disapointing Victory

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Joel said days ago they would do that. After that I've just assumed the debate was philosophical.

That's my philosophy. The more games they sell, and the happier the purchasers are,
the better chance of getting them to expend the time and money to fix "real" problems.
Otherwise, we have no basic quarrel on this point.

[Becket]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I don't like scotch whiskey either.

You....you....FREAK!

[CommC]

My thought about why the auto-victory should be optional is that given the production realities, the US side can very likely come back from a pretty bad beating to win the game... where win is defined as doing better than historical by the historical end date. With the auto victory in place, the Allied come-back is prevented, where they may likely come back to win if allowed to finish.

[mogami]

Hi, Well I don't agree because while the Allied player will be forced to mount a comeback and will likely have to settle with the 2-1 in 1945 to win the war he cannot comeback from 4-1 in 1943 because that ratio means he has been destroyed. that score of 51k to 12k means the allies are getting slaughtered on a massive scale. Converting WWII to WITP points I doubt you find the Japanese ever got much past the 2-1 ratio and lost that before the end of 1942. Then the Allies spent another 2 years getting to 2-1 WITP terms.

You can't come back from down 51k to 12k but I am interested in what the point break down was for bases and for loss of material. The base VP can be made up it's the material loss that becomes the issue. You can't lose 30k worth of ships and men and then somehow score 60k in damage without the enemy still scoring enough damage points to stay above the 2-1 ratio

[stubby331]

ORIGINAL: Becket

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I don't like scotch whiskey either.

You....you....FREAK!

What Mike said.... (and I'm one eight scot to boot)

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

That's my philosophy. The more games they sell, and the happier the purchasers are, the better chance of getting them to expend the time and money to fix "real" problems.

Thing is, providing a competitive AI "isn't fixing a problem", it's creating something that no "operational" war game has yet to design.

I only comment on a game if I own it. In this case I think its best for me to also now really try to play it. However, I certainly hope peoples' reviews of WITP aren't to read: "A fun time against the AI if you use house rules".

Then again, the rulebook begins with something I've never seen - suggesting that after the first couple of attempts, people play at the "hard level" where the AI is artificially benefited.

It's a rare, honest and frank admission but one that should be known at the time of buying and currently, only revealled once owned.

There is just a simple truth that the more units, decisions, alternatives and objectives an AI is meant to face, the harder the math will be and the less likely a competitive AI will result. Only recently has a tournament level chess AI been programmed.

Thing is, those who now promise AI advances in their sequels without delivering, are risking the farm.

Adam.

[viking42]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, That was at least half the exploits against the AI being used.

China is a bug bear for the AI. A Japanese player can mop the floor with the AI in China but he has a real fight against a human. One of the fastest ways to screw up the AI is to makea massive offensive in China. Content yourself with just clearing the central RR and you get a better game.

You did not understand " Do you stay inside your own aircontrol when invading."

If you send a TF to land on enemy base could you if needed provide CAP over it? if threated by ennemy air, mostly yes, i don't like disruption raising
If enemy TF appears is the base in range of LBA or carrier aircraft? If not you are outside your air control and you are only there because you are exploiting your knowledge of the AI force disposition. nope, i always recon first to see if i will need aircover, i never played allied role to see his positions

It is an exploit if.......you play against the AI in a manner other then how you would play against me. (or another human) yes i was expecting strong US counteroffensive and hoping for it, i would very much have liked a japanses defensive game

[viking42]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

The real basic point of the thread is that "auto victory" needs to be an optional
setting, not built in. Some players LIKE "flogging a dead horse". They paid as
much for the Game as anyone else, so why not let them "whip to poor old nag"
as much as they want? It's not the designer's task to tell you HOW to enjoy the
product. I've never been able to understand why this wasn't an option from the
start. "Different strokes for different folks"...., and the wider the options available,
the more "folks" will be happy.

Thats exactly what i want, let me conquer the map! those aussies and US have no reason to surrender as long as i didn't even touch Aussie homeland or PH

[viking42]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Joel said days ago they would do that. After that I've just assumed the debate was philosophical. But it will not sell more games. The people with the issue already own the game. No where on the box do I find "Allows you to beat the dead horse"

There are two points for me here:
i'd like indead to play till the bare end but that can't be that fun after a while (beating base after base isn't fun without threats). What i really expected was aggressive allied counterattacks, in one word: challenge!

[Adnan Meshuggi]

sorry guys...

most people play it against the ai...
and most people want to fight it untill the end... if i invest 400-500 turns to break the point system, i want the result...
also, if the american loose all carriers and a lot cruisers, he will get em back in 44... so no problem with this.

Why is it forbidden to fight it out ?

This is the most disturbing thing at Garrys games... this silly victory points (for the game ending..)

With this, as the japanese you can try the autovictory...make silly things because you have not to care cause if your victory point level increase by it... do it.

If i bombard the coast of oz this would have zero impact in history, but here i can get a lot VPs for it and win...

i know that the game engine will need important targets (measured by VP)... but why can´t the game not still go on ?

The story of "use houserules"... is stupid. I mean, sure, if the game has a bug, like UV and its self murderer tries for invading Lunga with light cruisers without air cover against KB... you have a real problem. But honestly, this is the problem of the producer, not of the player (and customer)... should i stop to conquer certain points (if i can) cause the game will end ?

Maybe we need a discussion about the AI-programming... but i can´t say much about the way to workaround a "better" (say different) aproach to this thing. For me as an user, it is simple, i want a very smart AI, that do not silly mistakes (that get more informations about my positions if i play the harder level) but not get the Über-ships cause of a weak ai.

Sure, against humans it is fully different, but again. If i play for months or years against a human and then one side reach a certain point level, it is over ? Why...
I think the problem lay in the philosophy behind the game... "we" want to play a game untill the end, "the others" want to end the game by using great strategies and start another game... i think we players are both....

So my wish is, delete ANY victory conditions that stop a game against the AI.... (as an option... i allways would use it)
Sure, you can sit it out against the AI as the allies... but - if you do so, your problem. The AI should do what it would do with the option disable...

In BTR we had that problem - if the computer AI had heavy losses it still come and come, the losses were even greater... realistic would be, that the allies would pause their bombing campagin for say a months (after loosing in one day 500 heavies, 300 fighters and 300 nightbombers...), but in a late game, this cause the end of game....[:@]

or, one time, i kicked the a$$ out of the production and the game was over in spring 44... sorry, i played what ? 250 turns and wanted to burn down anything, but i couldn´t.... that is disturbing.

So, please, make maybe Autovictory conditions with a 1000:1 ratio (so nobody can reach (okay Mogami against me...)) and the part of the players like me who want to fight it out can play still untill the end.... thank you

[Sneer]

Auto victory was a reason for me too to start new game with edited (VP) locations.
I'd expect autovictory optional
House rules do not help a lot when AI is stupid.
Do not much harm to enemy .....but it is not a reason people play strategic games.
Most players use single mode feature so game does need to have at least reasonable AI.


in my opinion this discussion should be about AI.[:-]
It should be reworked if this game is expected to be replayable.

[steveh11Matrix]

On the one hand I can't help laughing to myself about this...I really can't see myself getting to play WitP long enough in one game to get that kind've victory, even if I though I could win as big as that....

On the other hand I know a number of players of other games who take satisfaction in wiping out all opposition, or as in this case, setting such a strong postition that they then wait for the counterattack and hope to enjoy defending their conquests...

But on the Gripping Hand this has to have been an early design decision, and can we be sure that the ai would know how to come back?

For my own part, I'd support a toggle (another one! [:)] ). Fairly simple enhancement, with the caveat stated up front that when set to 'No Auto-Victory' that playing with this has not been tested by the staff.

Steve.

[BartM]

Perhaps when I said playing poorly, people read into that. What I meant to say, which is, playing poorly, is playing historicaly, making the same mistakes. I don't want to take advantage of the AI, but I do want to try and not make the same mistakes Japan made or the Us for that matter. I do agree with some here, that the real hidden issue is the AI itself. House rules, certain restrictions you place on yourself to give the AI a chance is what I call playing poorly. Yes I garison troops and stay within cap, and move slow with units planning for weeks on end to reach a goal. The very basic problem is with this game so far with the AI, is that it is simply not flexable in any way, that compounded by the thousands of decisions it needs to make (not to mention the same thousand we humans need to), really places this size of a game at a huge disadvantage.

honestly, going backwards here a moment, and using PAC as the main example here, I really think using China and Russia was a mistake (too late now), as that really was a front in and of itself away from the actual conflict with the Pacific. There were certain rules in PAC to keep units there and eventually release some to the main theater, but in this game, you can actually win with China without really the involvement of the US at all.
Having such a HUGE area of units and actions in China and Russia seems to really hinder the AI in the other areas.

Don't think yet another "toggle" is the answer either, as I think we are asking for a ton of toggles as it is heh, but really a more restrictive rule on China, Russia, Northern US, India where Air Groups should not be and can NOT be removed. The political point system is very good, but does need to make a hard rule against restricted units.

As we have it now, Dutch, USAFFE and the Brits can evacuate most of their units leaving nothing but scortched earth for the Japaneese. Stand and Fight, as they really had no other choice. Given more concentration to the AI in the actual Pacific theater and less so in the China/Russia/India would I think anyway, help lessen some of the AI calculations.

just a thought

[viking42]

In my game that was the point which was beginning to interest me: the allied AI has never counterattacked, only stupidly once i landed in suva, but that was back in early '42.
I had stopped most of my conquests and was prepared to play defensive till '46 just in the hope to see the AI organise nice offensives against me. I'm now doubting if the AI would have been intelligent enough to mount island reconquests, which where in fact historical.
Retaking of rabaul or the marianes all took place only in '44


Mr Frag has my savegame, he can confirm what i said seing the positions on the map, i played it with quite a few houserules (all bases protected, naval reccon everywhere etc...)

[Sneer]

does sb play startegic games "poorly"?
if it is supposed to give fun ( you pay for it) then you use your brain

Ai was never tested in games longer then few months so it is quite reliable that it is not capable for counterattacking( especially if has taken losses).

In one post sb mentioned that Ai was not designed to play 44 and 45 in campaign. but I may be wrong and try to find this.

[Captain Cruft]

My take on this. Sorry it's a bit of a rant ...

It has been stated that the auto-victory feature is not going to be removed.

In the thread http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=696905&mpage=2&key=&#697275697275 Joel B stated

"As has been stated elsewhere, Gary will continue to work on the AI periodically as long as we get save games that show specific issues. I don't honestly expect it to get a lot better than it is now, but hopefully we can improve a few of the more obvious problems."

Therefore, live with it or play against other humans. There is no need for further whinging.

For those who have never tried PBEM - doing 1 turn of PBEM is more satisfying than playing 1,000 turns against the AI. I really do not understand the "only play the AI" mentality, it's like having your teeth pulled as far as I'm concerned.

[viking42]

easy, i made a fast count of how much years of my life i would need to finish a PBEM game with 1 turn/day (according thaht i really want to finish it) and my lifetime is not long enough.........

[mogami]

Hi, OK here is a stupid question. What then is victory in WITP? Without the point ratios the Allies can suffer 10x the loss the Japanese do and still eventually take a base in B-29 range and bomb Japan into the stoneage. Is that winning? Without point ratios the Japanese can assault Pearl Harbor or San Francisco and call it a victory.

If you think you will be playing WITP 5 years from now you should be playing PBEM. If you only have a few months to live you should be playing PBEM. because beating the AI and going 1600 turns to total conquest of earths surface is means nothing. One PBEM game I began 7 days ago has reach Dec 30 1941. (or 23 days of game in 7 days real time)

[Captain Cruft]

ORIGINAL: viking42
easy, i made a fast count of how much years of my life i would need to finish a PBEM game with 1 turn/day (according thaht i really want to finish it) and my lifetime is not long enough.........

So you'd rather spend a few frustrating months "beating the dead horse" than have several years of pleasure and mental stimulation? I fail to see the logic.

[viking42]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

because beating the AI and going 1600 turns to total conquest of earths surface is means nothing.

nope but being beaten hard by the AI in '44, is very pleasant for masochist strategic players (hurt me with a Witp box version).
I don't want to conquer the earth, i want to see the end of the war, having the new planes i produced, and being happyly slaughtered by the AI at the end of the war. The AI can't resist an human (at least in historical) and that's a lack of challenge