Solo head-to-head options

[MisterBoats]

I know that "solo head-to-head" may be contradictory, but I think everyone knows what I mean. Playing both sides solves the AI problem. I'm curious to know if anyone else uses the system I've developed for my own use.

In WITP/AE I use a decision option system that uses a die roll. For example, the Japanese commander has the option of launching additional air attacks on Pearl harbor on December 8. 1-3=more strikes, while 4-6=retirement to a major port for replenishment. For the U.S., 1-2=Halsey charges after the IJN strike force with the two carriers at sea, while 3-6=retirement to Pearl Harbor. In a Midway-style situation, Nimitz risks a counterstrike or waits for extra carriers, at the risk of losing a base. The decisions remain in effect for a certain length of time, or until they become irrelevant.

In WITW there are any number of options/strategies that may be left to a die roll. Normandy or Brittany for Overlord, for example. Salerno, Anzio, southern France...the list goes on. For the Axis, whether or not to defend at the beaches or pull back inland (Rommel's versus Rundstedt's preference, for example).

I think that the die roll system lessens the omniscience of the single player a little bit. It also recreates some of the arguments between high level commanders that marked the war effort from beginning to end (especially in air planning).

I'm interested in your thoughts -- thanks for any responses.

[marion61]

I do that, but when I'm moving axis forces I close my right eye, and then my left eye for WA's. That way only half my brain sees what I'm doing and I can't cheat myself?[8D]

[Jajusha]

I'm finding the AI better then one present in WITE, provides enough challenge to learn the game and do some more casual gaming.
For the real game, nothing like the multiplayer they have implemented. No need to swap save games or anything, and its quite secure. Once you find an opponent that has a play schedule similar to yours (nº of turns per day) you won't look back.

[MisterBoats]

I do that, but when I'm moving axis forces I close my right eye, and then my left eye for WA's. That way only half my brain sees what I'm doing and I can't cheat myself?

I love that approach! I'll start looking for an eye patch.

I'm finding the AI better then one present in WITE, provides enough challenge to learn the game and do some more casual gaming.
For the real game, nothing like the multiplayer they have implemented. No need to swap save games or anything, and its quite secure. Once you find an opponent that has a play schedule similar to yours (nº of turns per day) you won't look back.

I have been in one GC multiplayer so far, and I like it a lot. I am learning a hell of a lot about the Axis side of things. The server system is outstanding. I go back to the "play by mail" days, when you had to physically mail turns with every move written down, then check digits in the newspaper's stock price page to find out the dice roll results. I feel like I've progressed from Roman times to the 21st century.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: MisterBoats

I know that "solo head-to-head" may be contradictory, but I think everyone knows what I mean. Playing both sides solves the AI problem. I'm curious to know if anyone else uses the system I've developed for my own use.

In WITP/AE I use a decision option system that uses a die roll. For example, the Japanese commander has the option of launching additional air attacks on Pearl harbor on December 8. 1-3=more strikes, while 4-6=retirement to a major port for replenishment. For the U.S., 1-2=Halsey charges after the IJN strike force with the two carriers at sea, while 3-6=retirement to Pearl Harbor. In a Midway-style situation, Nimitz risks a counterstrike or waits for extra carriers, at the risk of losing a base. The decisions remain in effect for a certain length of time, or until they become irrelevant.

In WITW there are any number of options/strategies that may be left to a die roll. Normandy or Brittany for Overlord, for example. Salerno, Anzio, southern France...the list goes on. For the Axis, whether or not to defend at the beaches or pull back inland (Rommel's versus Rundstedt's preference, for example).

I think that the die roll system lessens the omniscience of the single player a little bit. It also recreates some of the arguments between high level commanders that marked the war effort from beginning to end (especially in air planning).

I'm interested in your thoughts -- thanks for any responses.

I've done this a little in WiTE and it is incredibly informative as a means to see cause and effect and to rework turns. Its a brilliant tool for example in that game to learn how to make unbreakable pockets - as the AI will often respond by falling back.

I'm less sure of its value across an entire game but I think in WiTW you could see the impact of air interdiction much more clearly and adjust variables and targets to see what works.

Never had the patience to try it for more than a few turns though. Not least the AI in both games, but esp in WiTW is more than good enough to give you a decent challenge

[MisterBoats]

I've done this a little in WiTE and it is incredibly informative as a means to see cause and effect and to rework turns. Its a brilliant tool for example in that game to learn how to make unbreakable pockets - as the AI will often respond by falling back.

In a couple of GC's versus the AI I've been able to "leverage" the Axis units back to the Salerno-Adriatic line with only two or three full scale attacks. That's about as far as I wanted to go, as the Allied commander. As long as I had the Foggia area airfields, I was happy. The AI could have easily held my 5th Army invasion -- near Barletta -- and held the British forces at the base of the boot heel. They left a few brigades at Taranto and held it for a week, but the rest of the forces bugged out, back to Napoli. In a H2H solo game, I'd like to make the relocation an option, not a fixed order.