/agree. Most companies could reduce their workforce by 50 percent if they could terminate 20 percent of their customers.
More like 80% for 10%.
disapointing Victory
RE: Customers
More like 80% for 10%.
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked
We won guys, let Frag whine all he wants.
Because of your mouth, no more fixed games for people who want them. I have better things to do with my time. Happy trails.
-
ZOOMIE1980
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am
RE: exploit?
ORIGINAL: Popoi
Mogami
I kinda understand where you're going, but it bugs me when a game craps out because of what some calls *ai exploits*.
As a hypothetical example with respect to gameplay, not for WITP in particular:
If the AI is programmed to always take one particular route with unescorted Oilers between A and B. and i discover it by chance during the game, and set up constant sub patrols to intercept. And if the AI is so poorly programmed that it cannot adapt to something this simple, such as stepping up escorts, changing the route, or increasing ASW warfare in that area.
Then, sure, this is an AI exploit.. But what the heck! Do we, as end-users, have to know how the bloody game is programmed in order to avoid "disappointing victories"? OK fine, i challenge the developers to post the AI code here, so i can see what i shouldn't do in game.
Seriously though, if an AI is poorly programmed and people step to the plate and say "Fine, you got us, you noticed that our AI sucks, and if you're interested in Single-Player you will most probably be disappointed." on the box, then i would be happy. In fact, some games don't even support single player - multi only. And THAT'S OK. But if you have a game with an AI that stinks (not this game, i'm mostly content with the AI) and try to push the game as a viable single-player game, then people will complain, and rightfully so.
Excellent point! Goes hand in hand with my complaint about the lack of communication on behalf of the developers/testers. I have no real problem with the points Mogami and Frag make concerning how to play and why things are done the way they are done. I try and play according to what they say, knowing that doing so is going to maximize my enjoyment.
Problem is, these points are only found HERE. And I'd be willing to bet less than 1% of the purchasers of this game EVER read this forum. You look in the other informational areas, the game web site, the Matrix blurbs, and the manuals, and you see NONE of this. Not any of it. There is not a sinlge note in the manual about HOW to play the AI vs how to play a human. The only mention we have of Japanese production, reasearch and deployment is the "player has full control". Well what does that mean? To players of other GG's titles that have that in them, the meaining is CLEAR AS DAY! TO others it means what it says. No mention of dead-end upgrades, fixed upgrades or anything, just FULL CONTROL.
The real irritation comes when they get mad at players for making these perfectly LOGICAL and perfectly REASONABLE conclusions when they bought the game only to find out differently afterwords! They are getting mad at players because players are making some false but UNDERSTANDABLE AND REASONABLE assumptions! The only ones making UNREASONABLE assumption are them
1) Most players read the forum. Patently FALSE. Not even close to reality
2) Most players play PBEM. THe AI is only for training. Again FALSE, not anywhere close to reality.
3) Players will not get mad when advertised features are not there in the fashion expected once they have been imparted the infinite wisdom of the beta testers. Well we know how that has gone down!
RE: exploit?
Because of your mouth, no more fixed games for people who want them. I have better things to do with my time. Happy trails.
The toggle is going to be looked into by the devs, looks like a great fix for me. [:D][:D]
RE: Customers
Actually, I think what most of us have on our desktops are at least that powerful already. But we know what you mean. Baaaaaaaaaaadass computer!If you want the AI to be Machavellian (sneaks into your house, schtoops your wife, takes your dog, sinks your CV) you're gonna need a Cray.
Fear the kitten!
-
ZOOMIE1980
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am
RE: Customers
ORIGINAL: Oznoyng
/agree. Most companies could reduce their workforce by 50 percent if they could terminate 20 percent of their customers.ORIGINAL: dr. smith
Well, when some people say "the customer is always right" it scares me. Some customers are whack jobs.
While I agree with that, for the most part, at least two of these requests are by far more than 20% of the customers, at least of the ones posting here. Upwards 80% supported some sort of change in the RD/Upgrade model. Probably about 80% or so want to continue on after auto-victory. We "fire" customers here periodically as well. But equating this request and the upgrade thing with a few troublesome customers is off the mark. These are widely requested features. And most aren't complaining, just requesting. Frag has a way of turning a request into a complaint or a whine, though.
-
ZOOMIE1980
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
We won guys, let Frag whine all he wants.
Because of your mouth, no more fixed games for people who want them. I have better things to do with my time. Happy trails.
Like what?
RE: exploit?
Hi, Find a hex the AI uses for convoy and then targeting that hex is not an exploit becuase you have developed your intell and used it. However the next game you play you start with an exploit if you want it. You don't have to do the work that lead to the discovery the first time round. (when you had assets deployed in hexes that did not provide targets)
Many players begin games and then start over but bring with them the knowledge learned in the games they retart. They use this and then think "boy the AI is bad"
In actual war. When important things (like real lives and items that cost a lot of money to produce) are at risk commanders never learn details of enemy behavour for long periods.
If however they had certain knowledge they would "exploit" it. Really we are all trying to "exploit" something in every contest we engage in. Find the enemy weak point in the line and exploit it with an attack that creates a breakthrough. However we have to do the work. We have to search out the weakness and understand it for what it is. If we know before hand a perfectly safe approach that we use we cannot claim to have done anything.
The AI will change some of it's habits. It does not play every game just the same but it still only has a limited amount of choices and over time you will see something and think "The AI is doing xx,yy like it did in game number 2" and then without having anything except knowledge not gathered in this game deploy your forces.
The AI is not altogether weak and it should achieve surprise from time to time. Then again is has been directed to do certain things based on what occured in WWII (not in the current game because no one can know in advance what will happen) When you recognize the pattern knowing you are playing a machine you can take advantage. When I play the AI and I see that "oh there it goes again building up ships at base xx,yy" I don't just move every bomber I have to range of base xx,yy First I fly my recon like always. When I find something through the game mechanics that in any other game against any other opponent I would think worth developing I take the action to develop it on map. I have a lousey record on this forum making myself understood. I only mean I don't shift gears just because I know what the AI is doing unless I can convince myself my on map commander with the data I have from just the game being played would come to the same conclusions.
I know where every unit on the map is. If I see a unit in the combat animation I know where it has moved from. I know all the ships. All the airgroups. I could as Japan compose a turn 1 using every allowable routine of WITP that would knock your socks off. And I doubt there is a Japanese player that can invent anything I did not right away understand the who and whats of as soon as the first animation was shown. I know where and how to set up allied defense from Karachi to USA. If I needed a force to punish the enemy with I know where what I need is and how long it will take to get there. One turn 1 I set objectives for Japanese units 120 turns in advance because I want them to be at 100 when the day comes for their attack. If I chose I could be the master exploiter of WITP versus AI or human. (I'd use Mr Frag for my mirth) However there is no enjoyment for me in that. I still as Japan operate in the dark. And as Allied player I only do what the game dictates I do. I don't think anyone would enjoy playing me in "Exploit" mode. And I would not be proving anything.
Many players begin games and then start over but bring with them the knowledge learned in the games they retart. They use this and then think "boy the AI is bad"
In actual war. When important things (like real lives and items that cost a lot of money to produce) are at risk commanders never learn details of enemy behavour for long periods.
If however they had certain knowledge they would "exploit" it. Really we are all trying to "exploit" something in every contest we engage in. Find the enemy weak point in the line and exploit it with an attack that creates a breakthrough. However we have to do the work. We have to search out the weakness and understand it for what it is. If we know before hand a perfectly safe approach that we use we cannot claim to have done anything.
The AI will change some of it's habits. It does not play every game just the same but it still only has a limited amount of choices and over time you will see something and think "The AI is doing xx,yy like it did in game number 2" and then without having anything except knowledge not gathered in this game deploy your forces.
The AI is not altogether weak and it should achieve surprise from time to time. Then again is has been directed to do certain things based on what occured in WWII (not in the current game because no one can know in advance what will happen) When you recognize the pattern knowing you are playing a machine you can take advantage. When I play the AI and I see that "oh there it goes again building up ships at base xx,yy" I don't just move every bomber I have to range of base xx,yy First I fly my recon like always. When I find something through the game mechanics that in any other game against any other opponent I would think worth developing I take the action to develop it on map. I have a lousey record on this forum making myself understood. I only mean I don't shift gears just because I know what the AI is doing unless I can convince myself my on map commander with the data I have from just the game being played would come to the same conclusions.
I know where every unit on the map is. If I see a unit in the combat animation I know where it has moved from. I know all the ships. All the airgroups. I could as Japan compose a turn 1 using every allowable routine of WITP that would knock your socks off. And I doubt there is a Japanese player that can invent anything I did not right away understand the who and whats of as soon as the first animation was shown. I know where and how to set up allied defense from Karachi to USA. If I needed a force to punish the enemy with I know where what I need is and how long it will take to get there. One turn 1 I set objectives for Japanese units 120 turns in advance because I want them to be at 100 when the day comes for their attack. If I chose I could be the master exploiter of WITP versus AI or human. (I'd use Mr Frag for my mirth) However there is no enjoyment for me in that. I still as Japan operate in the dark. And as Allied player I only do what the game dictates I do. I don't think anyone would enjoy playing me in "Exploit" mode. And I would not be proving anything.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked
One problem is whether we want WitP to be a game or a simulation. My understanding when I bought it was that it was primarily a simulation, maybe more a learning tool about the Pacific War than a "game" for competitive play. Now as a simulation, played historically or ahistorically against the level of AI which best suits the individual player, it seems to me to work OK. In my second play of the Campaign Game (restarted after the patch) I'm through to May 1942, playing Allied against AI "Hard". So far the AI has a points lead of just under three to one. I can't see it reaching 4:1 unless I make a major blunder, as the fightback is beginning,and the Japs slowing down, but I also doubt my reaching a winning margin until well into 1945.
Now played competitively and disregarding to some significant degree historical realities, its probably fairly easy to bamboozle the AI, which is never going to have the flexibility of a human opponent. But playing that way, sooner or later the point is reached where what is being played isn't WWII in the Pacific,as it actually could have happened, but an increasingly abstract "game" with only slightly more resemblance to historical reality than say Civilisation III. Again its perfectly valid to play the game in this way, but there's no reason to expect an AI programmed to react along more or less historical lines, to cope. If indeed the aim is to play "to win" as a competitive game, then getting the necessary score early is maybe what the players should hope to do. However if they want to press on beyond that, maybe a mechanism whereby the auto-victory can be disabled would be good, even though the final result would as a "game" rather than a "simulation". Then everyone can chose which way they want to play.
Now played competitively and disregarding to some significant degree historical realities, its probably fairly easy to bamboozle the AI, which is never going to have the flexibility of a human opponent. But playing that way, sooner or later the point is reached where what is being played isn't WWII in the Pacific,as it actually could have happened, but an increasingly abstract "game" with only slightly more resemblance to historical reality than say Civilisation III. Again its perfectly valid to play the game in this way, but there's no reason to expect an AI programmed to react along more or less historical lines, to cope. If indeed the aim is to play "to win" as a competitive game, then getting the necessary score early is maybe what the players should hope to do. However if they want to press on beyond that, maybe a mechanism whereby the auto-victory can be disabled would be good, even though the final result would as a "game" rather than a "simulation". Then everyone can chose which way they want to play.
John
-
ZOOMIE1980
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am
RE: exploit?
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, Find a hex the AI uses for convoy and then targeting that hex is not an exploit becuase you have developed your intell and used it. However the next game you play you start with an exploit if you want it. You don't have to do the work that lead to the discovery the first time round. (when you had assets deployed in hexes that did not provide targets)
Many players begin games and then start over but bring with them the knowledge learned in the games they retart. They use this and then think "boy the AI is bad"
In actual war. When important things (like real lives and items that cost a lot of money to produce) are at risk commanders never learn details of enemy behavour for long periods.
If however they had certain knowledge they would "exploit" it. Really we are all trying to "exploit" something in every contest we engage in. Find the enemy weak point in the line and exploit it with an attack that creates a breakthrough. However we have to do the work. We have to search out the weakness and understand it for what it is. If we know before hand a perfectly safe approach that we use we cannot claim to have done anything.
The AI will change some of it's habits. It does not play every game just the same but it still only has a limited amount of choices and over time you will see something and think "The AI is doing xx,yy like it did in game number 2" and then without having anything except knowledge not gathered in this game deploy your forces.
The AI is not altogether weak and it should achieve surprise from time to time. Then again is has been directed to do certain things based on what occured in WWII (not in the current game because no one can know in advance what will happen) When you recognize the pattern knowing you are playing a machine you can take advantage. When I play the AI and I see that "oh there it goes again building up ships at base xx,yy" I don't just move every bomber I have to range of base xx,yy First I fly my recon like always. When I find something through the game mechanics that in any other game against any other opponent I would think worth developing I take the action to develop it on map. I have a lousey record on this forum making myself understood. I only mean I don't shift gears just because I know what the AI is doing unless I can convince myself my on map commander with the data I have from just the game being played would come to the same conclusions.
I know where every unit on the map is. If I see a unit in the combat animation I know where it has moved from. I know all the ships. All the airgroups. I could as Japan compose a turn 1 using every allowable routine of WITP that would knock your socks off. And I doubt there is a Japanese player that can invent anything I did not right away understand the who and whats of as soon as the first animation was shown. I know where and how to set up allied defense from Karachi to USA. If I needed a force to punish the enemy with I know where what I need is and how long it will take to get there. One turn 1 I set objectives for Japanese units 120 turns in advance because I want them to be at 100 when the day comes for their attack. If I chose I could be the master exploiter of WITP versus AI or human. (I'd use Mr Frag for my mirth) However there is no enjoyment for me in that. I still as Japan operate in the dark. And as Allied player I only do what the game dictates I do. I don't think anyone would enjoy playing me in "Exploit" mode. And I would not be proving anything.
I do the exact same thing in hotseat games with myself. I know the Japanese are planning to send a large invasion force to east end of New Guinea in Apr 42 to attempt to take Port Morseby before the big USA divsions begin to arrive. But as the Allied side, I intend to maintain current operations until my recon and sigint tell me something differently. Only THEN will I start to develop a counter.
RE: Customers
One of the nuttier notions ever uttered (not saying it originates with you). Customers are often idiots that have no idea what they're asking for. Consider Hitler and the ME262.The Customer is ALWAYS right, no matter what.
At best, the customer must be made to feel as though he is right and that his request has top priority (Perhaps available as an option on a future model, in the meantime would you like to lease this one or purchase it outright?) while getting the customer to shut up and buy that which is available.
This isn't fine art, it a mass-market, off-the-shelf, boxed consumer software product (admitted not very massive").
One of the characteristics of "off the shelf" products is that you buy and use them "as is." You don't buy a radio and complain that it's not a television.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
stuff
Mogami
"Then again is has been directed to do certain things based on what occured in WWII (not in the current game because no one can know in advance what will happen) When you recognize the pattern knowing you are playing a machine you can take advantage. When I play the AI and I see that "oh there it goes again building up ships at base xx,yy" I don't just move every bomber I have to range of base xx,yy First I fly my recon like always... "
I can't speak for how the devs made the AI, but if they made an AI that behaves EXACTLY like the force they represent in the game did in WWII, that's REALLY cheap programming in my opinion. That's not even AI, it's just a script. And again, i might just set up the game to continous and Comp vs. Comp.
If you know that the machine will build ships in base X at the start of the game, either because it's scripted or because the AI determines that it's the best base for this that's fine and perfectly reasonable since the AI doesn't carry past knowledge. And we can't really do anything about that.
But I'm talking about "natural" events, where i'm just using a thought process a "normal" commander would do.. I see through recon that his ASW is weak in area A, so i send in submarines there and lo, he is sending unescorted oilers through here, and the AI does nothing to counter my complete shutoff of his fuel transports! That's what i'm talking about being poorly designed AI.
"Then again is has been directed to do certain things based on what occured in WWII (not in the current game because no one can know in advance what will happen) When you recognize the pattern knowing you are playing a machine you can take advantage. When I play the AI and I see that "oh there it goes again building up ships at base xx,yy" I don't just move every bomber I have to range of base xx,yy First I fly my recon like always... "
I can't speak for how the devs made the AI, but if they made an AI that behaves EXACTLY like the force they represent in the game did in WWII, that's REALLY cheap programming in my opinion. That's not even AI, it's just a script. And again, i might just set up the game to continous and Comp vs. Comp.
If you know that the machine will build ships in base X at the start of the game, either because it's scripted or because the AI determines that it's the best base for this that's fine and perfectly reasonable since the AI doesn't carry past knowledge. And we can't really do anything about that.
But I'm talking about "natural" events, where i'm just using a thought process a "normal" commander would do.. I see through recon that his ASW is weak in area A, so i send in submarines there and lo, he is sending unescorted oilers through here, and the AI does nothing to counter my complete shutoff of his fuel transports! That's what i'm talking about being poorly designed AI.
Corsairs hurt
RE: changes to be made
How do you guys know they're looking into changing the aircraft upgrade routine or possibly adding the auto-victory toggle?
Thanks!
Ed. by Kikka to get signature thingy in, hopefully.
Thanks!
Ed. by Kikka to get signature thingy in, hopefully.
- Attachments
-
- KikkaSig.jpg (21.47 KiB) Viewed 253 times
-
steveh11Matrix
- Posts: 943
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 8:54 am
- Contact:
RE: stuff
I think this thread has ceased to be useful: is there a moderator in the house?
Steve.
Steve.
"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci
RE: stuff
Hi, Popoi. OK I am not an expert on WITP AI set up. This is just how I understand it.
The Japanese AI has several "gambits" It might go to South Pacific it might go to Central Pacific it might go to India. It decides the gambit early in the game and certain bases have their values adjusted to reflect the AI gambit. If it is looking to South Pacific then bases required for India move are lowered in value while those in South Pacific raise. (not VP but a value used only by the AI)
The AI will react to things like your cutting off oil supply but not as rapidly as a hman would. The AI may not consider it worth while early in your effort and only when it needs oil will it take measures to counter and it might not do a good job.
If you direct action towards one of it's high value bases it will react faster and stronger then if you threaten one of the bases it considers of no importance. (you might consider the base priceless but if the AI does not agree it might simply ignore you and then later realize you are hurting it from that base and again make weak, ill timed counter moves.
If you sneak into a base it has given a high value to you could see the AI send force after force to take it.
The Allied AI wants to bomb you. It will try to locate high value ships but it mainly directs action to capturing bases for heavy bombers. It will not move units from restricted HQ.
The Allied AI is very easy to exploit early in the game. Just move too far too fast and get beyond where the AI has decided to defend and it will send TF by you to go to it's pet area. (and you just bomb the parade of TF as they sail by) However if you advance normally the AI will recognize what you are doing and not commit suicide. I mean the base the AI decides is important will not be a base that exposes it to such attack but you can after it picks the base move behind it and the AI will not see the danager before you have extracted a high toll where a human would see the problem as soon as you landed. (does that make sense?) If you stay in your aircontrol and jump to the next base it does not confuse the AI as much as you suddenly appearing 1000 miles out of your air control and taking as yet empty/weak base. The AI would in time form a defense line but you move beyond that early and the Ai goes about setting up the line regardless because the front line bases are still under it's control. The AI divides the map into zones. Each zone it has a "defend" bases and a "capture" base. Often these bases are for periods later in game but if you active the zone prematurely you upset the AI. This is not possible against a human because when you grab the undefended rear base the human knows you are not prepared and simply comes and takes it back as soon as he can. The AI however ignores the move unless it causes it problems and then it cannot accurately access exactly what steps to take to recapture the base.
I have not seen a problem with the Japanese AI early in a game. I'm sure that to a degree my Japanese playing style bothers it in the SRA. (I stay in air cover but I go for the size 4 airfields early on and then have aircontrol over much of SRA so it spins it's wheels for a while)
If we pretend for a moment that WW2 was fought between two AI we can say the Japanese AI preformed well in phase one (when Japan had a good well thought out plan) While the Allied AI did terrible (weak units and no plan) The Japanese AI after that becomes rather weak and ill timed making bad moves and countering late while the Allied AI became rather methodical but solid. The AI will not produce a master piece of Operations tied together with logic and execution. Both the Japanese AI and later the Allied AI are more what I call "brute force" Against a human with resources of space and time it is easy to counter. It produces historic results early in SRA and later in other areas. But it is slow. Most players can run circles around it once they gain control.
The Japanese AI has several "gambits" It might go to South Pacific it might go to Central Pacific it might go to India. It decides the gambit early in the game and certain bases have their values adjusted to reflect the AI gambit. If it is looking to South Pacific then bases required for India move are lowered in value while those in South Pacific raise. (not VP but a value used only by the AI)
The AI will react to things like your cutting off oil supply but not as rapidly as a hman would. The AI may not consider it worth while early in your effort and only when it needs oil will it take measures to counter and it might not do a good job.
If you direct action towards one of it's high value bases it will react faster and stronger then if you threaten one of the bases it considers of no importance. (you might consider the base priceless but if the AI does not agree it might simply ignore you and then later realize you are hurting it from that base and again make weak, ill timed counter moves.
If you sneak into a base it has given a high value to you could see the AI send force after force to take it.
The Allied AI wants to bomb you. It will try to locate high value ships but it mainly directs action to capturing bases for heavy bombers. It will not move units from restricted HQ.
The Allied AI is very easy to exploit early in the game. Just move too far too fast and get beyond where the AI has decided to defend and it will send TF by you to go to it's pet area. (and you just bomb the parade of TF as they sail by) However if you advance normally the AI will recognize what you are doing and not commit suicide. I mean the base the AI decides is important will not be a base that exposes it to such attack but you can after it picks the base move behind it and the AI will not see the danager before you have extracted a high toll where a human would see the problem as soon as you landed. (does that make sense?) If you stay in your aircontrol and jump to the next base it does not confuse the AI as much as you suddenly appearing 1000 miles out of your air control and taking as yet empty/weak base. The AI would in time form a defense line but you move beyond that early and the Ai goes about setting up the line regardless because the front line bases are still under it's control. The AI divides the map into zones. Each zone it has a "defend" bases and a "capture" base. Often these bases are for periods later in game but if you active the zone prematurely you upset the AI. This is not possible against a human because when you grab the undefended rear base the human knows you are not prepared and simply comes and takes it back as soon as he can. The AI however ignores the move unless it causes it problems and then it cannot accurately access exactly what steps to take to recapture the base.
I have not seen a problem with the Japanese AI early in a game. I'm sure that to a degree my Japanese playing style bothers it in the SRA. (I stay in air cover but I go for the size 4 airfields early on and then have aircontrol over much of SRA so it spins it's wheels for a while)
If we pretend for a moment that WW2 was fought between two AI we can say the Japanese AI preformed well in phase one (when Japan had a good well thought out plan) While the Allied AI did terrible (weak units and no plan) The Japanese AI after that becomes rather weak and ill timed making bad moves and countering late while the Allied AI became rather methodical but solid. The AI will not produce a master piece of Operations tied together with logic and execution. Both the Japanese AI and later the Allied AI are more what I call "brute force" Against a human with resources of space and time it is easy to counter. It produces historic results early in SRA and later in other areas. But it is slow. Most players can run circles around it once they gain control.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
Ron Saueracker
- Posts: 10967
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
RE: stuff
ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix
I think this thread has ceased to be useful: is there a moderator in the house?
Steve.
Really! Kinda like a back alley brawl.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
-
neuromancer
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 9:03 pm
- Location: Canada
RE: stuff
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix
I think this thread has ceased to be useful: is there a moderator in the house?
Steve.
Really! Kinda like a back alley brawl.
Indeed, but aren't some of the moderators involved in said brawl?
Who watches the watchers?
[:D]
BTW: BAD Kikka! No Japanese Me-262s! Bad!
[:D]
RE: stuff
Wow, this thing spiraled out of control in one Hell of a hurry.
Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med
Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med
Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked
Here you are wrong cos 4:1 and AV is possible on terms you wrote in this post.ORIGINAL: Mogami
Round and round we go.
Ahistorical is alright. Ahistorical means you plan an Operation that did not occur in the actual war.
Ahistorical is not invisable transports that fly undetected during the night of Dec 6 1941 and appear off Noumea on the 7th Unloading troops.
Ahistorical is Japan deciding to go towards Canton Island rather the Midway in June 1942
Ahistorical is not Japan producing 2k aircraft a month in early 1942 by converting factories placed for the AI's use.
I'm at a loss that people keep misunderstanding such a simple concept. Here is the root of this thread and why Mr Frag thinks it is silly.
Unless you exploit the system you won't get the 4-1 ratio for autovictory that makes the game you want to continue end. Without exploits the game would continue. till at least 1944. (in 1944 2-1 is an AV)
And auto victory is what the AI is playing for. Auto victory is the only victory in WITP. There are no other rules for ending the game except running out of turns. Auto victory means
A. Japan has won the Allies agree to the terms. Japan fought the war to capture resource and hold inflicting loss on enemy till they agreed to terms they have good job Japan
B. Japan surrendered.
Ahistorical operation which are out of WWII schedule will be not seen by AI. so if you want to take GIlbert ISL or cut off Kwajelein you can do it in mid 42,
same in Salomon campaign
same for Burma campaign where AI leaves half of the forces in Karachi
same for CV engagement if you go with KB on comunication lines
and all besause AI is dumb
-
steveh11Matrix
- Posts: 943
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 8:54 am
- Contact:
RE: stuff
Mogami, out of the smoke and bullets of this thread, that was a great summation of how the ai works. Thanks for posting - posts like this one should never be ignored, but especially so when in a thread like this one where tempers have got "a little frayed". [;)]
So, that's the ai in a full map campaign. How does it do in small map games? I mean, for example, South Seas Hypothetical: Anyone tested it out? Fascinating premise for a game: No Midway, KB is alive and well and going to turn up, while there are fewer transport assets for the Allies than you might wish. Main bases are Truk, Noumea and Brisbane. Best of all, the situation is hypothetical so there can be no problem with trying something 'different', or editing to include new/fewer forces, or changing deployments. But I'm not sure how the ai handles small map scenarios, so I can't comment on it.
Steve.
So, that's the ai in a full map campaign. How does it do in small map games? I mean, for example, South Seas Hypothetical: Anyone tested it out? Fascinating premise for a game: No Midway, KB is alive and well and going to turn up, while there are fewer transport assets for the Allies than you might wish. Main bases are Truk, Noumea and Brisbane. Best of all, the situation is hypothetical so there can be no problem with trying something 'different', or editing to include new/fewer forces, or changing deployments. But I'm not sure how the ai handles small map scenarios, so I can't comment on it.
Steve.
"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci