Axis GC normal vs AI - very historical

[gargoil]

This is not an AAR, nor will I provide screenshots, as I am at work.

Reading all the threads on how 1942 becomes ahistorically slanted against the Axis, I would like to ask all that have played the Axis in the GC at normal AI setting - have you noticed anything like this slanting in your games? This is my first non-tutorial game, and things have gone extremely historically in my game.

Well, it might go a bit better than historical in another turn or two, because I have Leningrad isolated with only the last actual city hex to take now. I am just 3 hexes from Moscow, but I do not think I am going to take it unless the Soviet Army does not strengthen, but I am sure it will continue to. I am adjacent to Rostov and Sevastopol, breaking out toward a classic line that is headed toward Stalingrad.

All this is at the end of July 1942. Seems quite historically balanced. So are all the complaints about PvP only? If so, then weakening the Soviets or strengthening the Axis will skew the single player game, would it not?

[KenchiSulla]

To me fighting vs AI is just a way to practice for PBEM. In the end you will find that you want to challenge a real human being.. It is just more fun!

To get back to your point.. It might... but balancing this game for Human vs AI is IMHO a big mistake...

[gargoil]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

To me fighting vs AI is just a way to practice for PBEM. In the end you will find that you want to challenge a real human being.. It is just more fun!

To get back to your point.. It might... but balancing this game for Human vs AI is IMHO a big mistake...

I played the old SPI mapboard game War in the East and War in Europe. I know all about head to head competition. These days I look for games that give me a good game vs the AI. There a no "complications" that way. I play when I like, at any pace I want. I might play a head to head match as well, but I need a capable AI that is NOT skewed by the head to head game, or I will have to move on.

[Commanderski]

While playing a human can't compare to playing against any AI, this AI is probably one of the best if not THE best for this type of game. A lot of people don't have the time to commit to a regular game schedule and the AI will patiently wait for your return.

[EisenHammer]

Playing as the Axis, I thought the Soviet 41 winter offensive was weak in my game. It's now Feb 43 and I have about 30 VP to get before I win. I would have never…never… had gotten this game if it was just multiplayer.
I think it would be a big mistake to ruin the single player game just for the multiplayer crowd.
I paid for WitE for the single player game not multiplayer.

[Erik Rutins]

For everyone playing against the AI, I strongly recommend the "Challenging" and "Hard" settings after you've had a good win at the Normal level. The difficult setting has a large impact on the AI's play and helps the computer compensate for some of the areas where it can't be as good as a human player.

Regards,

- Erik

[JocMeister]

I have played several games vs the AI. First one on normal but I restarted after a nasty bug. This was early after release. I play on a 90/120 advantage for the AI and its perfect up to around spring 42 when things start to shift ahistorically to my advantage regardless of side. I don´t mind that though! Would be a bore if every game was the same [:)]

The fixed reinforcement/withdrawals for the Axis is a real killer though. Hopefully something will be done about in the future. Having to withdraw units historically when your game isn´t playing out historically is a bummer. I really miss my Panzer Armee! [:(]

I also wouldn´t have bought this game if it was Multiplayer only. I bet that the vast majority of WITE owners play only vs. the AI so hopefully Matrix doesn´t forget about us! [:D]

[Joel Billings]

We won't. [:)] We realize that the majority of customers play against the AI. We've even made some recent AI fixes/adjustments in the 1.04.39, and will continue to do so in cases where we have clear saves of poor AI play and a way to fix it that won't make things worse. Once you learn the system, we do recommend playing on at least the Challenging level if you want to be challenged.

[gargoil]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

We won't. [:)] We realize that the majority of customers play against the AI. We've even made some recent AI fixes/adjustments in the 1.04.39, and will continue to do so in cases where we have clear saves of poor AI play and a way to fix it that won't make things worse. Once you learn the system, we do recommend playing on at least the Challenging level if you want to be challenged.

OP here. Thanks for the suggestions Joel. This is my first game (Axis GC, Normal AI) other than the tutorial. I'd say normal has played well so far, but its shortcomings might be exposed as to when the tide is supposed to turn to Soviet offensives? Can I change the AI difficulty setting mid-game?

I certainly will play the Soviets next, and with Challenging AI [8D]

[Joel Billings]

Yes, in AI games you should be able to change the settings mid game.

[pzgndr]

From another thread:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

playing a AI game vs. soviet AI but after 41 it just gets silly with the AI putting up a carpet 5-6 deep and teleporting 2 fronts in a single week

I keep seeing comments like this and wondering if the AI creation of ants problem will ever be addressed. Perhaps impose a minimum unit strength requirement for building new units, e.g. 50% or so? It's one thing for units to be attrited down to minimum strength, but not realistic for unit cadres to be formed and deployed on the front. Rarely perhaps, but certainly not like WITE does it by generating carpets of ant units rows deep?

Curious if anything will be done about the excessive spawning of defending hordes across the steppes of the Motherland. Please?

[Joel Billings]

My understanding is that the "free" AI building of units up to a desired total (I think 300 rifle divisions) only happens when the logistics level is set to 110 for the Soviets. I think this is what creates the large number of small units for the computer. If set lower, then the AI has to buy units with APs. We are making changes in the fort system that will hurt the AI, especially in rear areas, so this should reduce the frustration from the AI extreme carpets.

[pzgndr]

My understanding is that the "free" AI building of units up to a desired total (I think 300 rifle divisions) only happens when the logistics level is set to 110 for the Soviets. I think this is what creates the large number of small units for the computer. If set lower, then the AI has to buy units with APs. We are making changes in the fort system that will hurt the AI, especially in rear areas, so this should reduce the frustration from the AI extreme carpets.

OK thanks! If you guys could confirm this and recommend what the logistics level should be set at to avoid carpets in AI games that would be helpful.

[ETF]

Face it the AI in any wargame in the las 20 years is a best an informed beginner. No game company could invest in a human like AI not possible. Or should I say cost effective. MP games are the only way if you want any sort of challenge. Anyone can rape the AI. I did in my first a game.....and I suck at MP games
This will never change in my life time.......ps I'm 41 haha.

[JWW]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

To me fighting vs AI is just a way to practice for PBEM. In the end you will find that you want to challenge a real human being.. It is just more fun!

To get back to your point.. It might... but balancing this game for Human vs AI is IMHO a big mistake...

With respect, no, many of us will not want to challenge a real human being. I read that all the time in most of the game forums, but it just isn't true for many of us. For many of us, playing the AI is the game in its totality and we are not at all concerned about what we will be missing. It is simply a matter of preference, and neither choice is superior.

[Mynok]

Superior how? If you mean in how one enjoys the game, certainly you are correct. But if you are insinuating that the AI will challenge you just as well as a human player, you are grossly wrong.

[buchand]

Kinda thought that enjoying the game was what it was all about[;)]

Initially the AI is probably a 'better' representation of the Soviet response - programmed and ignoring reality. It does though seem to respond to different broad strategies - AGS first or AGN north etc. - giving even more replay value for the single player.
Danger is you get overconfident and create openings against the AI and then get your a** kicked in your first PBEM game.
Single player or PBEM? Both obviously

[barkman44]

sorta ot but for a very good ai try "Hannibal Rome and carthage in the 2nd punic wars"it is a single player game and the ai can be wicked!

[Tarhunnas]

I think there is sometimes a tendency to a condescending attitude on the forum towards play against the AI, that it is "only for practice" and the like. While it is certainly true that play against a human opponent is far more challenging, it is also true that a majority of players will for various good reasons only play against the AI. Myself, I have only played the majority of my games against the AI, WITE being something of an exception. Both styles of play need to be accommodated, and IMHO it is important that the game is balanced and realistic and gives a good game experience for both groups of players. It is also important that all types of players feel welcome to the community on the forum, whether they play the AI or other humans.

[EisenHammer]

Yep.. You can't make games for single player anymore, just look at the big failures like the Civilization series. All of them suck and failed because of single player. Master of Orion 1&2, Heroes of Might & Magic series, were a complete mess because of single player.
Hell… even real time games like EU III suck when playing it, if it not multiplayer.
Can't get a challenge if it not a human.
We all should just stop playing games.
It just a waste of time.