I REALLY want to like this game but

[vonRocko]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

I just get so tired of guys who play the game to test its limits, rather than enjoying its many, many great features. Then they judge the game on those fringe aspects, rather than the many great features.

Play the game through, an entire campaign scenario, ALL aspects, then give your definitive opinion.

I understand what you are saying, but the Royal navy not defending England is not a fringe aspect, but a critical flaw in programing. Every boat they got should be there.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

I just get so tired of guys who play the game to test its limits, rather than enjoying its many, many great features. Then they judge the game on those fringe aspects, rather than the many great features.

Play the game through, an entire campaign scenario, ALL aspects, then give your definitive opinion.

I understand what you are saying, but the Royal navy not defending England is not a fringe aspect, but a critical flaw in programing. Every boat they got should be there.

You are right that there should be more reaction to an invasion of the British Isles, but you would not want the same level of aggression in other theatres and under other situations. Then you are into scripting AI behaviour, which firstly takes out the uncertainty aspects and secondly, when you know the script, it neuters the AI.

Other games produce an apparently stronger AI, by designing to tight limitations so that the AI can cope, but how long before the game restrictions become irksome, or PBEM is the only challenge.

In a perfect world we want an AI that does it all, but recognising the shortcomings in present AI, I am not sure it's worth having a reaction to an operation that would probabily not have taken place, that would be inappropriate for the rest of the game, where more caution is required of the AI. Again, note the unexpectedly ineffectual British reaction to the 'Channel Dash', an AI scripted to Banzai action in the Channel would not let that happen. As soon as the human player realises that the AI is going to react in predictable ways, then they will amend their strategy accordingly.

If the devs can work it out, well and good, but in the meantime it's not a great loss in a game covering such a large field.

Comments in other threads highlight that the Devs know the naval part of the game needs improvement and it's not lack of interest, they have encouraged player involvement, some of ToF content has come from player input to earlier titles.

I am happy to stay on for the ride and see where it goes, enjoying the game in the meantime.[:)]

[gravyface_]

Can anyone confirm whether the Royal Navy issue is a repeatable "bug" or just a fluke? I'm on the fence here: I'm not playing the game because I have a few others on the go and from what I've been reading, it's in need or another update (or two). However, I think you need to be a) lenient with small, niche, development shops developing small, niche games b) really play the game thoroughly before unleashing a torrent of complaints in an online forum.

My two bits. Commence rebuttals. [;)]

[Numdydar]

I can tell you the same AI behavior has occured in the three games I have tried so far when I invaded England. So I would say 3 for 3 is not a good track record [:(]. For the entire German Navy to actually be sailing around the Channel and not lose a signle ship is not something I would say is 'testing the game to its limits'. Neither is creating enough LC in a week to land two corp the following week. Plus have this massive LC fleet slowly, oh so slowly also sail across the same channel without a single ship being sunk. This also occured in all thee games.

If the devs could not script a decent AI response to Sealion, then they should have just made the game so that Sealion could not be done. Of course then we would all complain about why they did that [:D]. The bottom line is that if the game allows a player to do something, then the game should be able to handle it. If not then, imho, that part is broken and needs to be fixed if the devs want the game to work correctly.

[Rasputitsa]

I don't know enough about the workings of AI systems to be sure what the solution is, but have already said that amphibious landings should need a great deal of preparation. You would not want to open it to exploitation, the player puts a transport 'bait' into the Channel, then pounds the RN when it makes a scripted massive response.

However, you do want the opposition to respond to amhibious operations, when they are real and need to set the preparation and cost so that it's only worth doing when it is real, not frivolous.

You want to be able to make small landings of divisional size, such as Dieppe (leads into the ability to evacuate ground units by sea), up to a full scale invasion. You have landings that can be launched from an ocean away, as in 'Torch', or from across the narrower Channel, complicating the surprise factor.

Payment of PPs in advance, over and above the cost of Amphibious Points, with designated landing beaches selected several turns ahead. The bigger the landing (especially the use of armour), the greater the PP cost and time delay. The AI could be let into this process, in reality you cannot make these preparations completely in secret and the AI could be set to make a more appropriate response.

I think air supremacy could play a part here, giving surprise advantages to the attacker, if you have supremacy, or in breaking through FOW if you try this without supremacy. At the moment you only have a chance to see an amphibious transport when it's loaded, which is too late if a landing has been in preparation for weeks. Something like creating the transports in ports several turns ahead and giving the opponent a chance to recce the contents of the ports, especially with air supremacy. You may be able to hide a BB or two, but you certainly couldn't hide 1000s of landing barges, again size matters, small landings would not be so easy to see during prepartion.

The main point is the visibily of amphibious transport fleets, if the AI doesn't make a full response to a BB fleet running the gauntlet in the Channel (or any where else), so be it, but force the earlier appearance of amphibious transport fleets, to give the opponent the chance to see them, by flying recce missions, or maybe automatically with airsupremacy, and prepare the response we want to see.

I wouldn't want to see things take out of the game (banning Sea Lion), but getting more options is always good.[:)]

[Rasputitsa]

Here's something else to consider, during the early war period there was little in the way of specialised amphibious shipping, so can we have amphibious tech levels, or general naval tech level will set amphibious capability. At a low tech level, amphibious landings can only be launched from ports in the same, or adjacent sea areas, as the sea area of the designated landing beaches. This simplifies the surprise element, especially for Sea Lion, whereas, later in the war after buying higher naval and/or amphibious tech levels, landings can be mounted from further away, so that detection is only going to occur when the assault fleet is loaded and already at sea.

Most landings in the later war period seem to have arrived as a surprise, even though they were expected, with the actual landing beaches only revealed when the ships were off the coast.

I think the main point is that the game system will have the amphibious fleet visible well before the landing is made, with the landing beaches designated in advance and with a delay before the landing can be launched, surely the AI can be made to use some of this to respond in defence, not allowing it to pack the beach, but give it priorities and objectives to organise a reasonable response (the AI gets cheat help in other areas). The human player would have to work for the information, try for air supremacy, recce and bomb the ports, have air/naval units available to interdict the landing, or face the consequences.

So, Doomtrader, is this worth discussing further, is it likely to be something that could fly, or will it crash and burn.[:)]

[gravyface_]

Another thing to consider was that Sea Lion was just flat out impossible without:

- air superiority (Battle of Britain)
- ships (Germany Navy, landing craft)
- channel/current itself: there was just a handful of places to land, at certain times of the year, that the window of opportunity was so small as to make surprise highly unlikely and make defense certain.

I firmly believe Hitler would never have launched Sea Lion and chose to wage war with Britain via convoys and the air battle: it was his only feasible option.

Now, can that be reversed with Time of Fury? You can certainly load up on Navy and Air units, but the channel itself was never taken into consideration, nor landing terrain: from what I've read, you can land pretty much anywhere (and even heard that a successful combat roll is almost guaranteed!) and that's flatout wrong. I'd say on any given coast, there's going to far less places in which you can make an amphibious assault.

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: vonRocko


I understand what you are saying, but the Royal navy not defending England is not a fringe aspect, but a critical flaw in programing. Every boat they got should be there.

Sealion is indeed a 'fringe' aspect of the game. It never happened! But then, one of the great things about this game is that 'what ifs' can be tested.

With a multiplayer game of TOW, in which Sea Lion is attempted, if the British player defends the Channel with every naval asset, he'll get plastered by the Luftwaffe. At that stage of the war, IF the German player uses most of his air assets against the Channel, he'll gain superiority, and then the Royal Navy is done for. and Sea Lion proceeds.

when that happens, you guys are going to start complaining: where was the Royal Air Force!? The air-sea attack power is way out of kilter!! The Germans could never have gained air superiority!! Then you will claim that the game is worthless, it can't recreate the Battle of Brittain, etc etc etc.

Of course there are fifty adjustable game factors related to air strength, combat result rations, OOB, and so on, but vanilla, the above will happen.

Once again, how about playing the game to its strength - which is the ground war, instead of its weakest part, which may be naval AI.

I have lost against the AI in Barbarossa - take a look at one of my old AARs.

[vonRocko]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner


Once again, how about playing the game to its strength

I do agree with you here, I try to play games with that attitude. I know it is tough, for a game like this, to have a great AI, but this AI seems to be missing some more basic problems. Rasputitsa has some interesting ideas. I'm better at picking flaws then offering solutions, so I'm glad he is around. Like the title of thread says, I want to like this game but....

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: gravyface_
Another thing to consider was that Sea Lion was just flat out impossible without:

- air superiority (Battle of Britain)
- ships (Germany Navy, landing craft)
- channel/current itself: there was just a handful of places to land, at certain times of the year, that the window of opportunity was so small as to make surprise highly unlikely and make defense certain.

I firmly believe Hitler would never have launched Sea Lion and chose to wage war with Britain via convoys and the air battle: it was his only feasible option.

Now, can that be reversed with Time of Fury? You can certainly load up on Navy and Air units, but the channel itself was never taken into consideration, nor landing terrain: from what I've read, you can land pretty much anywhere (and even heard that a successful combat roll is almost guaranteed!) and that's flatout wrong. I'd say on any given coast, there's going to far less places in which you can make an amphibious assault.

I am not suggesing that we turn ToF into an Operation Sea Lion simulator, the game is enjoyable enough as it is, but there is always room for some historical inprovement.

Push F9 in ver. 1.02 to see the hexes which are available as landing beaches, I suggest that the player should have to click on a hex, or hexes, which would then be highlighted (not on the opponents display) as planned landing beaches and pay PPs for each hex, to avoid people clicking the whole coast. This represents the planning and cost of preparaions for assault. After several turns delay, you then can create amphibious fleets in suitable ports (see previous post for suggested sea area restrictions), but there is a further delay (the more strength points loaded the longer the delay) in being able to launch them, giving the opponent an opportunity to spot the fleets and bomb them if they have the air power (the attacker would obviously what to mass air power in protection). After several turns delay, you are then free to launch an amphibious assault on the previously highlighted hexes. If you change the selected landing hexes, the PP cost and at least part of the delay applies again.

I can do much of this with personal house rules playing solo, but others think that the game should do it. I can choose landing hexes in advance, deduct extra PPs through F12 as preparation, load amphibious fleets, but hold them in ports to simulate training and further preparation, have to ensure air supremacy to protect them, before eventually launching an invasion. The AI will continue under the normal game rules, but it needs the help and a chance to react.

Landing is not always the difficulty if you can pick an empty beach hex, the combat die roll for landing depends on whether the landing hex is defended, or not, and how much air and sea bombardment you can bring in (landing hexes might be empty when you select them, but defended after the several turns delay in launching). The defender can make it more difficult by splitting units to cover more of the threatened coast (again F9 shows what you have to defend), can the AI do this if it can be given a 'beach defence mode', just like it knows to defend rail and city hexes, an 'invasion warning' in any area should get it defending beaches, the more I think about this game the more I like it.[:)]

I can make the game more realistic for myself and have done so in other parts of the game, which is why I'm happier with it than some, but how much can be done for the overall accuracy of the game.

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

ORIGINAL: vonRocko


I understand what you are saying, but the Royal navy not defending England is not a fringe aspect, but a critical flaw in programing. Every boat they got should be there.

Sealion is indeed a 'fringe' aspect of the game. It never happened! But then, one of the great things about this game is that 'what ifs' can be tested.

With a multiplayer game of TOW, in which Sea Lion is attempted, if the British player defends the Channel with every naval asset, he'll get plastered by the Luftwaffe. At that stage of the war, IF the German player uses most of his air assets against the Channel, he'll gain superiority, and then the Royal Navy is done for. and Sea Lion proceeds.

when that happens, you guys are going to start complaining: where was the Royal Air Force!? The air-sea attack power is way out of kilter!! The Germans could never have gained air superiority!! Then you will claim that the game is worthless, it can't recreate the Battle of Brittain, etc etc etc.

Of course there are fifty adjustable game factors related to air strength, combat result rations, OOB, and so on, but vanilla, the above will happen.

Once again, how about playing the game to its strength - which is the ground war, instead of its weakest part, which may be naval AI.

I have lost against the AI in Barbarossa - take a look at one of my old AARs.

I agrre with your comments. But I ask where was the RAF when the German Navy was sailing around the Channel in my game? So it is not just the naval aspect of the game, it is the entire naval/air interaction which was a VERY important part of the ETO, the clashes in the Med, bombing the Italian fleet at Taranto, etc.

So while Sealion specificly may be a 'fring' item, the other operations (which really did happen) do not occur either due to the way air and see interact (or non-interact [:(]). Sealion just highlights the problem better than so of the other actions that happen in the game.

Here is another good example. In early '43 the US goes to war with me. I have the majority of the German Navy stationed around England. The US sends a massive fleet along with LCs into a sea area where I have German SFs to invade Liverpool. So lets look at the sequence of events for this to occur in the game.

1. US AI loads the units on the ships
2. US AI sails this huge fleet across the Atlantic without me having any knowledge of it. I guess my Uboat patrols were all asleep [>:]
3. US AI reaches the Irish Sea
4. My fleets completely ignore not just the combat ships, but the LCs as well. My planes cannot fly as it is not my turn.
5. The units land with no opposition and proceed to get wiped out over the next few turns. The same invasion was repeated twice more with the same results.

What should have occured
1. Same as above
2. Should have some awareness this fleet was headed my way considering its size. Also should have gotten a rough idea of where it was going too.
3. The opposing naval should have had one (or more) clashes prior to the US fleet geting to the Irish Sea (considering we are talking a weeks worth of time here)
4. Air strikes (on both sides) should have occured
5. Other German naval forces should react to the US fleet prior to the landing actually occuring
6. The landing would not occur (and the LC should not be anywhere near the Irish Sea until this is determined) unless the US was able to get air superioty over the area.
7. Once Step 6 occures, then the landing can occur.
8. Some random portion of the landing units strengh, etc. should be impacted
9. Rush to capture a port asap (versus wandering around the countryside trying to capture VP locations).

So if the game AI launched DDay (which I respectfully submit is not a 'fringe' element) The US would land without any losses and would not even notice if
a) Opposing ships were in the Channel
b) They had air superioty or not
c) they captured any ports or not

So how can the Allies even come close to DDay in the game unless they are controlled by a human. If I am going to have to play both sides in a computer game, I'll play the computer version of DGs War in Europe instead. I buy these games for the AI, not to play aginst others. So if the AI is not doing its job, then them game gets punished for it.

As I have said before this game in mutltiplayer with all majors played by humans would rock. However, that is NOT why I purchased the game and why I am so vocal about its flaws. As I WANT the AI to be able to handle this situations with some ability, versus what it does now.

[gwgardner]

I concede the point, about the overall AI. It sucks, with the exception of the Russian AI.

IF I were only going to play solo, and IF Barbarossa was not my focus, then the only way to play would be with AI very easy, human hard, but I dislike that kind of play.

Play the game against a human. You'll enjoy it.

[Rasputitsa]

The point was made early in the thread that AI is not good at taking the iniative and producing an imaginative attacking strategy. This applies to most games, unless the parameters of the game are so tightly structured that the AI can cope, but the human player is equally constrained. ToF is more flexibly structured, which is refreshing, both styles of game have their merits and I guess we all play both. Many games are presented as is, take it or leave it, you have to accept the design decisions in them. ToF has huge possibilities in preferences, settings, mods, file tweaks, solo house rules, maps, unit icons, almost everything can be changed, you may not want to do this, but it's all about choice.

The way to maximise the features in ToF against the AI, is to play the side that has the iniative, Axis early war, Allies late war. There is a lot the really like in this game. [:)]

[Razz1]

Try the Third Reich scenario.

Operation Sea Lion will be much tougher.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

Here's something else to consider, during the early war period there was little in the way of specialised amphibious shipping, so can we have amphibious tech levels, or general naval tech level will set amphibious capability. At a low tech level, amphibious landings can only be launched from ports in the same, or adjacent sea areas, as the sea area of the designated landing beaches. This simplifies the surprise element, especially for Sea Lion, whereas, later in the war after buying higher naval and/or amphibious tech levels, landings can be mounted from further away, so that detection is only going to occur when the assault fleet is loaded and already at sea.

Most landings in the later war period seem to have arrived as a surprise, even though they were expected, with the actual landing beaches only revealed when the ships were off the coast.

I think the main point is that the game system will have the amphibious fleet visible well before the landing is made, with the landing beaches designated in advance and with a delay before the landing can be launched, surely the AI can be made to use some of this to respond in defence, not allowing it to pack the beach, but give it priorities and objectives to organise a reasonable response (the AI gets cheat help in other areas). The human player would have to work for the information, try for air supremacy, recce and bomb the ports, have air/naval units available to interdict the landing, or face the consequences.

So, Doomtrader, is this worth discussing further, is it likely to be something that could fly, or will it crash and burn.[:)]

Bump ! Doomtrader is this worth discussing further. [:)]

[Hairog]

Air superiority should be the key or no air units present at all. No air superiority in a sea zone then no invasion should be possible.

This would take care of a Sealion and yet make a D-Day possible or for that matter a Sealion after Battle of Britain victory for the Luff.

If there are no air units for either side present then the invasion can happen. This would simulate things like Norway.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Hairog
Air superiority should be the key or no air units present at all. No air superiority in a sea zone then no invasion should be possible.

This would take care of a Sealion and yet make a D-Day possible or for that matter a Sealion after Battle of Britain victory for the Luff.

If there are no air units for either side present then the invasion can happen. This would simulate things like Norway.

Air superiority is key, but I think players should have to fight for it. At the moment you can load up amphibious fleets then look for an empty beach to land on. Air superiority is key to being able to fly the recce missions to find such beaches.

However, in reality there is a huge amount of planning in any amphibious operation, which I am suggesting can be simulated by introducing a delay period, with the amphibious fleets loaded, giving time for the air war to be fought, defender to fly recce flights to find the fleets, bomb the ports, attacker to suppress this air power, let combat decide who can has assembled the required air units to win the air war.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3175683