rwork?

[gdpsnake]

I have all the versions of the campaign series which had MANY flaws. Does this release address any of those flaws or is it just a re-release?
Specifically, when playing the generated campaigns, my troops often got updated with loads of trucks and nothing else. It was sure hard to carry on a campaign when my men and tanks turned into trucks. Sometimes I would get a lot of AT guns and NO transport. In other words, the whole thing got screwy.
Minefields were always hard loaded and one could never place them - they tended to show up in incredibly stupid places as well.
The AI was clownish at best.
I haven't played in years so I can't remember all the gripes that even East Front 2 did not address. I do remember writing feverishly to the Talonsoft group about the campaign series and on several bugs in the battleground series and being somewhat abruptly told: "We are not going to do any more work on these games because fixing them won't generate any more income. Live with it."
At that point I shelved the games and didn't shed any tears when the company went under...gee...wonder why? Customer support?
So unless many of the old issues raised by customers past and present have been addressed, don't expect me to buy simple repackaging.

To that end, what SPECIFICALLY has been done to retool these products? Yes, I read the post on all the new units, OOB's and scenarios but I want to know if the programming has been worked on. More units that still turn into trucks and other CAMPAIGN flaws are what need fixing.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: gdpsnake

I have all the versions of the campaign series which had MANY flaws. Does this release address any of those flaws or is it just a re-release?

Here is a general overview:

tm.asp?m=1476058

ORIGINAL: gdpsnake
Specifically, when playing the generated campaigns, my troops often got updated with loads of trucks and nothing else. It was sure hard to carry on a campaign when my men and tanks turned into trucks. Sometimes I would get a lot of AT guns and NO transport. In other words, the whole thing got screwy.

As much as I loathe Dynamic Campaigns, I have spent countless hours trying to fix the Dynamic Campaigns for the Germans in East Front. Now, with the impending 1.02 release, all upgrades are done on company basis. Hence, this should no longer be a bug.

ORIGINAL: gdpsnake
Minefields were always hard loaded and one could never place them - they tended to show up in incredibly stupid places as well.

Hasn't been looked at yet.

ORIGINAL: gdpsnake
The AI was clownish at best.

The AI is still clownish. Keep in mind, the group that is dedicated to revising the Campaign Series have long been playing against Human opponents. We're quite surprised at the amount of people that play against the computer. This will eventually be looked at, but there are other pressing tasks at the moment.

ORIGINAL: gdpsnake
I haven't played in years so I can't remember all the gripes that even East Front 2 did not address. I do remember writing feverishly to the Talonsoft group about the campaign series and on several bugs in the battleground series and being somewhat abruptly told: "We are not going to do any more work on these games because fixing them won't generate any more income. Live with it."
At that point I shelved the games and didn't shed any tears when the company went under...gee...wonder why? Customer support?

Fortunately, there's a new crew in town.

ORIGINAL: gdpsnake
So unless many of the old issues raised by customers past and present have been addressed, don't expect me to buy simple repackaging.

Many issues have been addressed, not all, but many.

ORIGINAL: gdpsnake
To that end, what SPECIFICALLY has been done to retool these products? Yes, I read the post on all the new units, OOB's and scenarios but I want to know if the programming has been worked on. More units that still turn into trucks and other CAMPAIGN flaws are what need fixing.

You'll be happy with the Dynamic Campaigns in East Front, as Germans. The other nations and games will be remedied as I have time.

Jason Petho

[benpark]

"We're quite surprised at the amount of people that play against the computer."

I'm not at all. It is generally known that the majority of players will fight vs. the AI. I would urge you to prioritize that area of updates.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: benpark

"We're quite surprised at the amount of people that play against the computer."

I'm not at all. It is generally known that the majority of players will fight vs. the AI. I would urge you to prioritize that area of updates.

I am interested in your statistics?

In my experience, especially for the last five years or so, most of the questions I have seen are related to human vs human play.

Jason Petho

[lparkh]

Here's another vote for vs the AI. Campaigns were always popular I believe and those by definition were against AI. I did all the campaigns so lost some interst in playing (the human built campaigns; the dynamic were too broken). Steel Panthers has a lot of people still playing dynamic campaigns I believe so I also suspect there are a lot of AI lurkers

[Huib]

My opinion is that any work on AI or campaigns is wasted time and energy really. The game is at its best at Human vs Human play and one of the best ever made. The AI will never be more than bad to mediocre no matter how hard one will work on it to get the bugs out and IMO will not attract a long living AI playing fan base. The reason the game has been around so long is for it's outstanding quality as a simulation in play against human opponents and the large fan base it has kept over the years. This heretage must have been one of the key reasons for re-releasing this game.
Over the years a large number of very good scenarios have been created, all for human vs human play.
We should invest in those areas the game is good at and not in those areas where the game has fallen short already in the past.
Make sure the AI and campaigns work as good (or bad) as they did in the Talonsoft version and then let's leave it at that.
I can understand that people like to play AI, but I don't think one can expect much from an AI developed over 10 years ago. I may sound blunt and short but if you want to play against AI there are better games around, if you like to play against humans this is one of the best.

Huib

[benpark]

Statistics. It seems Matrix should have something on file on how many people seem to play vs human or AI. I see nearly all of their games contain an AI, and that many conversations revolve around the subject of whether or not it plays well. That speaks volumes. The folks at Battlefront have said that the vast majority of players of their games are vs the AI (look at the number of registered users of the forums vs. people looking for MP games).

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: benpark

Statistics. It seems Matrix should have something on file on how many people seem to play vs human or AI.

Unless there has been a poll regarding the Campaign Series usage, I am unaware of such statistics.

ORIGINAL: benpark
I see nearly all of their games contain an AI, and that many conversations revolve around the subject of whether or not it plays well. That speaks volumes. The folks at Battlefront have said that the vast majority of players of their games are vs the AI (look at the number of registered users of the forums vs. people looking for MP games).

We are, of course, having a discussion about the Campaign Series, not everything else under the sun. My comments are relevent to the Campaign Series only.

Jason Petho

[benpark]

The AI seems to have won in your poll a while back. Here ya go, right from your own words:

tm.asp?m=987835&mpage=1&key=��

"I so agree with this, and one of the primary reasons I don't like to play online. I just don't have the time to wait for my opponent to meander through a turn. That, and I prefer the longer scenarios.

70% vs AI
30% vs human via PBEM

Take care and good luck
Jason Petho"

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: benpark

The AI seems to have won in your poll a while back. Here ya go, right from your own words:

tm.asp?m=987835&mpage=1&key=��


"I so agree with this, and one of the primary reasons I don't like to play online. I just don't have the time to wait for my opponent to meander through a turn. That, and I prefer the longer scenarios.

70% vs AI
30% vs human via PBEM

Take care and good luck
Jason Petho"

Yes, which is still the case.

Keeping in context, most of my AI play is for initial playtesting, bug hunting and LCG creation and testing.

My point is that in my experience over the last five years, I have come across more human vs human users than those that play the AI. With the exception of here at Matrix. Note the "surprised" comment above.

Jason Petho

[benpark]

That would not be a shock if you are around human vs human players at the Blitz. That is rather unscientific in itself.

From your own poll "here at Matrix", it seems that many that have purchased this series again hope for some ongoing improvements to the AI. The hope for me with these re-issues that Matrix are doing is that upgrades will be forthcoming in all areas of the games. I don't expect revolutionary change, but a little can go far. If your vocal MP group has a set of issues that demand fixing, and that is the priority, fine with me, they deserve it as well as the next person that bought it.

My point being, again that I would hope that some attention is given to the game's AI in a near future patch. Is this sounding unreasonable?

[benpark]

Thanks for cleaning up my messy quoting skills.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: benpark

That would not be a shock if you are around human vs human players at the Blitz. That is rather unscientific in itself.

That would be assuming that my only experience in answering questions is at the Blitz. Which is not the case.

ORIGINAL: benpark
From your own poll "here at Matrix",

Again, noting my surprise.

ORIGINAL: benpark
it seems that many that have purchased this series again hope for some ongoing improvements to the AI. The hope for me with these re-issues that Matrix are doing is that upgrades will be forthcoming in all areas of the games. I don't expect revolutionary change, but a little can go far. If your vocal MP group has a set of issues that demand fixing, and that is the priority, fine with me, they deserve it as well as the next person that bought it.

There are additions coming with the 1.02 patch that, although does not do anything to improve the AI's performance, can make playing the AI more challenging. Enhanced Concealment and Terrain Modifier rules, for example.

ORIGINAL: benpark
My point being, again that I would hope that some attention is given to the game's AI in a near future patch. Is this sounding unreasonable?

Will the AI be looked at in a future release? Yes.

Will the AI be looked at in a near future release? Probably not. Of course, 'near' is relative.

Jason Petho

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: benpark

Thanks for cleaning up my messy quoting skills.

No problem!

Jason Petho

[benpark]

Good enough for my ears.

[1925frank]

I've always thought the Campaign Series, from its inception at Talonsoft, was driven and designed for human vs. human, and the AI component was little more than a concession to marketing.  How else can you explain the "Battle Generator" and the weak AI?
 
I'm an AI player.  Jason has thrown us AI players more than a few bones.  As a practical matter, I think the human vs. human component will always be what drives this game, and the AI component will simply have to benefit from its wake. 
 
 
 

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: benpark

"We're quite surprised at the amount of people that play against the computer."

I'm not at all. It is generally known that the majority of players will fight vs. the AI. I would urge you to prioritize that area of updates.

I am interested in your statistics?

In my experience, especially for the last five years or so, most of the questions I have seen are related to human vs human play.

Jason Petho

I'm not sure where to find statistics, but I've been playing wargames since 1970, and computer wargames since the commodore 64 days. I almost always play against AI not against human opponent.

Rick

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: Rick

I'm not sure where to find statistics, but I've been playing wargames since 1970, and computer wargames since the commodore 64 days. I almost always play against AI not against human opponent.

Rick

Yes, I understand that.. many players play many games solitaire.

Just trying to keep the notation revelent to the Campaign Series only.

Jason Petho

[tide1212]

I played against the AI for years and really enjoyed it. I was very reluctant to play PBEM but got a very good mentor and was hooked on PBEM and now that online play has been fixed I get to play a couple of hours almost every night [:D]  

[TAIL GUNNER]

I think a simple check something along these lines would help our inept AI greatly:

If "attack_value" <or= "defender_modified_defensive_value" * .5
then "do_not_fire"

Something like that would cause the AI to not waste action points firing pointless value "1" or "2" shots from range that have no chance of hurting the defender.