Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



I used to play my younger sister chess, when she was learning the game, without having my queen on the board. I would win most games, even without it. Now...you can blame the game of chess and say well...there must be a problem with the rules for me to be able to win without having my queen on the board. Or you can blame the fact I am playing against my sister. HQ's do have a function, but that function doesnt have to be used by you. If you win anyways, well, hurrah!

Play against a human, leave your HQ's at home, and then come back and tell us how 'useless' they are.

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

It really depends on how we decide to define "function well in the line" or "function reasonably well"

I mean, we know for a fact that trying to run a division attached to STAVKA is going to result in lowered supply, lowered MPs and lowered combat performance due to failed rolls and checks.

At the same time, all of these effects might still not be enough to cause a player to lose if he's playing as the Soviets against a Normal Axis AI, so when smirfy says that the difficulty level of the game is irrelevant, it becomes a little difficult on our part to carry on the discussion.

Is there a C+C system in place? Yes
Are there quantifiable disadvantages to mismanaging your C+C? Yes
If you give yourself a large enough advantage, or penalize the AI enough, is it possible to win without paying much attention to the C+C system? YES

ORIGINAL: madgamer2

ORIGINAL: timmyab

ORIGINAL: janh
As for the supply and C&C discussion taking place here -- if it were not a general mechanics problem, why not add optional parameters in the game menu that to adjust them for PBEM and AI if this adds to the game experience?

Interesting point I hadn't considered.It may be that C&C is never properly implemented in computer war games because it's feared that the AI couldn't begin to cope with it, which I'm certain it wouldn't.Perhaps, with almost everybody online these days, and human opponents relatively easy to find, it's time for game developers to forget about AI altogether until someone works out how to put the "I" into it


What you say makes sense for the multitudes who flock to PBEM games and this is the future. What about those of us who still like to play against the AI? I guess I am a simple minded old fart when it comes to computer design but is it that hard to create an AI that has to use the C&C rules. If you not in supply as a human vs. the computer you suffer the out of supply consequences. At least that is what I thought till this thread tells me you can play against the computer as a Russian and win using only Rail head Supply.
Correct me if I am wrong but it would appear that the Russian human player can ignore the C&C rules. How about no in command then no or little supply. I have seen it coming for a long time that game design is turning to PBEM as being more important than human vs. AI. I had hopes for this game as it is an East front game and There was a lot of work to create an AI that would at the highest levels at least give you a run for your money, I to am of the opinion that because of rules like the Blizzard beating the Russian with a human German and a computer Russian would be very hard, although the Blizzard rules are the same regardless of the difficulty level, Right
I can even understand a game in which the computer AI did not use C&C the same way the human has to but for a human to be able to do what has been described here in this thread makes me very sad. it should not be possible so I only hope it can be corrected.

Madgamer2

+ 10

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: 39battalion


This is a depressing thread.

If Smirfy is correct he deserves a medal for finding a fatal flaw.

However if he is correct it essentially means the game is broken for the Soviet player, at least against the AI.

Very sad for a game that was receiving so many early accolades.

Humm, I haven't seen anyone playing PBEM (me included) complaining. Au contraire, we all are very happy [:)]

So someone captured Berlin in 1943 vs the AI? [8|] So? I've been playing vs WitP AI since 2004. A game MUCH more complex than this one. I had a lot of fun. The recipe? Simply DO NOT SAVAGE THE AI, play historically, it's just easy [:)] If you want to try dirty little tricks, find a human being. You will break the AI = game over = you will be unhappy [8D]

ORIGINAL: squatter

If you had read my post with a little less haste, you would have noticed I was talking about playing PBEM.

Yes we do know for a fact that values are lowered when run from STAVKA, but the very simple point that Smirfy is making that many dont seem to be engaging with despite his many reiterations, is that the lowering involved is arguably not low enough.

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

I don't think enough hard evidence has been presented either way. If Smirfy wants to help the test team and developers by playing a game with all his forces attached to Stavka, playing the AI on challenging or hard then that is up to him. When he posts a victory screen showing a decisive victory, then he may have a case, and I will be the first to pat him on the back.

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

I don't think enough hard evidence has been presented either way. If Smirfy wants to help the test team and developers by playing a game with all his forces attached to Stavka, playing the AI on challenging or hard then that is up to him. When he posts a victory screen showing a decisive victory, then he may have a case, and I will be the first to pat him on the back.

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

What's your point? Units whose CNC aren't handled well suffer penalties precisely because they're lacking all that infrastructure.

The point is a unit attached to Stavka or OKH can march 100 odd miles without any loss of combat value.

What is the point of modeling a T-34 or Tiger the best it can be if it exists in middle earth not the russian front.

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

The point is a unit attached to Stavka or OKH can march 100 odd miles without any loss of combat value.

Not true, they will suffer march attrition and fatigue, so their combat value will be lower at the end of the move than it was at the beginning. Mechanised units will lose AFVs to march attrition so this will weaken them.

9.5.3. VEHICLE MOVEMENT ATTRITION
A certain percentage of a unit’s organic vehicles will be destroyed and damaged during its
side’s logistics phase based on the number of movement points the unit expended during
the previous turn. If a unit expended 100 percent of its allowed (not base) movement points,
2 percent of the unit’s vehicles will be destroyed, and 18 percent will be damaged. Reduced
expenditure will result in proportionally reduced destruction and damage. For example, if a unit
only expended thirty percent of its MPs, .6 percent of its vehicles would be destroyed and 5.4
percent would be damaged. Movement attrition for a support unit’s organic vehicles will be
based on the movement point expenditure of the unit to which it is attached.

It is when you make these sort of claims, you are making it harder for people to respond to your concerns seriously.