disapointing Victory

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Even a highly "scripted" AI can be made to play "better". Afterall the AI knows the intimate details about how the game is programmed, it knows all the forumulas, precisely, so it should know exactly how much force is needed to prevail in a particular operation based on its knowledge of the enemy forces there. There is no reason, during the first six months the Japanese AI could not have been programmed to operate precisely as experienced players operate as Japan. Only sending heavily escorted TF's into known harm's way, always invading with overwhelming force so as not to bog down into an infamous "death spiral". Only attacking targets under establish Japanese Air Zones of Control. Only supplying the important bases and leaving the others for much later, thereby ensuring there is always adequate supply on hand for operations. Performaing all the player tricks of maximizing pilot experience at the front and so on.

Developers can make the AI play "perfectly" if they wanted to. And that is not the same as having it cheat, just always playing to absolutely maximize its performance under the rules (formula) in place. But they seldom do this. I don't know why, but probably so as not to discourage new players the first time through.

And the customer is willing to wait an hour for the AI to process the perfect turn everytime too right Zoomie? [8|]

You don't know why because you seem to be stuck in a dream world where everyone has their own personal Cray XD1's to run the game on. It has nothing to do with discouraging new players, it has to do with the very real limitation of PC computing power. Statements like this really make me wonder about your programming skills. Programmers are bound by the conditions of what they have to work with. There is zero point writing a software application that requires processer performance that does not exist in the marketplace.

[Captain Cruft]

How about background AI processing while the player enters their orders?

[Adnan Meshuggi]

well, i have no programming knowledge, so as a customer i just wish to play the game without crashes (here we have really a great support !) and without houserules against the ai... (if i want to restrict myself, fine, but not to avoid selfmurder of the AI)...here we get also much support - just the fear of some "fanboy-club-members" heat the thing on.

The ai is not smart, but i can improve it by changing the defaults for it... this is no problem for me cause all other games are worser with the AI.... just the "you need to play hisotrically or the game is messed up" thing disturbs me a little bit. But Frag and Mogami made clear that the game was designed as allied player against the AI. Sadly i learned this too late, so i have to ad punch to the allies (or at last delete the Auto-Victory-stuff)

but with all discussions, the game itself is great. my opinion

[Adnan Meshuggi]

yes and no...

yes, it is not about "i did all but loose so the game is broken".... but no... micromanagement failiures of the gamedesign (like the infamous update-discussion, no not the hot one, just the plain "i want to update/downgrade my planes in the row at will-discussion) should not be given to the customer... cause it is a time problem... games that need thousend of hours to play should not end in frustration about some "failure/Mistake/bug" (call it whatever)... or the customer will not buy another game from the programmer... but also no, i do not say everything is a bug. But the actual AI-behaviour at lunga or the missing upgrade/downgrade path is a big mistake... bt, that is just my 2 cents.... i can fix some things with the editor and if i find a partner to pbem with me unter these circumstances, fine.. if not, i still can decide to accept these things. so nobody should get too upset about...[:)]

[samuraigg]

The perfect attitude for this game. It's about playing the game, not about winning or loosing.

Exactly my point. It shouldn't be about winning or losing. But.. if you take that stand... shouldn't that mean you would be FOR an auto victory toggle? So that we don't need to have the game deciding for us when its won?

The *win* or *loss* is a thing that comes along to simply tell you that it's time to start up again.

The thing is, many of us don't want the game telling us when its time to start up again. WE know when we want to end our game and start up again. If we want to keep playing until 46(on whenever date the grand campaign normally ends on), we should be able to (and luckily, the developers seem to agree).

The "win at all costs" leads down the path of excessive micromanagement to the point that you start loosing the fun and replace it with frustration.

Your opinion. Not shared by the entire community.

It is about being able to be there, not winning or loosing.

Exactly, that's why I'm so happy the devs are adding the toggle.

[Mr.Frag]

But.. if you take that stand... shouldn't that mean you would be FOR an auto victory toggle? So that we don't need to have the game deciding for us when its won?

You still don't get my position do you?

I am not "for or against" changing VP conditions.

I am "against" opening up a new can of worms full of bugs due to enabling something that is completely untested and against the design of the game. I am also "againt" wasting programmers time implementing things that don't make game play better. Anything that doesn't improve the game play strikes me as time taken away from things that could improve the game play.

Thats why I fight against these types of enhancements. There are 8 hours in a business day. If Mike spends 4 of them to add new code to deal with disabling auto-victory, thats 4 hours not spent correcting the bug that results in units vanishing.

Which is more important to game play?

Perhaps in the process of adding this he makes a mistake that creates a brand new bug.

Now we have a feature that does not help game play, we have a new bug that will take time to fix and we are now short on time to fix the existing bugs not to mention having to spend time fixing this new bug that was not there before.

Does that explain why I fight over what some of you may see as trivial things?

Which is better: a solid bug free game with less features, or a buggy game with more features that you can't play?

The games that stay on my system are the ones without the bugs. They have staying power simply because I know I can put the time into them and not get burned.

[samuraigg]

I am "against" opening up a new can of worms full of bugs due to enabling something that is completely untested and against the design of the game.

How is it such a problem and against the design of the game? I really doubt the game is going to explode it you let it run to 46.. [8|]

Anything that doesn't improve the game play strikes me as time taken away from things that could improve the game play.

The auto victory toggle will GREATLY improve gameplay. As a matter of fact its one of the best things that can be done for WITP. It "prevents" the game from telling a player that its decided he can't play anymore.

Auto victory stops you from playing your game all together!

I am also "againt" wasting programmers time implementing things that don't make game play better.

Again, this will make the game MUCH better, and is something the community is very grateful for. How on earth can you see this as wasted programmer time? A lot of the community is begging for this change!

You still don't get my position do you?

No, I understand your position perfectly. What I don't understand is how you support it or justify it.

Thats why I fight against these types of enhancements. There are 8 hours in a business day. If Mike spends 4 of them to add new code to deal with disabling auto-victory, thats 4 hours not spent correcting the bug that results in units vanishing.

Then the bug gets fixed later. Whats the big deal? I can promise you someone who lost their game to auto victory poured many hours into it as well.

Which is more important to game play?

I think the most important thing to game play is the ability to actually PLAY your game. Auto victory can stop that. The toggle will allow a player to opt out.

Which is better: a solid bug free game with less features, or a buggy game with more features that you can't play?

A game ended by auto victory sounds to me like a game I can't play. [:D]

[tsimmonds]

I think the most important thing to game play is the ability to actually PLAY your game. Auto victory can stop that. The toggle will allow a player to opt out.

Of course every player can already fix this problem himself by using the editor to make both Tokyo and USA worth 50,000 points. No toggle required.

[Grotius]

Someone asked about AI "thinking" in the background while the player makes moves. Didn't "Galactic Civilizations" implement such a system? Mind you, that game had a very small rectangular battlefield with limited variation in terrain and units, so it's a whole different animal.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Even a highly "scripted" AI can be made to play "better". Afterall the AI knows the intimate details about how the game is programmed, it knows all the forumulas, precisely, so it should know exactly how much force is needed to prevail in a particular operation based on its knowledge of the enemy forces there. There is no reason, during the first six months the Japanese AI could not have been programmed to operate precisely as experienced players operate as Japan. Only sending heavily escorted TF's into known harm's way, always invading with overwhelming force so as not to bog down into an infamous "death spiral". Only attacking targets under establish Japanese Air Zones of Control. Only supplying the important bases and leaving the others for much later, thereby ensuring there is always adequate supply on hand for operations. Performaing all the player tricks of maximizing pilot experience at the front and so on.

Developers can make the AI play "perfectly" if they wanted to. And that is not the same as having it cheat, just always playing to absolutely maximize its performance under the rules (formula) in place. But they seldom do this. I don't know why, but probably so as not to discourage new players the first time through.

And the customer is willing to wait an hour for the AI to process the perfect turn everytime too right Zoomie? [8|]

You don't know why because you seem to be stuck in a dream world where everyone has their own personal Cray XD1's to run the game on. It has nothing to do with discouraging new players, it has to do with the very real limitation of PC computing power. Statements like this really make me wonder about your programming skills. Programmers are bound by the conditions of what they have to work with. There is zero point writing a software application that requires processer performance that does not exist in the marketplace.

Again, you have absolutely no concept, whatsoever, of the point being made. We are talking the standard pre-programmed AI. Where instead of sending a small NLF or SNLF unit against a base it KNOWS is occupied by decent size force, it plans to send a Mixed Bde or an full combat Division. The stupid AI, once it starts to work on the DEI ALWAYS sends a far too small a force against the size 4 airfields there. The stupid AI sends unescorted TF's around a yet to be taken Singapore to supply the west side of Malayasia. The stupid AI sends out attacks well away from it's air control zones and deep inside enemy zones even though it knows the situation because of it's intel.....

We are talking the same large pre-progammed moves the AI on each side are making. The developers could pre-program each of those precanned operations to be maximally effective under the rules, but they almost NEVER choose to do so.

And this is true of almost any turn based wargame ever written.

[samuraigg]

Of course every player can already fix this problem himself by using the editor to make both Tokyo and USA worth 50,000 points. No toggle required.

Its already been pointed out why this isn't a good idea. Not everyone reads this forum and knows that as a fix. Many people buy this game and never visit here. Chances are Auto Victory will nab them one time or another, and they could be very upset. I sure as hell would be.

Most importantly though, you can't edit a savegame. What about all the people who already have games going?

Of course, if it was possible for us to edit savegames in that way, I never would have brought up the toggle in the first place.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

How about background AI processing while the player enters their orders?

If they don't get the concept of OOP, forget something like multithreaded processing..... They still think they are writing games for a steroidal DOS machine.....

[mogami]

Hi, What this thread needs is an Auto Victory Toggle. You have it for the game I want it for this thread so I can turn it ON.

[Mr.Frag]

Once again, you are completely missing the point that both Mogami and I have made time and time again.

If you get auto-victory conditions prior to 1945, then the game is *broken*. Turning off the *broken* checking does nothing to fix the problem that the game is *broken*.

Time spent improving the game to make it not *broken* is time well spent. Time spent turning off the *broken* check instead of trying to figure out what went wrong is wasted.

As long as you continue to gloss over the *broken* fact, there is little point discussing it as you can't see the reality right in front of you on your screen as you play the game. Hopefully others will catch on to this fact. You seem determined to completely ignore it and consider yourself to be a great player because you won the game instead of being willing to question *why* you won the game.

This is what a properly running game should look like when 1943 starts:

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

But.. if you take that stand... shouldn't that mean you would be FOR an auto victory toggle? So that we don't need to have the game deciding for us when its won?

You still don't get my position do you?

I am not "for or against" changing VP conditions.

I am "against" opening up a new can of worms full of bugs due to enabling something that is completely untested and against the design of the game. I am also "againt" wasting programmers time implementing things that don't make game play better. Anything that doesn't improve the game play strikes me as time taken away from things that could improve the game play.

Thats why I fight against these types of enhancements. There are 8 hours in a business day. If Mike spends 4 of them to add new code to deal with disabling auto-victory, thats 4 hours not spent correcting the bug that results in units vanishing.

Which is more important to game play?

Perhaps in the process of adding this he makes a mistake that creates a brand new bug.

Now we have a feature that does not help game play, we have a new bug that will take time to fix and we are now short on time to fix the existing bugs not to mention having to spend time fixing this new bug that was not there before.

Does that explain why I fight over what some of you may see as trivial things?

Which is better: a solid bug free game with less features, or a buggy game with more features that you can't play?

The games that stay on my system are the ones without the bugs. They have staying power simply because I know I can put the time into them and not get burned.

Until a programmer flat comes and states that adding a simply auto-victory toggle is going to be too complex or introduce an entire new set of bugs, then we'll assume the change is trivial. And since they seem to have agreed to do just this, it must indeed be trivial. You just don't like NOT getting your way. It also appears they are going to add a lot more "smarts" to the AI by adressing most of these defined death spirals, which is also good. Fixing access violation, divide-by-zero bugs, etc... is EASY. Fixing quality of game-play issues is hard. So what if it introduces a new trap? Those are usually EASY to fix because they usually result in a good stack-trace under a debugger. Even a miminal regression test suite should catch 90+% of those before delivery....

Oh, regression test suite, I do hope they know what that is and actually have one????

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Once again, you are completely missing the point that both Mogami and I have made time and time again.

If you get auto-victory conditions prior to 1945, then the game is *broken*. Turning off the *broken* checking does nothing to fix the problem that the game is *broken*.

Time spent improving the game to make it not *broken* is time well spent. Time spent turning off the *broken* check instead of trying to figure out what went wrong is wasted.

As long as you continue to gloss over the *broken* fact, there is little point discussing it as you can't see the reality right in front of you on your screen as you play the game. Hopefully others will catch on to this fact. You seem determined to completely ignore it and consider yourself to be a great player because you won the game instead of being willing to question *why* you won the game.

This is what a properly running game should look like when 1943 starts:

Why is that "proper"? Who the hell are you to tell anyone what is or is not "proper". Many players elect to play the game well outside it's normal historical design. If they want to play a game where they have set it up so Japan can take the continental US who are you or anyone else to tell them that that is a "broken" game. We've even seen Mogami admit that the AI is going to get pasted vs an experience human? So what? Who cares? If they want to "exploit" it, and they find that fun and want to continue to the end, anyway, WHO CARES? LET THEM.

Again, they've agreed to let them, so this thread should be over. The togglers won this one just as the won the upgrade thing.... Get over it.

[samuraigg]

[&:]

You call the game *Broken* while to others its "THEIR" game that they want to continue playing.

Time spent improving the game to make it not *broken* is time well spent. Time spent turning off the *broken* check instead of trying to figure out what went wrong is wasted.

Time spent improving the game to make it so that the player can keep playing is time well spent.

If you get auto-victory conditions prior to 1945, then the game is *broken*. Turning off the *broken* checking does nothing to fix the problem that the game is *broken*.

How is the game broken? Because we are leading the war based on a point value? Was the end of World War Two *broken* because the Allies were winning against Japan?

As long as you continue to gloss over the *broken* fact, there is little point discussing it as you can't see the reality right in front of you on your screen as you play the game.

What reality? That we as a community want to keep playing the game that we have spent so much time on and not be told by the game that, since we are winning by too much, it has decided it wouldn't be fun for us anymore to keep playing? Seems to me that the player would know best when it would no longer be fun for him to play anymore.

And once again, this is not just me. A lot of people have asked for this. I am just one of the more vocal ones.

Hopefully others will catch on to this fact.

People have caught onto the fact that their game is in jeopardy of ending suddenly just because they lead by a certain point value. And they want a toggle for it.

consider yourself to be a great player

When did I say I was a great player?

This is what a properly running game should look like when 1943 starts:

Now this just makes no sense whatsoever. A properly running game is one that the player is running.

Hi, What this thread needs is an Auto Victory Toggle. You have it for the game I want it for this thread so I can turn it ON.

Agreed.. lets end this. Ugh.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Someone asked about AI "thinking" in the background while the player makes moves. Didn't "Galactic Civilizations" implement such a system? Mind you, that game had a very small rectangular battlefield with limited variation in terrain and units, so it's a whole different animal.

You really don't know how well many techniques scale or don't scale. And no one will ever know until they actually try some things. I can't categorically state that many of the ideas I've floated around would work well and scale or not, but then again, the detractors have no better a notion that they wouldn't.

The thing is, if we let naysayers hold sway, we'd still all be thinking we lived on a flat world and "bleeding" sick people....

[tsimmonds]

The thing is, if we let naysayers hold sway, we'd still all be thinking we lived on a flat world and "bleeding" sick people....

Haven't you heard? Leeches and maggots are making a comeback....now if we could just get these pesky globes recalled.[;)]

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: samuraigg

[&:]

You call the game *Broken* while to others its "THEIR" game that they want to continue playing.

Time spent improving the game to make it not *broken* is time well spent. Time spent turning off the *broken* check instead of trying to figure out what went wrong is wasted.

Time spent improving the game to make it so that the player can keep playing is time well spent.

If you get auto-victory conditions prior to 1945, then the game is *broken*. Turning off the *broken* checking does nothing to fix the problem that the game is *broken*.

How is the game broken? Because we are leading the war based on a point value? Was the end of World War Two *broken* because the Allies were winning against Japan?

As long as you continue to gloss over the *broken* fact, there is little point discussing it as you can't see the reality right in front of you on your screen as you play the game.

What reality? That we as a community want to keep playing the game that we have spent so much time on and not be told by the game that, since we are winning by too much, it has decided it wouldn't be fun for us anymore to keep playing? Seems to me that the player would know best when it would no longer be fun for him to play anymore.

And once again, this is not just me. A lot of people have asked for this. I am just one of the more vocal ones.

Hopefully others will catch on to this fact.

People have caught onto the fact that their game is in jeopardy of ending suddenly just because they lead by a certain point value. And they want a toggle for it.

consider yourself to be a great player

When did I say I was a great player?

This is what a properly running game should look like when 1943 starts:

Now this just makes no sense whatsoever. A properly running game is one that the player is running.

Hi, What this thread needs is an Auto Victory Toggle. You have it for the game I want it for this thread so I can turn it ON.

Agreed.. lets end this. Ugh.

Well since we got word quite a while ago that they indeed were going to give us this, it SHOULD have been over a long time ago. But some just keep bringing the issue up anyway instead of letting it go. The Togglers won this battle, so we can move on.