disapointing Victory
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
This is why Close Combat sucked
This reminds me of a discussion i had about Close Combat, a most excellent tactical WWII game in which the AI was so POORLY designed that you had to invent 'house rules' in order to make it challenging. That killed the game for me.
To say that "playing ahistorically" is "cheating" that's preposterous. if i wanted a game that followed history, why don't i just set the game to "continous" turns and Computer vs. Computer then?
Or better yet, go watch the history channel.
To say that "playing ahistorically" is "cheating" that's preposterous. if i wanted a game that followed history, why don't i just set the game to "continous" turns and Computer vs. Computer then?
Or better yet, go watch the history channel.
Corsairs hurt
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked
I actually find it interesting that people can get so worked up telling other people what they should find entertaining.
Sorry, but my notion is that as long as you can have your fun without hurting other people, no criticism can be leveled against you.
If we have evidence that there are people who have fun playing the Japanese, getting a 4-1 ratio in victory points, and want to keep playing, it's harmless fun to let them, so . . . let them. If the AI can't handle it, then -- unless we are talking about crashing the computer or reformatting the hard drive -- let them have their fun.
Okay, what would REALLY be fun is to have an AI that can plan ambushes and feints and that if the Allies have five infantry divisions sitting on Midway it has to send more than an SNLF to capture it. Or a PBEM player who will adapt his play to my style and promise me that he won't stomp me into the ground because I decided to adopt a silly 'house rule' to make the game more realistic, and yet do nothing but sit at his computer for my move to show up in his email, and always respond within the half hour with his move.
Well, some of the things we want, we can't have -- unless we are willing to pay for it. At times, I think it would be cool to win the lottery and say, "Matrix. Here is $20 million. I want a game with a truly impressive AI. The point being, I do not think it is reasonable to demand that others provide something that one is not willing to pay for. Or to just pay somebody $50,000 per year to act as my AI and play by the rules I give him, no questions asked.
A more reasonable request, I hope, is that Matrix will identify and remove the game-threatening problems with the AI before they adversely affect my game. I do believe that, as a paying customer, they owe me an AI that can at least complete a campaign game successfully.
Other than this, I just do not see how, when I am talking about a game, there is anything at all that merits getting upset about.
Sorry, but my notion is that as long as you can have your fun without hurting other people, no criticism can be leveled against you.
If we have evidence that there are people who have fun playing the Japanese, getting a 4-1 ratio in victory points, and want to keep playing, it's harmless fun to let them, so . . . let them. If the AI can't handle it, then -- unless we are talking about crashing the computer or reformatting the hard drive -- let them have their fun.
Okay, what would REALLY be fun is to have an AI that can plan ambushes and feints and that if the Allies have five infantry divisions sitting on Midway it has to send more than an SNLF to capture it. Or a PBEM player who will adapt his play to my style and promise me that he won't stomp me into the ground because I decided to adopt a silly 'house rule' to make the game more realistic, and yet do nothing but sit at his computer for my move to show up in his email, and always respond within the half hour with his move.
Well, some of the things we want, we can't have -- unless we are willing to pay for it. At times, I think it would be cool to win the lottery and say, "Matrix. Here is $20 million. I want a game with a truly impressive AI. The point being, I do not think it is reasonable to demand that others provide something that one is not willing to pay for. Or to just pay somebody $50,000 per year to act as my AI and play by the rules I give him, no questions asked.
A more reasonable request, I hope, is that Matrix will identify and remove the game-threatening problems with the AI before they adversely affect my game. I do believe that, as a paying customer, they owe me an AI that can at least complete a campaign game successfully.
Other than this, I just do not see how, when I am talking about a game, there is anything at all that merits getting upset about.
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked
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 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.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked
Or to just pay somebody $50,000 per year to act as my AI and play by the rules I give him, no questions asked.
[X(] I'm your Huckleberry.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
ZOOMIE1980
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am
RE: disapointing Victory
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Holy Cow [X(] Thats like Van Gogh being at an exhibtion and explaining one of his paintings to onlookers and being told he knows nothing of art and clearly nothing about this particular artist.
I wonder who understands the game. A person who has been involved for over 4 years or someone who has had the game for 2 months?
That whole point is irrelevant. The Customer is ALWAYS right, no matter what. This isn't fine art, it a mass-market, off-the-shelf, boxed consumer software product (admitted not very massive"). Explain all you want, but you people are wrong to dictate anything or ridicule for that matter. The customer is right, ALWAYS, even when they are wrong, they are STILL right.
The problem is we can't make anyone use the game as designed if they can find other things to do. I've explained things like the RD aircraft factories in Japan are for the AI.
Without them the AI will not begin producing the correct numbers and types of aircraft when it should. But then I get
"Why give us something and then tell us not to use it"
No matter how hard I look, I cannot find anywhere on the web site, advertising blurbs, or in the manual that explains what the RD stuff is really for. If that's what they are for, then that salient point was never communicated in any fashion, anywhere that matters. This forum does not matter, BTW. Reasonable, sensible, logical purchacers made the perfectly sound, reasoned, and logical conclusion that it was for the same purpose the same system was for in GG's other games that had RD in them. Making the that point, AFTER release, buried in a web forum thread, doesn't cut it.
The whole point of Mr Frag and I even posting in this thread is that a player will not get the 4-1 in 1943 unless he is exploiting the game. And this is always taken as "You have to play stupid and make mistakes"
I won't argue with that at all. In fact I agree with that, for the most part. But again, the customer is right even when he's wrong. If they want to exploit the AI for 750 more turns after they get to 4:1 then so what? Who cares? Who should care? I don't.
And the final winning cry was "If they want it give it to them" Now that has been decided several days and many posts ago. Mr Frag and I's contiuned posting here was not our attempt to call any one stupid or sway them to our way of thinking. (Because I fairly certain most people will understand what we are tallking about after they have made around 2000 turns)
I'll likely be long gone from WitP long before I have 2000 turns under my belt. A game's half-life on my computer is roughly three-months. I'm already approaching that this title. I imagine by Christmas I will have grown bored with the whole thing. (Hope my PBEM partner isn't reading this....) Afterall, if you been reading here for a while, I have my own game write. Hard to do that when all my free computer time is eaten up PLAYING a game! (And playing baseball, playing golf, going to college football games, etc.....you know....life).
Niether one of us cares how you play or what you do. We have only been trying to explain how to get the most out of the game.
Could have fooled me!
Our great mistake was not catching on very early that there are people who like to believe they can win the game and beat up the AI and don't care how they are doing it as long as the game ends with them in Seattle.
And the problem with that is, again???? The sentence above this one and this one appear to be philosophically 180 out from each other.
-
ZOOMIE1980
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am
RE: disapointing Victory
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Amen, sorry to interrupt the love fest for Mr. Frag, but he deserved any and all "abuse" (if you can even call it that ) he recieved in these threads for deliberately going against what such a large amount of people are requesting and repeatedly telling us what we SHOULD enjoy.
Explain to me why I as a "paying customer" have to put up with you?
I think your request is garbage and a waste of the folks I "too" paid for who could be doing something else that actually adds value to the game instead of some "babyfest ego stroke".
I have nothing to do with Matrix Games or 2BY3. I do not represent them. I do not speak for them. I am a paying customer who has the exact same "rights" as anyone else who paid for the game. You want to know what those "rights" are? They are the right to delete the software should I not like it and post messages here that do not violate the forums rules. Period.
2BY3 owes you nothing. The fact that they choose to do more then that is their choice. Threads will this type of crap and "demands" are more likely to make them simply stop and move on. Didn't mommy ever teach you that polite requests are more likely to get you something as opposed to threats and demands?
Well, chalk this one up to yet another one Fraggo lost. They've apparently agreed to make the change!
The point is, you don't just stop at explaining why the request is bad or unreasonable. You RIDICULE people for even wanting it. The mere notion that you bother to put the phrase, "babyfest ego stroke" in your post is prime example. You are even more full of yourself than I am, and that's quite an accomplishment...
RE: disapointing Victory
Hi, 2000 turns is 1.25 games of WITP
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
ZOOMIE1980
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked
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.
I think the jist of this request is players want a "Take the Flag" game, not a game based on accumulating points.
Same as players wanting what they want from RD and open upgrades. They want a builder/conquest, not an operational simulation.... And based on the game literature outside this forum, it appears to the casual observer that that is what they are buying. Thus the irritiation level you see here.
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked
Ok, Zoomie has decided apparantly ... instead of working on aircraft being user selectable, all effort will furthermore be spent working on resolving the crash problems caused by disabling the auto-victory.
Sorry folks, Zoomie has spoken for you all. [&o]
Sorry folks, Zoomie has spoken for you all. [&o]
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked
I hate to say this, but I'm really enjoying this game...........and I'd bet I'm not the only one...........some time soon I'll embark on a PBEM, but now I'll relax and enjoy gettting to know the ins and outs of a very involved and involving game.........AI on a game of this complexity is never going to push an experienced player to his, and or her, limits.....but get a grip, relax and enjoy what's there.
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked
ORIGINAL: fabertong
I hate to say this, but I'm really enjoying this game...........and I'd bet I'm not the only one...........some time soon I'll embark on a PBEM, but now I'll relax and enjoy gettting to know the ins and outs of a very involved and involving game.........AI on a game of this complexity is never going to push an experienced player to his, and or her, limits.....but get a grip, relax and enjoy what's there.
Get a Grip? On the internet? [8|] You must be crazy! [;)]
-
ZOOMIE1980
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am
RE: disapointing Victory
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, 2000 turns is 1.25 games of WITP
A real problem with this game. I'm already of growing weary of doing the same thing over and over and over an over again and again.
Build Prep Points in invasion force
Accumulate invasion force in staging base.
Accumulate transports
Move air assets in place
Bombard and bomb
Form troop TF
Land troops
Attack and take base
Start building
Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat....... Can't imagine when I get to the point of making a ritual out of defense. Build forts, add CD's units, re-enforce if you can. Watch troops get slaughtered by 5 US Divisions. Rinse and repeat, Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat.....
It's fun now, but after a few hundred rinses and repeats, how fun will it be then???
-
ZOOMIE1980
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Ok, Zoomie has decided apparantly ... instead of working on aircraft being user selectable, all effort will furthermore be spent working on resolving the crash problems caused by disabling the auto-victory.
Sorry folks, Zoomie has spoken for you all. [&o]
Wow, the underlieing software design must be even more pathetic than I originally thought, if that's the case....
And I haven't decided anything. It appears Joel and Mike and Co. have decided.....
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked
You know, in all my thinking about aircraft production, I never once considered doing that? I just dismissed it right out of hand as being an exploit.ORIGINAL: Mogami
Ahistorical is not Japan producing 2k aircraft a month in early 1942 by converting factories placed for the AI's use.
ORIGINAL: Mogami
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
What I find most peculiar is that you seem to be saying that there is no way to win *the game* as Japan. I understand that the idea of winning the war as Japan is nothing more than a fantasy. What I don't understand is the idea that winning the game is a fantasy as well. If the VP are such that it is impossible for Japan to win *the game*, then there is something wrong.
Japan's strategy was based upon inflicting so much damage on the Allies that some kind of peace was negotiated. I don't believe that it would have ever happened, so the logical conclusion of the game for me is not some VP total, but the date on which Japan surrenders. For me, VP is only appropriate as an expression of Japan's will to continue the fight, not the Allies willingness to accept a negotiated peace. In other words, I believe Japan should surrender on points, but the Allies never should. The end should come when the Allies reach a multiple of VP over Japan, and the date that occurs on relative to August 45 is the measure of how bad the Allies trounced Japan.
Even in our game, (and if you don't get my turn tonight, you will get it tommorrow since I am taking Friday off) I want to play from the mindset of inflicting major damage, securing the SRA, and holding on as long as I can, not from the mindset of accumulating VP. I will pursue VP to an extent because I have to, but I would prefer a game (campaign game) that ended with a Japanese Surrender.
"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."
exploit?
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.
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.
Corsairs hurt
-
ZOOMIE1980
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked
ORIGINAL: Oznoyng
You know, in all my thinking about aircraft production, I never once considered doing that? I just dismissed it right out of hand as being an exploit.ORIGINAL: Mogami
Ahistorical is not Japan producing 2k aircraft a month in early 1942 by converting factories placed for the AI's use.
ORIGINAL: Mogami
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
What I find most peculiar is that you seem to be saying that there is no way to win *the game* as Japan. I understand that the idea of winning the war as Japan is nothing more than a fantasy. What I don't understand is the idea that winning the game is a fantasy as well. If the VP are such that it is impossible for Japan to win *the game*, then there is something wrong.
Japan's strategy was based upon inflicting so much damage on the Allies that some kind of peace was negotiated. I don't believe that it would have ever happened, so the logical conclusion of the game for me is not some VP total, but the date on which Japan surrenders. For me, VP is only appropriate as an expression of Japan's will to continue the fight, not the Allies willingness to accept a negotiated peace. In other words, I believe Japan should surrender on points, but the Allies never should. The end should come when the Allies reach a multiple of VP over Japan, and the date that occurs on relative to August 45 is the measure of how bad the Allies trounced Japan.
Even in our game, (and if you don't get my turn tonight, you will get it tommorrow since I am taking Friday off) I want to play from the mindset of inflicting major damage, securing the SRA, and holding on as long as I can, not from the mindset of accumulating VP. I will pursue VP to an extent because I have to, but I would prefer a game (campaign game) that ended with a Japanese Surrender.
Kind of like a Take the Flag game. What defines "surrender"? A game where Japan has lost it's last city? Either that or the game runs out turns. Points are calculated only on a +- from actual VJ Day.... I like that idea.
Customers
Well, when some people say "the customer is always right" it scares me. Some customers are whack jobs.
Community input is nice but it can go overboard, you have to keep it in some scope and perspective. 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.
Its amazing what's in this game now, the whole friggin Pacific with every ship and REMF (rear echelon "chaps") known in the theater. Betcha even my dad's scow is here!
If I can beat the AI on historical, I'm happy! If I pay $70 for a game I want to "win" it once in a while. Don't want it to be too easy, and be harder on different settings, but still want the chance to win, and I think I'll have it after I get my 2k hours in! Until then, ain't the beer cold, and "You SUNK my Battleship!!" (that's the type of AI we all started with playing Naval games
[:D] )
Community input is nice but it can go overboard, you have to keep it in some scope and perspective. 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.
Its amazing what's in this game now, the whole friggin Pacific with every ship and REMF (rear echelon "chaps") known in the theater. Betcha even my dad's scow is here!
If I can beat the AI on historical, I'm happy! If I pay $70 for a game I want to "win" it once in a while. Don't want it to be too easy, and be harder on different settings, but still want the chance to win, and I think I'll have it after I get my 2k hours in! Until then, ain't the beer cold, and "You SUNK my Battleship!!" (that's the type of AI we all started with playing Naval games
[:D] )
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked
ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Kind of like a Take the Flag game. What defines "surrender"? A game where Japan has lost it's last city? Either that or the game runs out turns. Points are calculated only on a +- from actual VJ Day.... I like that idea.
Sort of, only I would not want it to be to the last city. Historically, Japan surrendered. Finding a way to quantify a "hopeless situation" that caused Japan to capitulate should be possible. I would probably tie it to percent of HI damaged, Manpower losses, etc, in addition to the pure VP ratio.
"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."
RE: This is why Close Combat sucked
We won guys, let Frag whine all he wants.
Furthermore.
Nice way to address a legimiate request from fellow customers. You are the ultimate in maturity and debate skills. When you can't find a real argument against the toggle, you give it a pet name and rant, rant, rant.
Its a good thing too, you would piss the customers off and drive them away.
When did I say I wasn't appreciative of their effots? WITP is a fantastic game, and I'm thrilled they continue to support it the way they do.
I don't see any demands. Where did I ever use the word "demand". I must be going blind, I'm searching all of my posts on this forum and I can't find it. Same thing goes for threat... I must need glasses...
Furthermore.
"babyfest ego stroke".
Nice way to address a legimiate request from fellow customers. You are the ultimate in maturity and debate skills. When you can't find a real argument against the toggle, you give it a pet name and rant, rant, rant.
I have nothing to do with Matrix Games or 2BY3. I do not represent them. I do not speak for them.
Its a good thing too, you would piss the customers off and drive them away.
2BY3 owes you nothing. The fact that they choose to do more then that is their choice.
When did I say I wasn't appreciative of their effots? WITP is a fantastic game, and I'm thrilled they continue to support it the way they do.
Didn't mommy ever teach you that polite requests are more likely to get you something as opposed to threats and demands?
I don't see any demands. Where did I ever use the word "demand". I must be going blind, I'm searching all of my posts on this forum and I can't find it. Same thing goes for threat... I must need glasses...
RE: Customers
/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.
"There is no Black or White, only shades of Grey."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."
"If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem."

