disapointing Victory

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Sorry...

if a human play against the computer, it should be "allowed" to try out all methods to beat him. The fun in a computergame is not to "klick-informations about a historical event - klick - next event..." but "damned, these yellow little people kicked me out of xy, how can i stop em..." or viceversa...

if this is "cheating", the game is worthless. If it is true that there are only event-orientated scripts "react" at certain points, the ai need URGENTLY a reprogramming. Just like stupid aliens in Doom2 compared to more smarter AI-Bots in FarCry... and even they suck...

Sure, against a human it is different, but still nobody can tell me "it is silly"... or the conclusion is to say "the game is silly, do not buy it"...

Or has the programmer heared to much to some people who declared, any game that does not follow exactly the historical event is silly ?

Honestly, i love the game. I use the editor to improve the both sides (each side in a different scenario), so i can take the other side to try to beat the enemy...

In BTR it was frustrating... you were far ahead the point system and started to think about how to give the enemy points !
I want a difficult AI to challange, not to create "silly" houserules to not cheat the AI... if i send an unescorted convoy i do it for a purpose... just look at PH... if we would talk in a paralell universe, we would talk about "how silly this was", or look at Operation Cerberus... with logic we would say "no chance, that is a stupid silly move".... hell, i want to make such moves to kick out the enemy - high risk but maybe high sucsess ?!?

So, just let us improve the situation by increasing these damned victory levels... so nobody can achieve an autovictory...

thank you and no bad feelings to anyone... in the end, it is just a game...[:'(]

[Adnan Meshuggi]

look, yes. If you "cheat" then thi sis no problem...
but the ai has so many downsizes, that you need a second computer to remind yourself about the things you have not to do...

i just want a av-ignoring thing AFTER it was reached (can´t say if this is so difficult)

also, the whoe AV-stuff should be thrown away and replaced by something different - my personell view. If i remember BTR, i must laugh about the point-system.

In reality, they would not care about points. Same in Witp. The allied side had produced just more ships and planes to counter the huge losses. Point.
And i would love to see the ai react this way. It get kicked and withdraw, collect strengh and come back.

But what should i do with Port Moresby or Lunga ? give it up so silly ai come in and can conquer and NOT been slaugtered ? This is the problem. The ai loose in silly turns too much equipment. Do you think the americans had been so stupid to come with 3 CL and 3 DD against the KB, 6 BBs, 8 CA and 40 Destroyers in 5 Taskforces, with cap from 200 fighters and 300 Betties waiting for them ? No, they would have withdrawn and try another way. But the silly victorypoint-system force the ai into death.

Now tell me, what should i do ? Give up Lunga ? Just wait with 2 CA and 3 DD to let the AI win ? That is my problem with it.
As i said, i would play PBEM, but my time system is not very helpful to the other side... and i want to play the game, not wait until someone has time. My opinion is, if i spent with all around 90 Dollars for a game, i should get some fun back. And if i have fun, i should not be forced to end it to a point the enemy can fight back. Cause with loosing all carriers in 42 and 43 and heavy losses in china the allied side still should win. If you can invade west coast, the game is wrong, not the player.

Also, a suggestion, why could we not just count vp for the AI ? So problem is solved ?
Just asking...

[siRkid]

It's on the list.

[aspqrz02]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

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

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

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

The problem I see is that *Japan* doing better is impossible. Literally.

The US was expending about 15% of the total wartime resources on the PTO, and about 75% on the ETO.

If, by some miracle, the Japanese had done *vastly* better than historically, the US would simply have transferred resources from the ETO to the PTO.

Ergo, a more realistic option for Japan getting to 2:1 or 3:1 or 4:1 would be to vastly speed up the reinforcement rate of the US, bringing in units far in advance of their official arrive by date, and also boosting the replacements available for existing units.

There would, of course, be a victory penalty for this since such a change means that the *main* war, the war in Europe, will, perforce, be extended or much more bloody for the US.

But a Japanese "victory" in the sense of the Japanese winning, or even getting a real armistice, is simply, on such a basic level, silly.

YMMV, of course!

Phil

[aspqrz02]

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

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

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

The problem is that there is no way that Japan should be *allowed* to achieve a major disparity in victory points beyond, I would guess, 25-50% more than historically. Certainly 2:1 would be a trigger, I would think.

Remember, the PTO was *not* the only war being fought.

And it was *not* the *major* theater of ops for the US.

The US committed around 15% of available military resources to the PTO and around 75% to the ETO.

If the Japanese were to, by the intervention of Alien Space Bats armed with Orbital Mind Control Lasers, for example, do amazingly better than they did historically (the 2:1 threshhold, I would suggest) then the US would begin to transfer forces from the ETO.

How would this be represented?

Easily. Bring forward the arrival date of all units, at least land and ground ones ... you might need to do some special research for the availability of naval replacements ... to represent the commitment of forces previously committed to the ETO and increase the replacement rate for aircraft/infantry/armour/engineers/artillery/vehicles ditto, to represent the increased committment on that level.

There would be a "victory level" penalty for this, representing the fact that the war in Europe would be extended in duration.

But the *real* victory would be that the Japanese were *going down* no matter what.

Or, in short, the game should prevent the Japanese achieving a too wide victory margin beyond a certain point.

That's my .02c anwyway. [:D]

Phil

[viking42]

[:(] Ok i want to recenter a bit the discussion [:(]

you guys all think i have used intel against the AI and exploited his stupidity.

THATS FALSE

First of all, I have never told the AI is stupid: when i took suva, the AI changed very fastly his AK path to AUSS so that my bettys couldn't make any victim. I have never found a naval supply path which i used to raise my VP's
I have choosed not to attack the islands before having secured china, that was a strategical decision which might be ahistorical but is not meant by me to loose the AI --> i didn't know the AI coudl be disoriented by players behavior before this tread

My high level of VP's has two origins:
- first is use my CV's only all together, to make an unbeatable force which plunders systematicaly the coast of australia and attracts some lone US cv's which are then sunk (my super-kb has in '43 about 450 planes on it, supported by an AO fleet with 3 CVE's, thats 90 fighters to protect my oilers)
- second, my burma airfields are within range of the indian ports near dacca and within fighter cover, i have sunk nearby al AK's there with a big betty concentration.

I was not sinking AK's for score (i really don't care about score) but to slow down allied supply, so simple is it, the only score which interrests me is the sunken ships amount!!! [8D]

I don't see where i "made use of the AI weakness/stupidity" i'm a bit hurt by all those people thinking i was "cheating" the AI, i played as a rookie in the beginning of the campaign, learning bit by bit and taking decisions which i found better than the japanese ones in '42 , is that "bad" not doing exactly what the japanese did?

I had stopped all conquest because even with such an hich VP, i was still afraid of the US and really hoping the would mopping me up till tojo's bed ( i like defensive play) and my victory came absolutely unexpected, i haven't even seen an essex class which was supposed to kick my ass.

I am no keeping playing with my save modified by Mr frag, just to see if the AI will counterattack in 44, that's all i want.

So i never cheated the AI, never was unfair with the AI, never using the AI stupidity (only two times when the attacked suva), and never told the AI was poor cause i just don't know it yet (waiting 44)

Mogami and Frag helped me a lot with their post when i was rookie, i can't take that back from them. But i dot not agree with people which are in early '42 saying the AI is intelligent and defending a camp in this stupid argue fight, man can't even know before '44 if the AI is reactive.

I AM PLAYING WITP VANILLIA cause i started GC first day and didn't want to corrupt it with the patches

[barbarrossa]

I've been playing my one game since I loaded it on my HD. No restarts. Historical setting. This is not a "wimpy" setting for those who maintain self-control by not taking advantage of historical knowledge and doing something that would never have happened historically.

I think you have a few camps here in the arguement.

Methodical historical guys who want to employ the same strategic moves and calculate the risks like me.

You've got the "Command and Conquer" crowd who want map domination. Play some RTS and you'll be happy, or PBEM.

The "strategic genius" crowd who want to try thier alternate plan to defeat the enemy with absolutely no historical references except the toys of war involved. Play PBEM.

And that ultra-aggressive "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" type that actually accomplishes that goal in which the Japanese '41-'45 were never able to. Actually, from reading "Japan's War" by Hoyt -- defeating China, holding the natural resources of DEI and the like. Okay big, mean "Co-Prosperity Sphere" types....Tojo wanted to attack the Russians once all this was accomplished historically. So do that, it should lengthen your game quite significantly.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

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.

AI seems to be missing some sanity checks. Granted, every check consumes another set of CPU cycles in the turn resolution. But with a handful of sanity checks coupled with some matching response routines, the AI could make a decent shot at countering outrageous human moves.

[dr. smith]

viking42:
I feel for ya, man! All you wanted to know was: "hey I kicked ass, can I play longer?" and it turned into this big Godzilla vs. Motha without the zippers in the back of the rubber suits (which should be fitted for a few posters )

I think you turned out to be the somewhat bumbling but semi-helpful Japanese scientist who eventually gets repeatedly stomped on by Godzy and Motha while they fight in the ruins of Tokyo. [:D]

In the old PacWar I always wanted to do a little more when I got AutoVict, and that's all you wanted to do. Once you invest a HELLUVA lot of time in the game, you don't want to be cut off when you still want to do more. But it should NOT be a start of game toggle, but one you can changed at any time. Spent too many hours doing a boring click-fest to "Total Victory", way past the time the AI presented a challenge.

[viking42]

your the first guy to understand me in this story [:(]

all the others are fighting a kind of ideological crusade which was absolutely nothing to do with what i expressed in the first lines........ and no one seems to have seen the point.....

very sad, btw........ [:(]

[viking42]

ORIGINAL: barbarrossa

The "strategic genius" crowd who want to try thier alternate plan to defeat the enemy with absolutely no historical references except the toys of war involved. Play PBEM.

ok, that's the way i play, don't i have the right to play against the AI??? on a sincere way?? sorry then i made a mistake buying this game, that was not in the game specs, should i ask for repay?????

Just to say i fully disagree.....

[barbarrossa]

ORIGINAL: viking42

ORIGINAL: barbarrossa

The "strategic genius" crowd who want to try thier alternate plan to defeat the enemy with absolutely no historical references except the toys of war involved. Play PBEM.

ok, that's the way i play, don't i have the right to play against the AI??? on a sincere way?? sorry then i made a mistake buying this game, that was not in the game specs, should i ask for repay?????

Just to say i fully disagree.....

No you can play anyway you darn well wish.

If you've poured the can of whoop-a** on everything, do what the Japanese would've done had they accomplished what you have.

I'll repeat...

Attack the Russians, that's what would've occured historically because Tojo was just iching to do it and had for years

I think you'll have fun, and it will definitely lengthen your game without messing with the VP's and all the Pandora stuff that might come along with doing that.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Thank you a lot ![:)]
This is just a game and a great game... no bad feelings to all... we discuss "too" serious... also, we have you and the other people from atrix who really care about our opinion and that is more as most (all ?) other companies do...

so, mucho gracias and keep going on ! [:D]

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Sorry,
a simulation would do much more...
you need every exact detail about weather, sea, crew members (remember, if your look out in the recce plane has eaten to much beans, this could mess your war!), etc... the quality of weapons, machinery (no breakdown of engines occur - BIG Disadvantage for a simulation)... etc.. all is missing. But is this bad ? no, i do not think so. Cause it is abstract in the GAME... but also it must be possible to play ahistorical... we all do ahistorical things from turn 1 (or with alternate start even at turn 0)... so why are so many people thinking this is a simulation ? If the DE England is sunk by a mine at Day X BEFORE killing 6 subs in 5 days, what will this mean to your simulation ? If the Yorktown will be scutteled after Coral Sea, is the simulation gone ?

I would love a extreme detailed SIMULATION of all these things... you must look for everything, you get orders to achieve (say, you have to invade Midway, even if you know that you have only 2 japanese carriers and the other side has 3 ready american cvs...) etc...

A mission based AI/Game engine would be great. You as the player (and the AI) has certain orders, like "conquering these islands until x/y), if you do not make it - game over. Yeah, this suck but on the other side, this is reality...

An example...
with POW and Repulse, you can withdraw at turn one... but if your Area-Comander get the order to stop the invading force you CAN´T withdraw em. So, stay in port or ATTACK.
I can´t say if this is doable for the AI, too. But for the player, you get some certain orders... at last for the first 6 months of the war this should be doable... if we can achieve this, we have the "perfect" computer game... if we could make a simulation out of it, great.

By the way... if i concentrate al ML/DM in one large port (Truk) and lay in 6 months thousends of mines is this really not realistic. You should in your simulation make all weapons and ammo (do not forget the ammo-thing) seperate and then you have to load your ships individual.... so, if your Ammo-transport-convoi is messed up, your guns have no ammo... no bombs for your planes... bad bad situation. Honestly, i would love this game... but it would be too realistic. War is 99% statistic, boring calculations and resupply and 1% action. And here i speak about a computer game that support anyting with a great design... normaly you need soap, toilet paper, cloths, weapons, spare parts, engines, energy (and not only oil.. you have wood, coal, oil, light oil, heavy (crude) oil, gasoil, gas, high octane fuel (96 octan), low octan fuel, certain engines (at last around 50 different systems for one engine to maintanance.... well - have fun, if you are someone who works as a statistic... i want to do it more simple [:D]

[Adnan Meshuggi]

barbarrossa, your comment is not helpful...

i do not think that one side in this discussion has the right to force the other to change its opinion. As many other people here mentioned, the most people play against the AI. And for both sides, i do not want to make certain rules to have the chance to "play" the game - but also i do not want to bash the game to much. I (and i think many more) just look for some "easy to impliment" improvements so we can have more fun - and i do not like the idea that some others attack me for not agreeing your opinion about this.

If we have a toggle about the VP... is this really bad for you ?
If you want to play historically, do it. I can´t see how this will work, but if you are happy, me too... just allow me, to be happy, also.

As the japanese, i allways would try to finish the chinese and the brits in india... cause a one sided war makes it much more easy to concentrate the defence perimeter... if this is cheating, the game would suck. But it is not cheating. True i would love an AI that can counter such tries, but if not, i still do not want to force myself to NOT do it. Not the game has to force the player but viceversa.

and after all, if we get this toggle that only the AI get the VPs... everybody should be happy...you to play historically and me for not beeing stopped if my plans work well and i collect "too" many point.

So, have a nice weekend, love and peace [:)] and lets kick some evil enemies (who ever it is, jap or ally) butts... at last i will do so now...
bye

[Mr.Frag]

As the japanese, i allways would try to finish the chinese and the brits in india... cause a one sided war makes it much more easy to concentrate the defence perimeter... if this is cheating, the game would suck. But it is not cheating.

Just to clear this up as this is a very valid conversation point raised here ...

The Chinese units were made weak in the scenario so they don't stomp Japan. In the real world, Japan had been trying to deal with China for *YEARS*. They simply couldn't. They took some stuff and held it but didn't move forward as it would have prevented other activities.

The scenario strengths for Japan and China are aimed at a nice stalemate.

The issue you are raising here is a fundimental problem with all scenarios.

What is really required is 3 variations of a scenario:

1) Aimed at Japan vs Computer only
2) Aimed at Allies vs Computer only (the shipping version)
3) Aimed at Human vs Human play

[barbarrossa]

Hey Frag,

If the Japanese player has run rough-shod over everything then hits the USSR and activates the red-horde, does that tip the VP ratio away from IJ and towards the Allies?

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: barbarrossa

Hey Frag,

If the Japanese player has run rough-shod over everything then hits the USSR and activates the red-horde, does that tip the VP ratio away from IJ and towards the Allies?

Nope, unless you do it soon enough for Russia to come south, it's not going to make any changes really.

[barbarrossa]

I would have thought all the soviet assets would be included in the "point system" once they become active. Just kind of add to the total....and lengthen the game. That would be logical to me. Another enemy to vanquish a big hairy hungry bear with T-34's.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

well, this could one part of the "mess"...

as a player i take the game and try to "win" (attention win is meant in ellimination any enemy unit) or to cause the enemy maximum damage.

If i play as the japanese, i try to take out china, cause i want the americans to bleed to death later on and i would need the troops... but if i conquer china and maybe india, game is out. But why should i just hold on cause i create a third front (burma, pacific + china...)

my strategy is allways to concentrate on the weakest enemy, kill him and then go on (something the germans should have done in 1917 with italy...) So your troops will be more and more superior to the enemy (or in witp-conditions) not too much inferior in numbers...

so, if the game "sucks" (not really, or i wouldn´t play nearly any freetime i have) in this, it should be fixed. Even if i think that in a total war with "ONE" target (china out of the game) after sra conquered, it could be done.

It is my aproach, not everybody has to copy.. but still it is true that the game should have avoided most serious "bugs" before the customer has it. Or, like now, we get the input.

But yes, you have the point.
I too think it is an allied vers. computer version, but even here i think it has serious flaws (even more as the japanese side).... these designed scenarios would be a solution, and honestly WE all could do our part in developing such scenarios.... like give the japanese 10 cv more in 1941, so the allied player has to deal with much more, or for the japanese ver the ai weaker troops in china (you still should be able to kill the ai in china, but only with a large part of your troops and with costs in your potential defence force...)

hm, what do you think, is it doable ?

and again, i do not want to be part of the beta-basher-team... if it sound accidentaly so, i have to apologize - you did a great job, and i want you still as a workhorse for me [:D]