Convince me WITP will be worth playing

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
S-O-L-I-T-A-R-E!!!!!!

Umm, that would be S-O-L-I-T-A-I-R-E, genius.

If you are a person of such sophistication as you claim, you would realize that you're not going to win allies or influence people by being shrill and overbearing.

I advocate stronger investment in, and research into, improved AI, as well, but you're not going to get it this way.

If you are, as you purport to be, a fellow former U.S.A.F. officer, consider me embarrassed.

Ooops, the grammer and typo police again. Always one of these petty types lurking around! And the old Academy grad is embarrassing his fellow alums crap again by calling a Spade and Spade. Save your breath and your indignation for someone who actually cares. I DO NOT!

Frag here is getting defensive when he doesn't have to. I've lurked for a long time on this forum and the AI complaint has been constant for over 2 years here and in UV as well. It is a legitimate concern and one many of us are sick and tired of hearing the same old excuses. I heard this from day one from way back in 1985 when I engaged Mr Grigsby himself with the issue over his AI's in his old Apple II games and proved my points then by providing him completely re-written versions of his own games with vastly improve AI engines. Is still have my reworked copy of North Atlantic '86 and USAAFE that still runs on a functing Apple IIc! And those improvements usually employed embarassingly simple approaches.

Frag and Co. get defensive almost EVERY TIME, because the complaints hit close to home. They don't invest time in AI, primarily because they don't like the discipline or are frightened about. But unless many of complain, and get damned shrill at it, nobody will listen. Most of this game will outstanding, I am sure, but this will be its achilles heel and nobody likes to have their weaknesses exposed. But that Spade is a Spade. If you don't like it, then that's a personal problem, not mine.

[Mike Scholl]

Like I'd said above..., I would love to see a better AI in games. YOU are claiming
you can make one. So please DO so, and show all these game designers HOW.
Players everywhere are awaiting such an AI with baited breath and open wallets.
So get to work on it.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ZOOMIE. Since SWAGMAN knows exactly what this game really needs, and you are
such a genius at writing code---why don't the two of you get together and do this game
right? I for one would cheerfully buy another game on this subject that actually had
an AI that would provide a truely intelligent opponant. And if you two can do it, you
can sell your "brilliant AI technology" to 2by3 and a lot of other companies too stupid
to build one on their own. Then everybody will have exactly what they want.

They are not too stupid. Just not interested in it. They have convinced themselves, as have many gaming companies over the past 10 years, that eye-candy sells, good computer opponents do not. There could be an outstanding AI library out there and most still would not bother. This game has been written to appeal to human on human play the most, forgetting the FACT that the overwhelming majority of players will be human-computer. Give me a game with the old PACWAR DOS interface, and OOB, but a top notch AI and that game would outsell an eye-candy game 2-1 in this genre.

The notion that a reasonably good AI takes a super computer to run it is about the dumbest thing I've heard in a LOOONGGGG time. You have a 1993 super computer on your desk.......if you have PIV 3 GHz box with a GB ram....

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Ooops, the grammer ... police again.

Someone has to do it. We try to help you conceal your ignorance behind properly spelled, if mis-applied, words.

You are not "calling a spade a spade" here. You are being unnecessarily belligerent, argumentative, and self-serving.

But, now that I see your true colors, Mr. Spade, I don't foresee being able to make any progress in your case, so goodbye.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Like I'd said above..., I would love to see a better AI in games. YOU are claiming
you can make one. So please DO so, and show all these game designers HOW.
Players everywhere are awaiting such an AI with baited breath and open wallets.
So get to work on it.

Actually I intend to. But I have a day job that keeps my kids in college. I get paid to write financial settlement software, commodity price forecasting tools, and medical software, so I haven't exactly got the time during the day to devote to it. However, on my own time, I am indeed developing just such a system. In fact, it is my main personal time hobby.

It may take four or five years, but I'll prove Mr Frag and Mogami dead wrong by the time I'm done.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Ooops, the grammer ... police again.

Someone has to do it. We try to help you conceal your ignorance behind properly spelled, if mis-applied, words.

You are not "calling a spade a spade" here. You are being unnecessarily belligerent, argumentative, and self-serving.

But, now that I see your true colors, Mr. Spade, I don't foresee being able to make any progress in your case, so goodbye.

Well, on this issue, belligerance seems to be the only tactic that gets notice at all. The AI in the computer gaming industry is the single most neglected technology in this business sector. And given the responses one gets here on the topic by you and your ilk, I can see why. And I am not the only one that gets this type of response on this issue. Every poster for the past two years on this forum that brings this up gets the same treatment. The difference is I give as good as I get. And unlike most, I have the actual professional experience to know a bogus excuse when I see it. A Spade is a Spade in this case. And if you can't handle it, as it obviously seems, then that is your personal problem, mister, not mine.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Actually I intend to. But I have a day job that keeps my kids in college. I get paid to write financial settlement software, commodity price forecasting tools, and medical software, so I haven't exactly got the time during the day to devote to it. However, on my own time, I am indeed developing just such a system. In fact, it is my main personal time hobby.

It may take four or five years, but I'll prove Mr Frag and Mogami dead wrong by the time I'm done.

Well then, when you finally complete your "masterpiece", I'm sure Mogami, Frag, and I
will be among the first to bow down and "observe the mistletoe on your shirt-tail". But
until you actually PROVE that you can do it, maybe you should lay off complaining about
the efforts of others. The guys at 2by3 are trying to put their kids through college by
designing and selling games. I'm sure they are giving us the best effort they can because
they need sales to feed their own families. I'm sure they would like to be "proved dead
wrong" whenever you get around to it as well, as they could sell more games if the AI's
were improved.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
I remember one of Gary's original classics, North Atlantic '86. The strikes against carrier TF's even way back then, were resolved brilliantly. Unless you had whittled down the number of picket ships you almost NEVER even got a shot on the carrier. You had to progress through the screening ships first as the carriers were in middle of the TF. If you tried to bore in on the carrier you got shot down (or your missles were jammed or shot down themselves) long before you could get to the capital ships.

It seems the resolution engine has gotten more stupid over the years and the largest ships invariably take the greatest number of hits, which is not usually the case. Maybe in WWII it was without the availablilty of SAMs and such. But even then, an attacker had to brave several layers of lead walls of AA to get deep into the TF where the carreirs or battleships or transports existed.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Zoomie, this is 1941-1945 ... I think you need to pull out some history books. Start with Coral Sea, move on to Midway then come back and post just how silly what you just said is.
[8|]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Screening vessles were used even in WWI. Someone else needs to read some history. BTW, I'm a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy. I could teach Military History in any University in the country, smartass.

Don't want to be disrespectful, but being a graduate of some higher education institution says nothing about your qualifications - see George Bush. Screening vessels were used even before WWI, but that's not the point here. You claim that in real life the largest ships in a TF 'usually' does not 'invariably' take the greatest number of hits, which I translate as 'usually, other ships than the largest one take the greatest number of hits'. This might be true in your missile age 1986 Nato vs. WP battles, where you have to take out the screen first, but WWII is a different matter. As Mr. Frag has pointed out, Coral Sea and Midway (and the other three CV vs. CV engagements) clearly show that the biggest ships received most of the enemy's payload, despite being screened. I dare to say that air attacks in WWII usually went straight for the highest-value target. This even applies to LBA attacks - for an example and to close the circle, say P-R-I-N-C-E-T-O-N. [:'(]

Btw, this also applies to most WWII surface engagements. Morison repeatedly states that in the early age of radar-controlled gunfire, target plotters usually selected the biggest 'blip' on the screen. Or in the words of a well-known Rear-Admiral: 'We want the big ones, get the big ones!

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Actually I intend to. But I have a day job that keeps my kids in college. I get paid to write financial settlement software, commodity price forecasting tools, and medical software, so I haven't exactly got the time during the day to devote to it. However, on my own time, I am indeed developing just such a system. In fact, it is my main personal time hobby.

It may take four or five years, but I'll prove Mr Frag and Mogami dead wrong by the time I'm done.

Well then, when you finally complete your "masterpiece", I'm sure Mogami, Frag, and I
will be among the first to bow down and "observe the mistletoe on your shirt-tail". But
until you actually PROVE that you can do it, maybe you should lay off complaining about
the efforts of others. The guys at 2by3 are trying to put their kids through college by
designing and selling games. I'm sure they are giving us the best effort they can because
they need sales to feed their own families. I'm sure they would like to be "proved dead
wrong" whenever you get around to it as well, as they could sell more games if the AI's
were improved.

I don't get the degree of defensiveness here at all. Never have. Every aspect of this game project is outstanding save one. Every single one, but THIS ONE. This is the ONLY complaint I've got about the whole thing. I personally think the nit-pickers on this forum are entirely too anal. Who really cares if the "F" variant of an aircraft type makes it into the game or not? Or that PT boats are precisely modelled in a grand strategic game? Something tells me, if the amount of effort had been put into AI technology the past three years on this game, as was given to having every single infantry squad, air squadron and every last transport accurately named, we'd have a hell of a lot better computer player than we are going to get.

The effort is outstanding, the quality in all areas but this one will undoubtedly be wonderfu. But this area will continue to the be worst part of the game, and it is, unfortunately for most players, a very important part. For some, THE most important part. Especially since the MAJORITY of players will NOT be playing other people.

And yes, I intend to continue to pursue AI development as it pertains to turn based wargaming in my free time. And rest assured, if I ever come up with something useful, and 2by3 is still around then, they would be the first to get it.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
I remember one of Gary's original classics, North Atlantic '86. The strikes against carrier TF's even way back then, were resolved brilliantly. Unless you had whittled down the number of picket ships you almost NEVER even got a shot on the carrier. You had to progress through the screening ships first as the carriers were in middle of the TF. If you tried to bore in on the carrier you got shot down (or your missles were jammed or shot down themselves) long before you could get to the capital ships.

It seems the resolution engine has gotten more stupid over the years and the largest ships invariably take the greatest number of hits, which is not usually the case. Maybe in WWII it was without the availablilty of SAMs and such. But even then, an attacker had to brave several layers of lead walls of AA to get deep into the TF where the carreirs or battleships or transports existed.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Zoomie, this is 1941-1945 ... I think you need to pull out some history books. Start with Coral Sea, move on to Midway then come back and post just how silly what you just said is.
[8|]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Screening vessles were used even in WWI. Someone else needs to read some history. BTW, I'm a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy. I could teach Military History in any University in the country, smartass.

Don't want to be disrespectful, but being a graduate of some higher education institution says nothing about your qualifications - see George Bush. Screening vessels were used even before WWI, but that's not the point here. You claim that in real life the largest ships in a TF 'usually' does not 'invariably' take the greatest number of hits, which I translate as 'usually, other ships than the largest one take the greatest number of hits'. This might be true in your missile age 1986 Nato vs. WP battles, where you have to take out the screen first, but WWII is a different matter. As Mr. Frag has pointed out, Coral Sea and Midway (and the other three CV vs. CV engagements) clearly show that the biggest ships received most of the enemy's payload, despite being screened. I dare to say that air attacks in WWII usually went straight for the highest-value target. This even applies to LBA attacks - for an example and to close the circle, say P-R-I-N-C-E-T-O-N. [:'(]

Btw, this also applies to most WWII surface engagements. Morison repeatedly states that in the early age of radar-controlled gunfire, target plotters usually selected the biggest 'blip' on the screen. Or in the words of a well-known Rear-Admiral: 'We want the big ones, get the big ones!

That's probably fairly correct, early on, like Coral Sea and Midway. Carrier tactics were still in their infancy at that time. In fact, those battles actually formulated the genre. But by late 1944 and in to 1945, when fleet tactics concerning carrier operations began to reach a level of maturity, the US had pretty much relegated their largest non-carrier ships, specifically battleships and heavy cruisers, to performing nothing but AA duty to such a degree that very little actually got through to the carriers by then. Even Kamikazi attacks seldom got close to a carrier by spring of 1945, getting shot down well before they got close.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
I don't get the degree of defensiveness here at all. Never have. Every aspect of this game project is outstanding save one. Every single one, but THIS ONE. This is the ONLY complaint I've got about the whole thing. I personally think the nit-pickers on this forum are entirely too anal. Who really cares if the "F" variant of an aircraft type makes it into the game or not? Or that PT boats are precisely modelled in a grand strategic game? Something tells me, if the amount of effort had been put into AI technology the past three years on this game, as was given to having every single infantry squad, air squadron and every last transport accurately named, we'd have a hell of a lot better computer player than we are going to get.

And yes, I intend to continue to pursue AI development as it pertains to turn based wargaming in my free time. And rest assured, if I ever come up with something useful, and 2by3 is still around then, they would be the first to get it.

It's not so much "defensive" as a challange to "put up or shut up". NOBODY is arguing
that the AI (in this game or most others) is good, It SUCKS! They almost always do.
EVERYBODY would love to LOVE to see a competent computer opponant for wargames.
My comments were only meant to encourage you not to disparage other's attempts
until you can actually provide "a better mousetrap". When and if you can. the rejoicing
will be heard around the world. But if you can't offer a better alternative, your comments
just come across as "cheap shots" and "snipeing from the bleachers" by someone not
willing to get down on the field and "play in the game". So tell your kids to work their
way through college (I did), quit your day job, and give us the "holy grail". Otherwise,
please limit yourself to sending "coding tips" and suggestions to the people actually "in
the game" if you have any to offer. That would at least be helpfull.

[Mr.Frag]

Perhaps you would like to do a little bit more reading, you are still wrong. Keep hitting the books. [8|]

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Perhaps you would like to do a little bit more reading, you are still wrong. Keep hitting the books. [8|]

No, I am not.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
I don't get the degree of defensiveness here at all. Never have. Every aspect of this game project is outstanding save one. Every single one, but THIS ONE. This is the ONLY complaint I've got about the whole thing. I personally think the nit-pickers on this forum are entirely too anal. Who really cares if the "F" variant of an aircraft type makes it into the game or not? Or that PT boats are precisely modelled in a grand strategic game? Something tells me, if the amount of effort had been put into AI technology the past three years on this game, as was given to having every single infantry squad, air squadron and every last transport accurately named, we'd have a hell of a lot better computer player than we are going to get.

And yes, I intend to continue to pursue AI development as it pertains to turn based wargaming in my free time. And rest assured, if I ever come up with something useful, and 2by3 is still around then, they would be the first to get it.

It's not so much "defensive" as a challange to "put up or shut up". NOBODY is arguing
that the AI (in this game or most others) is good, It SUCKS! They almost always do.
EVERYBODY would love to LOVE to see a competent computer opponant for wargames.
My comments were only meant to encourage you not to disparage other's attempts
until you can actually provide "a better mousetrap". When and if you can. the rejoicing
will be heard around the world. But if you can't offer a better alternative, your comments
just come across as "cheap shots" and "snipeing from the bleachers" by someone not
willing to get down on the field and "play in the game". So tell your kids to work their
way through college (I did), quit your day job, and give us the "holy grail". Otherwise,
please limit yourself to sending "coding tips" and suggestions to the people actually "in
the game" if you have any to offer. That would at least be helpfull.

Someone has to break the mold, get out of the market box and take a bit of chance. AI in the early days, before the days of e-mail was important. All we had was the computer to play unless you had a physically present hot-seat opponent. As a percentage of the effort in a game it used to get roughly equal billing in the development budget with the graphics and other aspects of the game. But with the advent of high end graphics, RTS and other genres, the look became more important that the substance. Add in massive multiplayer internet gaming and these e-mail variants and the AI has pretty much been ignored. "Who plays the computer anymore?" Was the common answer to devoting resources to AI in gaming. We see that here as well. Getting the name of every last company, ship, pilot, whatever has taken more importance to whether or not the computer can play anything more than a minimally proficient game. They make it tougher by making its weapons 20% more acurate, or giving the computer more of them.

I don't work for a game company. I never will. I will not likely own one either, other businesses are more attractive to me than a computer gaming company. But if we consumers don't complain, downright b!tch, and get ever louder and louder, the decision makers in this industry will never get the FACT, that the AI, at least in turn based wargames, is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT COMPONENT of a successful game. It trumps historical accuracy, it trumps graphics, it trumps almost everything other than realistic combat resolution. Why? Most consumers of this genre PLAY THE COMPUTER!!!!


And one cannot contribute "code tips" unless one has the code. And I still have no idea language what this bunch even codes in, what toolkits they use or anything, much less any idea what the game code looks like. Put the thing on CVS and make the source available then. Maybe i could do something. Short of that, I can contribute NOTHING except a desire to see a better AI with enough vigor and enough support from the consumer community to make the AI THE focus of the next effort for version 2 of the game.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Perhaps you would like to do a little bit more reading, you are still wrong. Keep hitting the books. [8|]

And in case you don't get it. Emoticons are something silly teenage girls use on figure skating fan forums.....

[PeckingFury]

If Matrix were to put "PBEM only with Single Player training scenerios to learn game mechanics" on the WiTp retail box, would that be ok with you? Personally I dont believe I will ever see an AI in a game of this type that will outwit a human in my life time. (unless ofcourse your Messiah Code hits the shelves in 5 years)

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Every poster for the past two years on this forum that brings this up gets the same treatment.

I raised the issue of AI quality a long time before you ever showed up (more than two years ago, in fact), and I was treated with respect in an exchange of ideas and opinions that was worthy of the adults who engaged in it.

Your problem is that all you talk about is you and how your opinions ought to carry the argument just because they are yours.

[Raverdave]

Genlelmen

Nitpicking, name calling and other verbose langauge and posts simply masks some interesting points and good ideas that are hidden under a sheen of flames. Please, in the interests of moving our hobby forward, try to discuss rather than argue, critique rather than hose and above all, have some respect for those whom have given a great deal of there time in trying to produce a product that they believe in.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
That's probably fairly correct, early on, like Coral Sea and Midway. Carrier tactics were still in their infancy at that time. In fact, those battles actually formulated the genre. But by late 1944 and in to 1945, when fleet tactics concerning carrier operations began to reach a level of maturity, the US had pretty much relegated their largest non-carrier ships, specifically battleships and heavy cruisers, to performing nothing but AA duty to such a degree that very little actually got through to the carriers by then. Even Kamikazi attacks seldom got close to a carrier by spring of 1945, getting shot down well before they got close.

I will not take issue in the AI debate since that's not my field, but I can comment on the 'history book' sideline. What you say is essentially correct, but does nothing to support your earlier claim that air attacks against TFs usually did not concentrate on the largest ships. To the contrary, above you say yourself that the Japanese even in 1944/45 still tried to attack the large ships, but didn't succeed most of the time because LRCAP interceptions and heavy AA prevented them from reaching the ships, and that's why they resorted to Kamikaze tactics. Now, I do not claim that attacks concentrated exclusively on capital ships - of course numerous attacks were carried out against smaller ships, especially the ordeal of the radar pickets off Okinawa comes to mind, but if larger game was in sight, it usually had priority. I don't know what you consider seldom, but in the books I count Kamikaze hits on Saratoga (5), Enterprise (2), Essex (1), Intrepid (4), Franklin (3), Ticonderoga (2), Randolph (1), Lexington II (1), Bunker Hill (2), Hancock (2), Bellau Wood (1), Cabot (1), Illustrious (1), Formidable (2), Victorious (3), Indomitable (1) and Indefatigable (1), as well as hits on 17 different CVEs. Damage ranged from superficial to serious, with St. Lo, Bismarck Sea and Ommaney Bay being sunk as a result of Kamikaze hits.
But well, history is a matter of perception. The Air Force is well-known to have its own peciluar views of naval-air warfare - that's why the Navy always insisted on having its own air assets...[:D] (sorry, couldn't resist)

[smallie1]

And my dad is bigger than your dad. geez, what a lot of childish posts by people who can hide behind an anonymous name.