I, for one, am looking forward to see how the merchant shipping will be treated. I would vote for some level of abstraction, maybe assigning number of ships or tonnage to a route, and assigning escorts to the route.
You assign ships to a pool, and add bases to a service list. The AI will automatically pull ships from the pool and use them to bring supply and fuel to the bases on the service list. It will also fill up the ships on fuel at bases on the list that produce fuel and bring the loads back to Japan.
Gary Grigsby/Joel Billings interview
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
-
Point Luck
- Posts: 261
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 6:24 pm
- Location: East Coast-US
People who want total control over everything (whether to overcome perceived AI problems, or purely because they want things to go just so) are IMHO better off playing chess.
I agree totally, but I always considered games like UV and WiTP just that, a new millenniums version of chess.
It offers all the same elements as chess with the added advantage of technical handicaps.
As most others have stated the real play in the game is the PBEM.
Since the greatest reward in playing any game is playing an adversary that can do the one thing that no computer for a considerably long time in the future will be able to DO and that is to ADAPT, to DECIVE and CHANGE it thought process. (AKA – artificial intelligence that factor in emotions).
Playing these games against a computer whether it’s UV, WiTP or even chess is like playing golf or water skiing by computer. It’s just not the same.
Does the average player need excellent AI yes they probably do
I personally use the AI to do the same thing that I use a computer for to run test strategies, theories or calculations.
I would prefer to see an AI that’s capable of handling smaller scenarios and have the energy focused on the AI’s ability to handle user selected ship routines and the games target selection process.
In any case I will purchase the game as long as there are others that also enjoy testing the limits of their own built in processor. No matter what level the games AI is capable of.
I agree totally, but I always considered games like UV and WiTP just that, a new millenniums version of chess.
It offers all the same elements as chess with the added advantage of technical handicaps.
As most others have stated the real play in the game is the PBEM.
Since the greatest reward in playing any game is playing an adversary that can do the one thing that no computer for a considerably long time in the future will be able to DO and that is to ADAPT, to DECIVE and CHANGE it thought process. (AKA – artificial intelligence that factor in emotions).
Playing these games against a computer whether it’s UV, WiTP or even chess is like playing golf or water skiing by computer. It’s just not the same.
Does the average player need excellent AI yes they probably do
I personally use the AI to do the same thing that I use a computer for to run test strategies, theories or calculations.
I would prefer to see an AI that’s capable of handling smaller scenarios and have the energy focused on the AI’s ability to handle user selected ship routines and the games target selection process.
In any case I will purchase the game as long as there are others that also enjoy testing the limits of their own built in processor. No matter what level the games AI is capable of.
This is only really a problem with people who insist on 'fine tuning'
their game.
The problem such people have is that they run into a situation
where the other player isnt interested in the 'wisdom' or 'high risk'
of some strategy (such as sailing for Nomea with everything
on turn #1 as the Japs in UV.
'Wild Card' players greatly upset the chess masters.
their game.
The problem such people have is that they run into a situation
where the other player isnt interested in the 'wisdom' or 'high risk'
of some strategy (such as sailing for Nomea with everything
on turn #1 as the Japs in UV.
'Wild Card' players greatly upset the chess masters.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
You don't have enough transport capacity when the game starts or I'd do it :psuch as sailing for Nomea with everything
Since the fall of Noumea represents an automatic win for Japan (as the Allies no longer get any shipping), I don't understand why more people don't go for it instead of picking on the Aussies
This would be the same as invading the West coast in WitP. If you can manage to do it, you SHOULD win the game!
Hi, Chess masters love playing people who think they can win the game in 3 moves.Originally posted by Chiteng
This is only really a problem with people who insist on 'fine tuning'
their game.
The problem such people have is that they run into a situation
where the other player isnt interested in the 'wisdom' or 'high risk'
of some strategy (such as sailing for Nomea with everything
on turn #1 as the Japs in UV.
'Wild Card' players greatly upset the chess masters.
Luganville meets the auto victory. Going for Noumea is the most blatent attemt to exploit the system. (_Since the US player loses his reinforcments and supply) Losing Noumea in WITP will not mean a win in the South Pacific if accompanied by the high loss usally going with the Noumea attack in UV. This is not strategy.
it is bulldozing.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Luganville meets the auto victory. Going for Noumea is the most blatent attemt to exploit the system.
I respectfully disagree.
Any Allied commander that lets Noumea fall deserves the embarrassment that it's loss entails. It is the singlemost important base in the game. People who strip it dry to falsely use troops that would never have been moved forward should receive this kind of fate.
Pulling the troops that should be used to ensure that at least 2 divisions can not take Noumea and using them elsewhere is a huge boon to the Allied player and is even more of a exploit against the time constrained Japan player.
Originally posted by Mr.Frag
I respectfully disagree.
Any Allied commander that lets Noumea fall deserves the embarrassment that it's loss entails. It is the singlemost important base in the game. People who strip it dry to falsely use troops that would never have been moved forward should receive this kind of fate.
Pulling the troops that should be used to ensure that at least 2 divisions can not take Noumea and using them elsewhere is a huge boon to the Allied player and is even more of a exploit against the time constrained Japan player.
Very true. Moving forward forces too early is a huge risk for the allies. If they are down carriers to the IJN then it is reckless.
Taking Noumea is hard, unless the Allied player is foolish.
Luganville is not worth garrisoning until more ground forces arrive (i.e. the 1st Marine Division) or are shipped from SWPAC .
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
Taking Noumea is hard, unless the Allied player is foolish.
A lot of fools out there it would seem, as I generally see people putting more troops into the defense of PM then Noumea.
Somehow people magically think it will defend itself with no RCT's present. Folks just need to be taught the lesson once and they play the game entirely differently from then on.
Taking Noumea is generally quite easy. It shouldn't even be possible, but there are an awful lot of aggressive Allied players out there who have yet to be taught the lessons of a forward defence policy on their part.
I always find Aussie a tougher nut to crack because they can't ship the Northern Command boys to PM. I bet if that rule wasn't there, we'd have the very same problem with Townsville falling in the first 30 days of the game due to silly folks moving NC up to PM
Originally posted by Mr.Frag
If you are expecting to play the AI beyond that, I doubt you'll be happy. WitP is at heart going to be a two player game, with the computer managing the dice rolls for us. [/B]
Mr. Frag,
I understand what you are saying, and I agree that WitP is basically a 2 player game, but my point about an event engine, is that it would be programed by the player. Have you ever played Norm Kogers TAOW or ACOW? It had an programable event engine in the editor. It was quite simple albeit tedious. You could program multiple events to be triggered in multiple and varible ways according to chance percentages, time restraints, locations, ect....
The Midway example; Midway is approached (some defined ZOC) or is attacked by IJN, triggers an 50% chance the USN counter attacks. That event triggers a 50% chance that the counter attack will be in total or some lesser defined force. If the total event isnt triggered then another event has a chance to trigger one or more different counter moves and so on and so forth.
Because the events are tiggered or not triggered by percentages or variables and each event can trigger other events in turn. You as the IJN player could never know if your trick would trigger the wanted event. It in fact may trigger events totally detrimental to your strategy.
Again, this has all been done before, albeit in not so complex a game as WITP and the aim would be to free up GG from as you said the impossible task hardcodeing an AI to deal with the endless possible strategies. Allowing 2by3 to concentrate on the crucial (for PBEM & solitaire ) logistic and administration AI.
Regards
I understand the concept of an event based system quite well. I just don't see it happening in WitP.
The shear list of events possible are staggering, and I would suggest that 5 years from now we'll still be debating features and fixes for WitP simply due to the scales involved.
I think that GG would have probably had to write the game completely in reverse to how it was done to implement such a system because it really needs to be part of the basic AI from the ground up to actually not make the system worse.
I agree with you that it would be a great system, as it has worked well in other games, but again, due to the factor of scale, it needs to be directly in the guts, not patched in above the game as a system of overides.
Perhaps when he does the sequel to a successful WitP called WaW (World at War) he will not be in the classic developer situation of having to get something out the door and can spend the required years to write it from the ground up. I think you'll find that WitP has stretched this engine to it's absolute limits.
The overriding part that is missing from WitP is the political model that causes the war in the first place, and this pretty much sets the rules for events. Without it, a base is a base is a base. What makes one base more important then another is what government controlled it and what conquest would result in from both a military standpoint and more importantly and political and economic standpoint. Military conquest is a tool used to expand one's empire. Looking at just the military aspect doesn't always provide the "why" things happened. These are the kind of things that are begging for an event engine (reminds me of playing A3R with the tension levels).
I will be curious to see exactly what happens in the game if Japan chooses to not attack PH on turn one. What criteria brings the USA into the war, since obviously attacking British holdings does not or should not up to a certain level (didn't see the USA in 1939 when Germany started the mess)
The shear list of events possible are staggering, and I would suggest that 5 years from now we'll still be debating features and fixes for WitP simply due to the scales involved.
I think that GG would have probably had to write the game completely in reverse to how it was done to implement such a system because it really needs to be part of the basic AI from the ground up to actually not make the system worse.
I agree with you that it would be a great system, as it has worked well in other games, but again, due to the factor of scale, it needs to be directly in the guts, not patched in above the game as a system of overides.
Perhaps when he does the sequel to a successful WitP called WaW (World at War) he will not be in the classic developer situation of having to get something out the door and can spend the required years to write it from the ground up. I think you'll find that WitP has stretched this engine to it's absolute limits.
The overriding part that is missing from WitP is the political model that causes the war in the first place, and this pretty much sets the rules for events. Without it, a base is a base is a base. What makes one base more important then another is what government controlled it and what conquest would result in from both a military standpoint and more importantly and political and economic standpoint. Military conquest is a tool used to expand one's empire. Looking at just the military aspect doesn't always provide the "why" things happened. These are the kind of things that are begging for an event engine (reminds me of playing A3R with the tension levels).
I will be curious to see exactly what happens in the game if Japan chooses to not attack PH on turn one. What criteria brings the USA into the war, since obviously attacking British holdings does not or should not up to a certain level (didn't see the USA in 1939 when Germany started the mess)
Originally posted by Mr.Frag
I will be curious to see exactly what happens in the game if Japan chooses to not attack PH on turn one. What criteria brings the USA into the war, since obviously attacking British holdings does not or should not up to a certain level (didn't see the USA in 1939 when Germany started the mess)
----------------------------------------------
My mind tells me you are probably right, but my heart still wishes you were not, on the feasibility of an event engine in Witp.
Its funny you should mention a non-PH scenerio. It was just such a scenerio I had in mind for use of an event engine. US entry would not be automatically triggered unless PH, PI or ships are attacked. Possible entry could be triggered by other variables, a simple periodic political flip of the coin, a line in the sand trigger, ect...
Alas, from what I've gleen from the testers there will be no such scenerio, all scenerios will start with auto US entry no matter PH and or PI attacks. Mogami fooled around a bit with a no US DOW test ( useing house rules against the AI ) but he kinda gave up on it, I think because the AI couldnt differentiate between the allied forces.
Regards
Originally posted by Mr.Frag
I understand the concept of an event based system quite well. I just don't see it happening in WitP.
The shear list of events possible are staggering, and I would suggest that 5 years from now we'll still be debating features and fixes for WitP simply due to the scales involved.
I think that GG would have probably had to write the game completely in reverse to how it was done to implement such a system because it really needs to be part of the basic AI from the ground up to actually not make the system worse.
I agree with you that it would be a great system, as it has worked well in other games, but again, due to the factor of scale, it needs to be directly in the guts, not patched in above the game as a system of overides.
Perhaps when he does the sequel to a successful WitP called WaW (World at War) he will not be in the classic developer situation of having to get something out the door and can spend the required years to write it from the ground up. I think you'll find that WitP has stretched this engine to it's absolute limits.
The overriding part that is missing from WitP is the political model that causes the war in the first place, and this pretty much sets the rules for events. Without it, a base is a base is a base. What makes one base more important then another is what government controlled it and what conquest would result in from both a military standpoint and more importantly and political and economic standpoint. Military conquest is a tool used to expand one's empire. Looking at just the military aspect doesn't always provide the "why" things happened. These are the kind of things that are begging for an event engine (reminds me of playing A3R with the tension levels).
I will be curious to see exactly what happens in the game if Japan chooses to not attack PH on turn one. What criteria brings the USA into the war, since obviously attacking British holdings does not or should not up to a certain level (didn't see the USA in 1939 when Germany started the mess)
I understand your point of view. The fact that an event engine has not been included in WiTP makes all discussion about it moot.
However, it is not a complicated system at all. Just as in UV, I am sure there will be a point when the AI either gives up, or is found weak in some areas. An event engine can then be used to "help" the AI. This has been used successfully in so many other games that it is quite sad to see it not included in WiTP.
It is not complicated nor would it evolve into years of debates.
But alas - maybe another time; maybe another place. . .
Cheers!
Alas, from what I've gleen from the testers there will be no such scenerio, all scenerios will start with auto US entry no matter PH and or PI attacks.
Too bad. It would be interesting to play that variation.
Perhaps in a future patch after release, GG can manage to include a neutral flag that makes the AI ignore units until a unit belonging to that country is attacked.
Japan would have been much better off with some added prep time like Germany, both countries didn't reach anywhere near peek industry output till way too late to actually matter. The thought process of gearing up for war years after starting the war has always struck me as quite silly.
Just imagine wolfpacks of XXI type subs vs the real VII ones of the time had these countries geared up for war. I wonder just how many XXI subs you could get out of the steel used in the Yamamoto.
Anyone else recognise themselves here?
GG: We're still expecting that the typical gamer will buy War in the Pacific and sit down and start with December 7th, 1941 and play the whole game. They have no idea what they're getting into, but that's what they're going to do. That's been my experience. I did a game on the strategic bombing campaign on Germany day by day, starting in August '43 and ending at the end of the war. You could control all of the tactical air forces in France and everything, I mean everything from the Eastern Front, not including the Eastern Front, but from all over including the Italian theater. We didn't think anyone would actually play the long campaign. It turned out everybody did. It's all they played. Every mission, every individual plane accounted for, that's what they wanted to play.
I've just started the 1943 campaign too...
I've just started the 1943 campaign too...
"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.
Funny enough, I'd be quite surprised to see anyone do anything other then load the "mother of all brawls" right out of the box.
If you wanted WitP Lite, you'd have stuck with UV
I think people will only resort to the smaller scenarios after 3-4 months of constant overload and abuse. Every wargame I have ever bought, I have always started with the historical campaign and only looked elsewhere after mastering it completely.
If you wanted WitP Lite, you'd have stuck with UV
I think people will only resort to the smaller scenarios after 3-4 months of constant overload and abuse. Every wargame I have ever bought, I have always started with the historical campaign and only looked elsewhere after mastering it completely.
Originally posted by Mr.Frag
.....................
I think people will only resort to the smaller scenarios after 3-4 months of constant overload and abuse. .................
Or they will resort to small scenarios and wait for the bugs to be worked out because they don't want to waste all that time on the long haul only to find the next patch makes it impossible to play any further. :p
Quote from Snigbert -
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
-
Ron Saueracker
- Posts: 10967
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Originally posted by Mr.Frag
Too bad. It would be interesting to play that variation.
Perhaps in a future patch after release, GG can manage to include a neutral flag that makes the AI ignore units until a unit belonging to that country is attacked.
Japan would have been much better off with some added prep time like Germany, both countries didn't reach anywhere near peek industry output till way too late to actually matter. The thought process of gearing up for war years after starting the war has always struck me as quite silly.
Just imagine wolfpacks of XXI type subs vs the real VII ones of the time had these countries geared up for war. I wonder just how many XXI subs you could get out of the steel used in the Yamamoto.
You would not see type XXI subs any sooner had Germany waited, or a lot of other weapons. These were all accelerated developments due to lessons learned in combat. Also, don't forget the future Allied nations had just woken up to the threat of Hitler and other aggressive countries and were embarking upon massive modernization and expansion programs. Waiting would just not have been much of a benefit to either Germany, Japan or the other Axis powers.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
submarines
Hi, Didn't Germany begin the war with only 33 U-boats (and bad torpedos)
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!