Historical based vs Historical

[pmelheck1]

When I made the statement earlier concerning historical vs historical based it's because at the end of the day AE is a game not a simulator.  While very well researched history is sacrificed for playability.  This is not necessarily a bad thing.  The sacrifice of history is done to provide a better AI.  As long as one understands this going on one will not be near as upset when one looks at the AI side.  I tried to show my son the AI side to express that while things were bad on the allied side the Japanese had it worse.  However when we looked at the Japanese side all he asked is why didn't the Japanese win the war with 1000's of each aircraft in the pools and all air units and ground units maxed.  5-10 bomber squadrons flying from level one airfields ect.  Some aircraft had more planes in the pool than were produced during the war.  No one can tell me this is historic.  I was looking at the GAME as a SIMULATOR.  No matter how well researched one side is  if the other is not limited to historical levels it isn't historical.  If you triple the number of units Napolian had at Waterloo the game is based on Waterloo not a historical game of Waterloo.  Unlimited replacements for the AI makes the game non historic as neither side had unlimited replacements of men and aircraft.  This by no means makes the game bad but just understand what the game is and what it isn't.  The game is still fantastic but if it's historical based rather than historical then historical anomalies become moot at that point.  If I was playing a Waterloo game I would be VERY upset if new units were added or if Napoleon had unlimited replacements to keep his units at full strength regardless of losses.  Such changes become much easier to take when one understands the difference between game and simulator. 

also historical based IS NOT a dirty word all what if type games and scenarios are historical based.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And BTW, all AIs EVERYWHERE cheat.

tm.asp?m=2256849

ORIGINAL: Time Traveller

Hi all. Enjoying this game a lot. Brings back old memories. But I have a question. Does the AI in EDBTR cheat with production numbers, intelligence, etc? The reason I ask is because from what I have read, the AI totally cheats in War in the Pacific AE (teleporting convoys, massive production advantages, god eye intelligence, etc). All that AI cheating has turned me off from purchasing WITP AE. I am really hoping there is no AI cheating going on in EDBTR.

ORIGINAL: harley

Not really. Combat is clean - no bonuses either way, production is true - the AI gets the same FACs with the same potential output, I took out the AI routine to sweep occupied airfields, (yes, that was a cheat from the old game) and replaced it with a weighting system based on spotted units on the ground, spotted flak and the age of the recon.

I can't think of anything that could be considered cheating. If you have something you think might be, please let me know and I'll investigate.

Make ur own conclusions,

Rasmus

[Valgua]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And BTW, all AIs EVERYWHERE cheat.

With the exception of Galactic Civilizations II, but of course it is not nearly as complex as WitP.
However, many of the complaints are NOT about the AI cheating, but about HOW it cheats. There are cheats, like an infinite amount of airplanes, that actually ruin many historical strategies for the human player. I refer what I read on the forums. Personally, I am avoiding the issue with PBEM.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: bretg80
I read on another thread that AE is a Historical based game and not Historically accurate. What is this? Why is this? I want to be able to play against the Japanese to see how I would have faired in comparison to how the real Admirals won.

There is no difference between the terms, if you think about it. This is a commercial computer wargame. The game is set in the Pacific Theater of WW-II. The game attempts to give each player the “historical” tools that each side would have had, in terms of ships, and divisions, and air groups, and such. The game also attempts to model interactions between these units on a “historical” basis.

But as soon as a player runs turn-1, the game becomes “historically based”, because as soon as they move one battalion in a manner different from reality, the whole idea of “historical” is closed, and must become “historically based”.

It is “historically based” because the player gets only those ships, divisions, and air groups they really got, but the player is free to use them in a manner different from the actual participants, limited, of course, by the ‘historical’ constraints imposed on the actual participants.

Don’t get tangled up in the definitional underwear. The concept is simple and quite straightforward.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: Valgua

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And BTW, all AIs EVERYWHERE cheat.

With the exception of Galactic Civilizations II, but of course it is not nearly as complex as WitP.
However, many of the complaints are NOT about the AI cheating, but about HOW it cheats. There are cheats, like an infinite amount of airplanes, that actually ruin many historical strategies for the human player. I refer what I read on the forums. Personally, I am avoiding the issue with PBEM.

Again, all AI's cheat. Without exception.

Anybody who thinks differently needs to wake up.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: bretg80
I read on another thread that AE is a Historical based game and not Historically accurate. What is this? Why is this? I want to be able to play against the Japanese to see how I would have faired in comparison to how the real Admirals won.

There is no difference between the terms, if you think about it. This is a commercial computer wargame. The game is set in the Pacific Theater of WW-II. The game attempts to give each player the “historical” tools that each side would have had, in terms of ships, and divisions, and air groups, and such. The game also attempts to model interactions between these units on a “historical” basis.

But as soon as a player runs turn-1, the game becomes “historically based”, because as soon as they move one battalion in a manner different from reality, the whole idea of “historical” is closed, and must become “historically based”.

It is “historically based” because the player gets only those ships, divisions, and air groups they really got, but the player is free to use them in a manner different from the actual participants, limited, of course, by the ‘historical’ constraints imposed on the actual participants.

Don’t get tangled up in the definitional underwear. The concept is simple and quite straightforward.

Sometimes, late at night, after many drinks, I do in fact seem to get tangled up in my underwear. But that might be a different issue.

[aspqrz02]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The game is structured so Japan can win by getting enough victory points.  They won't own the map, but they will have the Allies in a position where the war will run into the 1950s if it were a real situation.

Except for the mushroom clouds over select Japanese cities starting from August(ish) 1945 if the allies have bases (even in the Aleutians, one suspects) in range of the B-29's ... or, if worse comes to worst, in 1946(ish) as they ramp up the B-36 program and can bomb from further away and at higher altitudes [;)]

Remember, the B-29 program was already underway before 7DEC41 (as was, IIRC, the B-36) and the Manhattan Engineering District was signed into activity on 6DEC41 ... those bombs, and the method of delivering them, are going to come online and put the Japs in a world of hurt sometime in the last half of 1945.

Even if they don't bomb the Home Islands directly to begin with because of range problems, they can certainly find major Fleet Bases within range ... and wipe out other major bases to make island hopping unneccessary ... and note that the participants estimated they'd have in excess of 12 bombs ready by the end of 45 and that production rates would rise to 15-20 per month by early 1946.

And that ignores the possibility of a Soviet invasion occurring more or less on time as well.

Nope. The Japs were going down ... in a radioactive dust cloud if necessary. 1950 isn't on the cards. Not even close [:D]

Phil

[Time Traveller]

I'm sure I'll be attacked by the usual fanboys here, but I'm going to post this anyways. For quite awhile now I have been watching all the apologists trying to blindly defend very serious design flaws in the AE edition. Much of the 'improved' AI difficulty in AE is just more cheats enabled? Historical game play was thrown out the window due to all the pleas from the hardcore players wanting more of a challenge against the AI? I have no problem with massively cheating AI if it's an optional setting or scenario. Unfortunately from what I have read, all this AI cheating occurs even on normal or historical settings in all scenarios. And it appears the game's designers have no ability or intention of correcting these flaws. That is a major turn off for me. And for that reason I will not be purchasing the AE version. Flame away.   

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Time Traveller

I'm sure I'll be attacked by the usual fanboys here, but I'm going to post this anyways. For quite awhile now I have been watching all the apologists trying to blindly defend very serious design flaws in AE edition. Much of the improved AI difficulty in AE is just more cheats enabled? Historical game play was thrown out the window due to all the pleas from the hardcore players wanting more of a challenge? I have no problem with massively cheating AI if it's an optional setting or scenario. Unfortunately from what I have read, all this AI cheating occurs even on normal or historical settings in all scenarios. That is a major turn off for me. And for that reason I will not be purchasing AE version. Flame away.

Nothing to attack you for (except that you totally ignore the possibility of playing the game PBEM against a live opponant).

The majority of players who play only against the AI requested that it be more challenging..., and the designer's responded. If that isn't what you wanted, then you are right not to buy it. But you will miss out on a truly great gaming experiance by not trying it against a real thinking opponant.

[Time Traveller]

I play WITP, and yes, I know the AI cheats some in the original. But the cheating isn't nearly as bad as I have been reading about AE. At least I can play half-way historical style and still win. I would purchase AE if there was a way to turn off many of the AI cheats or bonuses with the scenario editor. Unfortunately, I don't think this is possible. Anyone?

[Time Traveller]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Time Traveller

I'm sure I'll be attacked by the usual fanboys here, but I'm going to post this anyways. For quite awhile now I have been watching all the apologists trying to blindly defend very serious design flaws in AE edition. Much of the improved AI difficulty in AE is just more cheats enabled? Historical game play was thrown out the window due to all the pleas from the hardcore players wanting more of a challenge? I have no problem with massively cheating AI if it's an optional setting or scenario. Unfortunately from what I have read, all this AI cheating occurs even on normal or historical settings in all scenarios. That is a major turn off for me. And for that reason I will not be purchasing AE version. Flame away.

Nothing to attack you for (except that you totally ignore the possibility of playing the game PBEM against a live opponant).

The majority of players who play only against the AI requested that it be more challenging..., and the designer's responded. If that isn't what you wanted, then you are right not to buy it. But you will miss out on a truly great gaming experiance by not trying it against a real thinking opponant.

I understand what you are saying. I agree that more challenging game play has now replaced historical game play against the AI in AE. Human opponents are always the best for sure! But PBEM really isn't my cup of tea at the moment. [:'(]

[Gary D]

****SPOILERS****


Time Traveler;

I respect anyones decision on how they spend their hard earned dollars or yen or whatever. Like you I am an AI type of player and "historical" is my personal style.

I was a bit puzzled why the development team would put such a huge effort into the most detailed OOB yet seen in a wargame, yet design an AI that plays "ahistorically". After a few months of play I think I have enough experience to make a few observations that may encourage you to change your mind. I am certainly glad that I took the plunge.

What I have found is that by having the AI challenge you early for "ahistorical" locations like Canton, Noumea, and NZ it actually results in a more historically accurate build up of the Line Islands, Samoa, NZ, and OZ. The thrusts by the AI are not brutal strokes that cannot be parried with the tools the allies have at the game start. The time and resources you have to spend, do slow the "ahistorical" behavior you used to be able to get away with in WITP by neglecting to build strong outposts along the LOC from the US West Coast to OZ. By June in WITP I would be already on Guadalcanal, ahead of the IJN and roll on from there.

In July in AE, I hold all the historical allied positions against the AI and am just getting setup on Luganville. By August my well prepped Guadalcanal invasion should be ready. The AI has kept most of its striking power intact, having only lost a few CVLs it used to try and screen Samoa. The allied move up to Rabaul should prove a nice challenge as it was historically since the AI has had time to get setup.

Those folks who play aggressively against the AI are able to achieve much better results than I have, but just reaching historical milestones is interesting to me and gives the AI a bit of a breather.

If you have invested any part of your life playing WITP do not miss this one, it is a superb effort by a very dedicated team. Once your hooked you'll find yourself spending more money on dusty old books, visiting arcane military websites, and fitting right in here with a very good group of individuals.

All the best!

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz
Nope. The Japs were going down ... in a radioactive dust cloud if necessary. 1950 isn't on the cards. Not even close [:D]

Phil

I exaggerated a bit, but it would have been at least mid-1946 before more than the first two nukes were available. They used up the entire stock of fissionable materials making the test prototype and the two live drops. The US was sort of bluffing with the first two dropped.

If the War in the Pacific hadn't stabilized when it did, the war in Europe would have lasted longer too. The deal was that the US would pour resources into the Pacific until the Japanese offensive was blunted, then the bulk of resources would go to Europe until Germany was out of the way.

Still, there are few scenarios which would make the war last past sometime in 1946 or 1947.

Bill

[Time Traveller]

Gary D, thanks for the reply. When I say play historically, I mean things like blockading the Japanese home islands. Apparently, it's pretty pointless doing this now when playing as Allies against Japanese AI due to the practically unlimited supplies, resources and aircraft production bonuses the AI gets. And don't even get me started on the teleporting ships. [:@] I want the choice to play on normal difficulty settings without the AI getting such ridiculous cheats/bonuses that the human player doesn't get. If the Allied side will usually win with a more historically-balanced game, then so be it. I just don't agree with the concept of making game play more challenging at the cost of historical accuracy. [;)]

[Valgua]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Valgua

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And BTW, all AIs EVERYWHERE cheat.

With the exception of Galactic Civilizations II, but of course it is not nearly as complex as WitP.
However, many of the complaints are NOT about the AI cheating, but about HOW it cheats. There are cheats, like an infinite amount of airplanes, that actually ruin many historical strategies for the human player. I refer what I read on the forums. Personally, I am avoiding the issue with PBEM.

Again, all AI's cheat. Without exception.

Anybody who thinks differently needs to wake up.

How is that an answer to my argument?

[dorjun driver]

If this game is so damn accurate, where is the Lanikai? [:)]

[Tomcat]

ORIGINAL: Time Traveller

I play WITP, and yes, I know the AI cheats some in the original. But the cheating isn't nearly as bad as I have been reading about AE. At least I can play half-way historical style and still win. I would purchase AE if there was a way to turn off many of the AI cheats or bonuses with the scenario editor. Unfortunately, I don't think this is possible. Anyone?

Using the editor you can make changes that reduce or nullify several of the "cheats", if you want to. For example, if you want to be able to attrit the number of Japanese pilots then this is an easy mod because you can set the number of pilots in the pool at the start of the game as well as the number that goes into training each month. With patch 2 the training of pilots is supposed to be improved so that they gain experience faster than they do now, but in the meantime you could also set the starting level that trained pilots attain. I'm not recommending that you do or don't do these things, I'm simply pointing out that there are options if you use the editor. Whether or not the cheats annoy me I almost always play with a modified version of this game, or just about any other game. One person pointed out on another thread that he didn't want to be limited by stupid choices the Japanese commanders made, and I don't like to start the game with the same choices that allied commanders made. I like to think that I would have responded better to the allied intel that was available, and the editor allows me this option.

[DuckofTindalos]

Maybe "Time Traveller" should consider who's been writing about how "badly the AE AI cheats", instead of just accepting it as gospel.

[Time Traveller]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Maybe "Time Traveller" should consider who's been writing about how "badly the AE AI cheats", instead of just accepting it as gospel.

I really dont know who is who on this forum because I really dont spend much time here. Are you saying the players who are reporting the cheating AI are not trustworthy? Just trying to get all the facts before deciding to buy or pass. Thank you.

[Time Traveller]

ORIGINAL: Tomcat

ORIGINAL: Time Traveller

I play WITP, and yes, I know the AI cheats some in the original. But the cheating isn't nearly as bad as I have been reading about AE. At least I can play half-way historical style and still win. I would purchase AE if there was a way to turn off many of the AI cheats or bonuses with the scenario editor. Unfortunately, I don't think this is possible. Anyone?

Using the editor you can make changes that reduce or nullify several of the "cheats", if you want to. For example, if you want to be able to attrit the number of Japanese pilots then this is an easy mod because you can set the number of pilots in the pool at the start of the game as well as the number that goes into training each month. With patch 2 the training of pilots is supposed to be improved so that they gain experience faster than they do now, but in the meantime you could also set the starting level that trained pilots attain. I'm not recommending that you do or don't do these things, I'm simply pointing out that there are options if you use the editor. Whether or not the cheats annoy me I almost always play with a modified version of this game, or just about any other game. One person pointed out on another thread that he didn't want to be limited by stupid choices the Japanese commanders made, and I don't like to start the game with the same choices that allied commanders made. I like to think that I would have responded better to the allied intel that was available, and the editor allows me this option.

Thanks for the that helpful info, Tomcat. Its much appreciated. [:)]