How do you play?

[Jeff_Ahl]

I only play against the AI and I come here because I don't know a lot about this game yet. I'm doing what *I'm* doing, but absent the experience gained by playing often I have no idea if what I'm doing is relatively effective or good.

Like I have no way to guage whether or not losing Smolensk on t5 is ok or not without seeing AARs where it turns out that's about average. So now I know that I'm not horribly fucking up my game using the strategy I'm using.

I can not understand why the majority in the strategic/operational/tacical communities ever play vs the AI.

In no particular order, here's why I like playing vs the AI:

1- the AI is challenging until I figure it out

2- the AI never has to go to work or take out the trash or go on vacation for two weeks

3- I really hate Nazis and really like kicking their teeth in

4- it's harder to make the AI ragequit via trash talk

Yeah, hate rage quitters so that is a valid point, but I always specificly ask for non-rage quitters when playing!

[AlbertN]

I play vs Humans.

The vs AI play I do not really consider, it's like doing a tutorial to learn the basics.

Simply at this type of level of game, the AI never reaches results that are satisfactory OR has to somehow cheat / trick / have superpowers.
Which is okay because to code an AI that works like a human brain or a collective of them - its is not something for the scope and purpose of a gaming product but prolly some Pentagon type of software.

[Stamb]

yep

"AI" is good when you are new to a game
to get a grasp on it

and to have a really challenging game vs computer you need a real AI
and most games have just a bunch of scripts, where increasing difficulty does not make it smarter, it just adds more HP/damage/etc

while the real AI is a deepmind in starcraft 2
or AI in a chess or go

[HOTEC]

I only play the What-if games with the Germans as Human (WitE, WitW and WitE2). I play what I plan against the Soviets.

Historically, the Germans lacked of number of units for the Barbarossa. Thus I make more units but keep the same total of men available in WitE2. Simply done is to reduce from 3x3 to 3x2 regiments. Of course, I make more Kampfgruppe in reinforced brigade size of multi role units assisting me to develop the schwerpunkt taking risks in other sectors. This is just as one of the examples.

I "misuse" the powerful features in WitE2 making the game more interest. For instance, the kampfgruppe appears in Leningrad sector can be appeared in Baku sector in 2 turns via attachment to and from OKH (a super railway manoeuvre, almost make me believe myself a genius). Apart from that, there are many more interesting things including logic absurdity, like pay more get less. It is a credit. Entertainment, my friend.

Unlike the WitE, the manual is terrible. Judged from this, if true manual=program, I do not think the game is well-thought. As such, it is good. I credit it. It increases the uncertainty in my planning. For instance, I do not know how many tons of supplies should be made available for building/repairing air bases during offensive. I may increase the resource points to cope with the uncertainty but I want to keep men and resources in accordance with history. I assume that this game is sale as claimed.

To play a campaign game, I may spend 24-28 hours. There are 11 games in WitE2. After one week of intensive play, what is then. My money is gone. I bought WitE not because its campaigns and scenarios but because of its Editor. It is available in then WitW and WitE2. I use the Editor to extend the worth of my money. Do you know how many hours you need to plan and prepare for Barbarossa, in particular, the nose speaks in manual? If you retire, try the What-if game.

A soldier's life is hard and the person expects a low life expectancy. Honor to the person is the essence. Instead of giving me gifts which I have it in WitW, perhaps, it is more appropriate to decorate the winner. I have arranged to decorate myself in different stage. But from GG is the honor.

[Joel Billings]

If you'd have asked me, I would have said I expected that AI play would be what 80-90% of players play. I'm actually surprised to see the 2 player numbers as high as they are, but they are always the most vocal in the forums. Since I suspect many players play against the AI and never come to the forum, my 80-90% number may still be correct over the entire game's audience. We try to cater to both AI and 2P players, but sometimes it's hard to do both equally well.

[Joel Billings]

BTW, the best way to play 2P is to bid for who plays the Soviets. Basically agree to offer morale or logistics help levels greater than 100. The side that offers the most to the German gets to play Soviet. That is assuming you believe the game is unbalanced. For the way most people play it, it may very well be unbalanced, so why not use the bidding system. We can and will work on issues for some time, but given the complexity of the game and the different play levels, there's no saying it will ever be perfectly balanced. There's almost as much chance that a change we make will make things worse than that it will make it better. This is especially true if we focus all changes on impacting 1941, when the game is much more than that. One thing Gary often talks about is degradation of the AI as the game is patched. Every time we change a rule, there is a chance the AI will be degraded in some way, unless a lot of time and focus is put into adjusting the AI. Given that most people are playing versus the AI, that's not a good thing. We have to keep this in mind as we make changes. Again, not saying we won't continue to try to improve things, but there's no silver bullet, and a limited number of hours that can go into the effort.

[AlbertN]

Joel - I do not think the AI will suffer 'degradation' in general because the AI simply does not do what a player does.
The AI is not even -remotely- close to have the fantasy of a player that knows the game or that is somehow bold and daring.

I am not sure of the AI and CPP management - but - in my initial games vs the AI, it was not breaking pockets, it was not optimizing troops to generate aptly positioned combat delay, etc etc.

When I was much, much younger, in my eighteens, I was playing Starcraft - single player - loads. And woah I was beating the AI hard.
I jumped online as a friend wanted to show me. And as soon as we started playing I was getting trashed. Regularly. Simply players did things that the AI was never doing.
Starcraft - by then a game that pratically has turned into a precursos of E-Sports - was fine tuned on PvP. The single player balance falls on track because ... the AI is always inferior as players.

Exactly as here in WITE2 it's far easier for the SP Player to notch up to 110 or 120 the AI, or 130 - whichever level they desire to be their match.
PvP players too have their preferences - and while surely we are the minority (That I think even without the poll is a matter of fact) - perceive shifts in such points as a way to gap our skills. Rarely it is welcomed around. But I understand it is 'viable'.
It does not mend broken systems though or possibly absent systems.

Example - this is player play (Not my screenshot)



See the apt positioning of little / weak Soviet units, precisely on the road or where the Axis mobile formations (because at this stage of the game, it's just them there - this is End of Turn 2 of a PvP game where I am not involved but part of the AAR in that Discord)...

The AI does not even remotely play that way.

The Soviet player litterally said he is spreading also units wide, because the Axis eithre has to play conservative or gets encircled. In June '41!

The AI does not attack, break pockets or else for the first 3-4 turns!

So in the end say - to alter what exerts ZoC won't hinder AI much. To alter what flips hexes around (ie - not anymore Soviet cavalries) won't hinder AI - much at least if at all. To change the MP cost to go zoc-to-zoc depending on unit strenght or so won't alter AI either, as the AI do not hug and embrace and rout, in general. (While some Soviet players start to do that as soon as T2 or T3 and the more conversative T4 or T5).

The whole CCP is a different type of story.

[rocketman71]

I only play vs AI. So far, I should say. I want to know all the ins and outs of the game before taking on a human oppo. In part out of respect for the other player. If you invest the time in a game like this I feel I owe my oppo a good fight. But what I'm most hoping for is what was hinted at when the game launched and that is a co-operative multiplayer game where each player control Army Group North, Center and South and so on. Not as time intensive for each player and the feeling of being a part of an army with a common goal sounds like a lot of fun and also a role playing aspect of strategic discussions away from the game.

[Beethoven1]

I only play vs AI. So far, I should say. I want to know all the ins and outs of the game before taking on a human oppo. In part out of respect for the other player. If you invest the time in a game like this I feel I owe my oppo a good fight. But what I'm most hoping for is what was hinted at when the game launched and that is a co-operative multiplayer game where each player control Army Group North, Center and South and so on. Not as time intensive for each player and the feeling of being a part of an army with a common goal sounds like a lot of fun and also a role playing aspect of strategic discussions away from the game.

If you are interested, we are just about to start a new 4+ player vs 4+ player game. In fact, the Axis team is in the middle of their first turn right now. I am the Soviet Chief of Staff, and on our side although we do already have primary commanders for North/Center/South, we could use substitute/reserve players to fill in (or take over) if (probably more a matter of when) a player needs to drop out temporarily or permanently. We could also potentially use someone to control the Soviet air force. If you are interested, you can send me a PM here on the forum, and I would be willing to invite you to our team's strategic discussion/planning. This also goes for other players who may read this message and be interested. From my experience, the teamwork/planning/strategizing aspects is probably the most interesting and engaging aspect of this sort of team game.

[rocketman71]

I only play vs AI. So far, I should say. I want to know all the ins and outs of the game before taking on a human oppo. In part out of respect for the other player. If you invest the time in a game like this I feel I owe my oppo a good fight. But what I'm most hoping for is what was hinted at when the game launched and that is a co-operative multiplayer game where each player control Army Group North, Center and South and so on. Not as time intensive for each player and the feeling of being a part of an army with a common goal sounds like a lot of fun and also a role playing aspect of strategic discussions away from the game.

If you are interested, we are just about to start a new 4+ player vs 4+ player game. In fact, the Axis team is in the middle of their first turn right now. I am the Soviet Chief of Staff, and on our side although we do already have primary commanders for North/Center/South, we could use substitute/reserve players to fill in (or take over) if (probably more a matter of when) a player needs to drop out temporarily or permanently. We could also potentially use someone to control the Soviet air force. If you are interested, you can send me a PM here on the forum, and I would be willing to invite you to our team's strategic discussion/planning. This also goes for other players who may read this message and be interested. From my experience, the teamwork/planning/strategizing aspects is probably the most interesting and engaging aspect of this sort of team game.

Thanks for the offer, but I'll take a rain check on that. I have too much going on now and too little game time to devote to it. But it sure sounds like fun.

[Joel Billings]

Good luck with the team game. Based on the concern some have about the game being too hard for the Germans in H2H, I hope you have some experienced German commanders on the Axis side. Mostly, I hope you all have fun with it.

[DarenMoss]

I tend to play scenarios against the AI and Grand Campaign H2H.

[Zovs]

As of today (7/5/43, just kidding, 7/5/2022), we have 86 votes in with the following results:

67% of WITE2 gamers play only against the AI (i.e., solo)
17% of WITE2 gamers play only against other Humans (PvP or MP)
15% of WITE2 gamers play against both the AI and other Humans

So loki was right all along much to my surprise most play against the AI while only 17% play as PvP or MP.

However it appears or seems that a larger portion of those 17% are the ones posting on the Matrix threads. It could be the nature of the beast, in that PvP type of gamers post the most in public forums, while the vast majority of gamers (i.e., against the AI) are the silent majority.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krD4hdGvGHM

[G Felzien]

This has been an interesting thread. I play against both AI and players.

I prefer to play the Axis side. I want to see what I can achieve versus histrorical results. Thus, for me, I need a SU AI that acts near historical.

It is my observation that SU players come in two types. The first type play their side more "traditionaly"; they attempt to maintain a front and play a more realistic(?) style. My win ratio against them is almost 50/50. The other type of SU players plays to the rules; they appreciate the numbers behind the simulator. I enjoy playing against both playing styles. Granted I always loose to the second play style. My challenge here is how much pain can I cause!