disapointing Victory

[steveh11Matrix]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Yikes, talk about a runaway thread.

Here ... lets make it real clear:

Playing the AI on other then VERY HARD is not valid for other then training purposes.

Now, if you want to complain about the AI's performance on VERY HARD, that is quite acceptable, but complaining about it when you are not playing it at it's top form is really rather pointless and beyond silly. If and when you beat the AI on a game run on VERY HARD, you most certainly have a valid case to say the AI is not good enough.

So far, I see people complaining about the AI yet unwilling to play it at it's full level. Whats the problem? Afraid you will loose? [:'(]

OK, so why isn't it called "Historical" level then?

Let's see if I've got this right:

Easy: the player gets to cheat with better numbers to hit etc.
Historical: No advantage for either side
Hard: ai gets intelligence information, but no other help.
Very Hard: ai gets intelligence info AND gets to cheat as well.

Sounds to me like "Hard" should be the "Historical" level, sorry to contradict - the ai gets to 'intuit' some of the player's moves, but all else is even.

Steve.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Look,
i fi understood the game right (i am still a beginner) the allies will get all early losses back (in CV and Cruisers)... so, if the AI loose all these ships in 1942 (and as the japanese i hope to reach this result) he can still get em back. As the allied, if i try to test the KB earlier as historically and i loose my ships, i get em back...too.

These damned VPs can kill such game too early... Esp. for the japanese player, who would have tons of new enemies in 43 and 44 this problem can destroy the fun of the game.

Maybe it is cause of BtR, but all these games are time consumpting... a signal for high motivation and game fun. But if we have "stupid" AI, the gamestopping VP solution make it even worse...

You give the allies heavy losses (but a capable player could take over in 44 and still kick the japanese butt out of nirvana) but you can´t fight it out.

If you could conquer china and india and invade the west coast, this is not the guilt of the player, but of the game engine.

PBEM is fine for many people, but not for me - cause i can´t play so much at times other people have time. So, what should i do ? I try to "force" my brother to buy the game so we can play it against each other, but untill now he want to test it (and he can´t cause i play it and give not the game to him (piracy is for me, if more people play the game at the same time... if i do not want to play it, i can give it to him and later he can give it back. For PBEM, he would buy it, but he fear that it will not work on his computer... otherwise i could order it NOW for him).
So i had one pbem-partner, but all others out there would be not happy with my turns... and i would not be happy with their turns (if i have time, i want to play the game) - and i think the game should be able to help me to play the game, not me to help the game to redo historical events (as the allied i want to win "better", as the japanese i want the allies pay much more as they did for reconquering)

if another beginner would play a pbem against me (me allied side (i think it is much easier)) he is welcome.... but i bet, nobody will play in seldom intensive phases of the game. So, what should i do ? PBEM is not realistic, and against the AI it is no fun cause you "cheat" or win easily... (okay, i will not win easily, bad players need more time [;)])

As i wrote, more statistics would be great and a point system, too... but no game stopping system.... thank you [:)]

I think on the Victory Screen the game should say in addition to "Game Over .... blah, blah blah... " Should be a button on the bottom, "Do you wish to continue, anyway?"

Problem is, will the AI still play if you say yes?

[tsimmonds]

Problem is, will the AI still play if you say yes?

The AI always wants to play. Didn't you see "Wargames"?[;)]

"Shall we play a game?"

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, No I think the real issue is the designers decides what victory is. Persons who play a game that produces a winner always know in advance what consitutes victory. What is the point of playing chess after you have mated the other player? When the gun sounds the end of the 4th quarter a football game is over.
There are rules in baseball/softball (not the majors) where 10 run lead ends the game.
You can ignore the auto victory if you want but it is still how victory in WITP is decided. The only way to end a game other then running out of turns is one side gets the required ratio for the period of the war the game has reached. When you begin play your ultimate objective is very simple.
4-1 in 1943, 3-1 in 1944 or 2-1 in 1945/46 If yuo don't want to end the game stop racking up the points beating up the idiot AI. It's just as simple for a player to edit Tokyo and San Francisco to 50k VP as it is for the programmers to insert a toggle and all the other changes the code would need. Do you think the AI would then understand what it was fighting to gain? It's already being exploited now we want to confuse it even more.

(Personally I think you are just breaking the AI when you assign a value of 50k to any base because then the AI will see that it can win the game by capturing 1 base rather then fighting a the war. But if you instead tell the AI points do not matter because there is no victory the AI will like as not simply stop fighting)

I am reluctant to make this post because I hang on most everything that you post as a great learning tool. I do believe that you are one of the several more knowlegable people on these board regarding the game and the subject. I do not fault your opinion in this instance either, as your personal preference. I can live with the extra point values (but not sure how to do it).

Having said that, I find it somewhat disappointing that since your more or less offical tie to Martrix you have changed from consumer to company man since the early days of UV. Back then you fought like a wounded tiger for a rather minor issue (I believe in was related to mine reloads but no matter the point is not the specific issue) and now you are on the edge of being insulting regarding others personal desires to get the most fun out of the game (and this isn't the only instance). Try getting back to what you do best and stop being a defense attorney [:-].

[steveh11Matrix]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Problem is, will the AI still play if you say yes?

The AI always wants to play. Didn't you see "Wargames"?[;)]

"Shall we play a game?"

"Tic-Tac-Toe"
[;)]

[Mr.Frag]

OK, so why isn't it called "Historical" level then?

Let's see if I've got this right:

Easy: the player gets to cheat with better numbers to hit etc.
Historical: No advantage for either side
Hard: ai gets intelligence information, but no other help.
Very Hard: ai gets intelligence info AND gets to cheat as well.

Sounds to me like "Hard" should be the "Historical" level, sorry to contradict - the ai gets to 'intuit' some of the player's moves, but all else is even.

Steve.

Since *you* obviously are *not* following historic use of *your* forces, I don't see how you can expect to hold the AI to a higher standard.

If you wish to play on the Historical level, you too mush be bound by *historical* use of your forces. Impose some restraints or take the leash off the AI. If you don't want to wear a leash, why should you put one on the AI?

It's like the historical first turn. You could move all your ships out of PH if you wanted to, but who's cheating now? You or the AI? [:D]

[Charles2222]

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"

A couple of things you have to wonder about though, is would the USA concede with an armistice for an auto-victory, and if they were willing, IOW, 'they' brought up the subject to the Japanese, would the Japanese be willing to stop at that point? It's not so much wanting to beat a dead horse, that one in that situation would want to play longer, but that why would you want to stop when you're dominating? You're in a situation where you accomplished more than the historic counterpart, so you just might be more willing to see if you could continue to thrive or at least holdout. The Japanese in 43 had no idea that the A-bombs would be dropped, nor that the USSR would attack them, such that they would have less reasons to seek peace than we now know. Besides, the JA player may know he's won the early game, such that continuing it and thereby reaping a greater reward for the long haul is more intriguing.

[steveh11Matrix]

Um. I can't see how you got that from my post? [&:]

No offence - but the ability of the ai to see some of what I'm doing is exactly what I'd like to see - simulating military intelligence. So far as I can see that's exactly what I get at Hard level, and what's more it's more than capable of giving me a surprise or two.

Steve.

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

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"

A couple of things you have to wonder about though, is would the USA concede with an armistice for an auto-victory, and if they were willing, IOW, 'they' brought up the subject to the Japanese, would the Japanese be willing to stop at that point? It's not so much wanting to beat a dead horse, that one in that situation would want to play longer, but that why would you want to stop when you're dominating? You're in a situation where you accomplished more than the historic counterpart, so you just might be more willing to see if you could continue to thrive or at least holdout. The Japanese in 43 had no idea that the A-bombs would be dropped, nor that the USSR would attack them, such that they would have less reasons to seek peace than we now know. Besides, the JA player may know he's won the early game, such that continuing it and thereby reaping a greater reward for the long haul is more intriguing.

The problem is that a 4:1 level is not Japan doing better, it's Japan winning the war. If the Victory conditions were a 2:1 or 3:1 level, I could see your point ... thats Japan doing better or really good. 4:1 is not a really good, it's the Yanks are now discussing surrender terms, Britain is lost the war with Germany, China no longer exists, etc.

It is *not* recoverable from. It technically is *impossible*. It was put in as a trap to end games that have gone seriously wrong. It's not a Victory condition test. It is to allow a completely unrealistic game to end.

Anyone here who really thinks Japan could *win* the war is just being beyond silly. The 4:1 ending to the game is Japan *winning* the war, not the game. It is a check to close out a beyond silly game.

[Charles2222]

I'll accept that, but if someday I manage to do it and it proves relatively consistently attainable, without doing a lot of radical things, then I won't understand how the JA's I'm playing would have to stop their aggression.

[mogami]

"I am reluctant to make this post because I hang on most everything that you post as a great learning tool. I do believe that you are one of the several more knowlegable people on these board regarding the game and the subject. I do not fault your opinion in this instance either, as your personal preference. I can live with the extra point values (but not sure how to do it).

Having said that, I find it somewhat disappointing that since your more or less offical tie to Martrix you have changed from consumer to company man since the early days of UV. Back then you fought like a wounded tiger for a rather minor issue (I believe in was related to mine reloads but no matter the point is not the specific issue) and now you are on the edge of being insulting regarding others personal desires to get the most fun out of the game (and this isn't the only instance). Try getting back to what you do best and stop being a defense attorney . "




Hi, The issue has already went in favor of those wanting to play past the designed conditions. There is no need for me to defend Matrix/2by3 What I post I post from my own belief and I do not mean ever to be insulting. I was never opposed to such a toggle as long as it had no impact on the game. Introducing anything can result in unintended results. It was never up to me to decide.
Any convincing of Matrix I would do in private (and have not posted anything in private other then "will it hurt?"
I'm not afraid to post my opinion where it does not coincide with the designers but I would not do this on the public forum.

I am somewhat proud of WITP and my small contribution to it, but I accept it warts and all. My main effort in this and many similair threads is to help people in possion of the game to understand it for what it is and not make it what it is not. WITP is not a game of Empire building or world conquest executed by Japan. It is a game of Operational level planning. Japanese players need to come to terms with this.
The object from Japans point of view is to take a small somewhat elite force and hold at bay the worlds greatest super power and it's allies. If by chance they are able to achieve the victory conditions established at the start they have done no small thing. Continuing the game past that is pointless they have already proven that
A. they played too weak an opponent
B. They know how to exploit the AI.

That they are/be allowed to do so is undisputed by me.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

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"

A couple of things you have to wonder about though, is would the USA concede with an armistice for an auto-victory, and if they were willing, IOW, 'they' brought up the subject to the Japanese, would the Japanese be willing to stop at that point? It's not so much wanting to beat a dead horse, that one in that situation would want to play longer, but that why would you want to stop when you're dominating? You're in a situation where you accomplished more than the historic counterpart, so you just might be more willing to see if you could continue to thrive or at least holdout. The Japanese in 43 had no idea that the A-bombs would be dropped, nor that the USSR would attack them, such that they would have less reasons to seek peace than we now know. Besides, the JA player may know he's won the early game, such that continuing it and thereby reaping a greater reward for the long haul is more intriguing.

The problem is that a 4:1 level is not Japan doing better, it's Japan winning the war. If the Victory conditions were a 2:1 or 3:1 level, I could see your point ... thats Japan doing better or really good. 4:1 is not a really good, it's the Yanks are now discussing surrender terms, Britain is lost the war with Germany, China no longer exists, etc.

It is *not* recoverable from. It technically is *impossible*. It was put in as a trap to end games that have gone seriously wrong. It's not a Victory condition test. It is to allow a completely unrealistic game to end.

Anyone here who really thinks Japan could *win* the war is just being beyond silly. The 4:1 ending to the game is Japan *winning* the war, not the game. It is a check to close out a beyond silly game.

This issue is defining "silly". That may be "silly" to you. But to someone else it is not "silly" at all!

[mogami]

Hi, To test silly. Load scenario 15 into editor. Begin deleting Allied ships, LCU and Aircraft till you delete 48k worth of material. Load game and begin play as Allies.

[Panzer76]

I find it ridiculous that you have to do the same *mistakes* as the historical counter parts to get any real fight from the AI. Is not the point og playing a historical game to see if you can do better than history, not replicate it?!

The more complex the game, the harder it is to make a decent AI. We can all agree that the AI in WitP, generally, sucks. The only counter point to this is "to play historical". And, Ive already expressed my opinion about that.

Imagine playing any other game, and complaining about the AI, and the respose was that you had to repeat mistakes over and over again.. sheesh, what a lame ass response.

Cheers,

Panzer

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, To test silly. Load scenario 15 into editor. Begin deleting Allied ships, LCU and Aircraft till you delete 48k worth of material. Load game and begin play as Allies.

You know what I liked about the original Red Alert RTS games? They were all "Take the Flag" games. Gary's original War In Russia for Amiga and Apple II was essentially a "take the flag" type game. Russia had to take Warsaw (on the west edge of the map) to win (reach "End of Game"). It didn't matter what the points were the game went until either the last city fell or the opponent was out of combat units, completely.

An analogy would be playing this game until all Japanese cities are taken or until that "US" base on the eastern edge of the map is captured by Japan. I don't really see anything wrong with that concept..... Just like players and that upgrade/production thread. What's the harm?

[Panzer76]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Anyone here who really thinks Japan could *win* the war is just being beyond silly. The 4:1 ending to the game is Japan *winning* the war, not the game. It is a check to close out a beyond silly game.

What you are saying that any results other than the historical one is silly and should be artifically stopped. Then, please tell me, why am I playing this *game*, if not to change history?

From your posting history I see you have a tendancy to defend the game with claw and tooth, no matter how strange the behaviour. Your role as a beta tester plays an important role in your bias it would seem.

Cheers,

Panzer

[mogami]

Hi, I guess Mr Frag and I are swinging but no chips are flying.
You do not have to make any mistakes.

But as Japan realize

Every factory set to RD of aircraft does not exist. They are present for AI use as Japan. To make it accurate if you want to play Japan and be master of industry delete these factories.

Do not exploit the game. Japanese turn 1 extended movement is so PH strike can reach Pearl not so Japanese TF can reach Noumea on turn 1. Just use the Historic turn 1 or refrain from exploiting the move. (Move TF between your own bases) If you exploit the turn 1 extended movement you break the AI on turn 1.

Do not bait the AI. By this I mean do not reach behind his front line by moving without air cover and take a Allied rear base. You can't do this against a human without being whacked (you lose the TF and the Allies score the points not you)

In short play against the AI the same way you would play against a human who you feel is more experianced.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Panzer76

I find it ridiculous that you have to do the same *mistakes* as the historical counter parts to get any real fight from the AI. Is not the point og playing a historical game to see if you can do better than history, not replicate it?!

Actually that is a central point in this game from the designers point of view. REPLICATION of history from an operational point of view. The challenge and really the apparent point of the game, is a demonstration of the complexity of planning and executing the historic war with all the factors and pressures the real commanders had to face.

They have repeatedly claimed that this is not even a game. It is a HISTORICAL SIMULATION. The AI has been programmed to follow a HISTORICAL script of sorts. Deviate from history and the AI gets lost in a hurry.

Just the way it is. Unfortunately for may purchasers, they seem to think this game is exactly what Mogami claims it is not. It is NOT a builder, conquest game as much as many of us wish it were.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Panzer76

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Anyone here who really thinks Japan could *win* the war is just being beyond silly. The 4:1 ending to the game is Japan *winning* the war, not the game. It is a check to close out a beyond silly game.

What you are saying that any results other than the historical one is silly and should be artifically stopped. Then, please tell me, why am I playing this *game*, if not to change history?

From your posting history I see you have a tendancy to defend the game with claw and tooth, no matter how strange the behaviour. Your role as a beta tester plays an important role in your bias it would seem.

Cheers,

Panzer

It's not a game.

[samuraigg]

Hey guys, is it possible to change the difficulty level midgame against the AI? Or do you have to completely restart for the effects to take place.

Oh, and

It is a check to close out a beyond silly game.

Some people may want to keep playing. Its not silly to them. People are yelling for it.. why not give it to em.