection problems of ODD. If you want to get everything in exactly the right place, latlong is the way to go. But it's not as much of a labour saver as ODD. If we're lucky Bob Cross (aka Curtis Lemay) will show up and talk it up some more.

Im not very "nerdy" and tend to mod other folks scenarios for my enjoyment.

Nothing wrong with that. I just find that the more I get into it the more things I find that I want to change... in the end it usually works out quicker if you start from scratch. Of course mapping is tedious and time consuming but the difference between a good map and a bad map can really be worth it.