Jap Player running turn multiple times

[donkey_roxor]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Well as I said before you have to have WitP to play AE (by my understanding anyways), the AI is in WitP. AE is just a scenario in this case that you have to pay for. Not being able to play AE without an AI is just not being able to play 1 scenario without an AI and this in my humble opinion is noting to complain about when you consider that you have to PAY for AE. If you know AE doesnt have an AI going to begin with, then the people that only play the AI wont waste their hard earned cash on it. For those of you that enjoy the AI, you will still have it, you just wouldnt have it in that ONE scenario.

Except that the dev team has modified the AI for AE. And for those of us who play only with the AI, I would argue that "not being able to play AE without an AI" is a HUGE thing to complain about. And I think it is misleading to refer to AE as "ONE scenario". With that logic, everything in WiTP as of now is only "ONE scenario". And heck, if you knew AE wasn't going to fix the replay bug or the leader bug, and those were issues you felt very strongly about, then you don't need to waste your hard-earned cash on it, right?

And who knows? With fresh maintainable code in AE, maybe they would put an AI into it and make it a stand alone game and not require you to have WitP to play it. I am not affiliated with Matrix in any way, but if I had to speculate I would guess that requiring you to purchase BOTH WitP and AE in order to play AE is to appease GG in some way. I mean it makes no sense to me if AE is going to use the same engine as WitP that you should actually have to have WitP for it in any other event.

Sure, that would be fantastic. However, from everything I've read, that is something more along the lines of WiTP 2, which AE emphatically is not. If the question is whether Matrix should have devoted the effort they put into AE into WiTP 2 instead, well, that's another issue.

Finally, AE was billed as an expansion to WiTP since the beginning, implying that an original copy of WiTP would be required (and is!). As far as I know, most game expansions require the original game. I'm not sure I understand what the issue is.

[rtrapasso]

Just as a clarification: MATRIX doesn't develop games per se (afaik) - it does the marketing for games that other people develop (such as 2x3)... ditto fixing games.

And AE is NOT being developed by 2x3, either.

AFAIK: Matrix does play a role in facilitating all this, though (i.e. - the forum as a coordinating tool), as well as helping with negotiating between the development groups, i think.

[Gem35]

I play against the AI and have enjoyed this game for almost 4 years, it's insulting when I hear a self-rightoeus person claim that AE is 1 scenario and that the folks who like playing the AI aren't enjoying the game or getting a challenge.
I never saw or witnessed the the sync bug and could really care less.
I have read plenty of AARs and if the sync bug is that bad that forum would be pretty much empty.
To each their own but please refrain from calling out folks who enjoy playing against the AI mister hugger.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Gem35

I play against the AI and have enjoyed this game for almost 4 years, it's insulting when I hear a self-rightoeus person claim that AE is 1 scenario and that the folks who like playing the AI aren't enjoying the game or getting a challenge.
I never saw or witnessed the the sync bug and could really care less.
I have read plenty of AARs and if the sync bug is that bad that forum would be pretty much empty.
To each their own but please refrain from calling out folks who enjoy playing against the AI mister hugger.

I personally do not play against the AI, but I certainly respect the opinions, likes, and dislikes of the people who do. I would like to say that you have expressed your opinion in an exceptionally concise, polite and respectful way. I only wish more people on the forum would emulate your style [&o]

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Gem35

I play against the AI and have enjoyed this game for almost 4 years, it's insulting when I hear a self-rightoeus person claim that AE is 1 scenario and that the folks who like playing the AI aren't enjoying the game or getting a challenge.
I never saw or witnessed the the sync bug and could really care less.
I have read plenty of AARs and if the sync bug is that bad that forum would be pretty much empty.
To each their own but please refrain from calling out folks who enjoy playing against the AI mister hugger.

Well, I would hardly refer to myself as "a self-rightoeus person". I see nothing wrong with developing a game in a 2 player mode and THEN after it works and you know it works, then put an AI into it. If that makes me "a self-rightoeus person" in your opinion, then that is your opinion I guess.

Cant get a sync bug in a 1 player game. The "sync bug" is because 1 player is out of sync with the other (thus the term "sync"). But to put it in perspective for you imagine watching a replay of the battle of Midway. Your US carriers (on your replay) sink 3 Jap carriers without getting hit. Then when you go into the game and look at the sunk ships display the Yorktown is there but the Akagi, Kaga, and Soryu isnt. You look at the "planes shot down" display and see only a handful of Kates and Vals went down. What REALLY happened in this game. You have no idea, because you have the sync bug. Now you look through the combat report .txt file the Jap player sent you and you suddenly realize that the 20 mins you spent watching the replay meant nothing at all.

Do that a few times and you will begin to understand the frustration of the sync bug. I got to the point as the allied player that I dont even bother watching it anymore. I run it only so it generates the other reports (which arent accurate because of the sync bug either, but at least you get some intel data).

[Gem35]

I know you can't get a sync bug in a single player game.
I also know you are self-righteous because you among others here like to post about how smart you are and have never really said anything positive about the game or other people and instead complain about how the game should be and how you could have alot more fun if things were different.
Yep, we all are entitled to our own opinions.[:)]

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Gem35

I know you can't get a sync bug in a single player game.
I also know you are self-righteous because you among others here like to post about how smart you are and have never really said anything positive about the game or other people and instead complain about how the game should be and how you could have alot more fun if things were different.
Yep, we all are entitled to our own opinions.[:)]

Actually, you CAN get a (sort of a) sync bug in a single-player game... i discovered in my AI games you would not get the same results if you reran the turn after rebooting... of course, it makes no big difference if you are playing the AI (it doesn't care a bit). [:D]

[Gem35]

Wouldn't you call that a feature instead of a bug?[;)]

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Gem35

Wouldn't you call that a feature instead of a bug?[;)]

Well, it does allow AI players to to alter the results if they didn't like the first run... [:D]

[Gem35]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Gem35

Wouldn't you call that a feature instead of a bug?[;)]

Well, it does allow AI players to to alter the results if they didn't like the first run... [:D]

Fix it![8D]

[HansBolter]

Gem35,

I can appreciate your perspective and position. I recently had a spat with one of the developers from SSG regarding a simple request to be informed when some of the new scenarios being deveoped for Battlefront have an AI released for them as they are almost all being released as PBEM only.

Here are some excerpts from that discourse:

"quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant

hardly irrelevant, but your view indicates to me more education is required here to show players what they are missing out on - thankyou for your feedback.

Me:

and your view indicates a myopic belief that anyone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint is ignorant and in need of being educated

assuming that anyone who doesn't choose to play this particular game via PBEM does so because of a lack of understanding of any potential benefits is childish

I am currently overcommitted to four PBEM games of Uncomon Valor as well as beta testing duites for Battles from the Bulge. I fill the gaps between those activities with solitaire play of games in the Decisive Battles series and this game. I do not play this game PBEM because I am busy with other activities , NOT because I am ignorant of the benefits of PBEM play and in need of being "educated".

The lack of an AI for these secenarios guarantees that I will not be playing them. The same can most likely be presumed for many others who purchased this game. Responding to a call from one of us to be reminded if, and when, an AI for the expanded scenarios becomes available in an insulting and condescending manner is NOT a very viable method for ensuring customer loyalty!"

Upon reflection I chose to post again to soften the tone:

"I apologize for apparently giving the wrong impression.

Perhaps my fisrt post was too curt and and upon reflection a bit flippant.

I never intended to demean the effort put into creating any of the new scenarios.

All I was asking for was a heads up on these boards if and when any of the new scenarios have an AI developed for them.

It does truly chap my rear end a bit the way there seems to be a divide betwem PBEMers and solitaire players on many of these boards. Unfortunately, many of us who choose to play various games solitaire often find ourselves being disparaged and belittled by those firmly entrenched in the "PBEM only" camp, who often belabour under the unfortunate delusion that they are somehow intellectually superior because they only play against live opponents. I guess my skin has grown a bit thin with regard to that particular problem on these boards.

I own and enjoy playing every game in the DB series including Across the Dnepr, as well as Battlefront. I have downloaded almost every player made scenario for them that includes an AI. I am currently thoroughly enjoying Fall Gelb in the spare moments between my other gaming committments.

As stated in my prior post, my reasons for playing this series solitaire have nothing to do with a lack of appreciation for the benefits of playing PBEM and it does bother me that those who have a preference for PBEM seem to automatically jump to the erroneous conclusion that I, and anyone else who chooses to play solitaire, are in need of being educated regarding the merits of PBEM.

Again, apologies offered. No offense intended, none taken. "

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Gem35

I know you can't get a sync bug in a single player game.
I also know you are self-righteous because you among others here like to post about how smart you are and have never really said anything positive about the game or other people and instead complain about how the game should be and how you could have alot more fun if things were different.
Yep, we all are entitled to our own opinions.[:)]

Well, first of all, I cant think of a single time I have ever said that I am smarter than anyone else. I have a lot more experience with the game than a lot of people have and I have pointed this fact out on occasion. If you can find a single instance of me telling someone or everyone that I was smarter than them, please PM a link to it to me. I'd like to see it.

As for not saying positive things about the game, well that may be true. However the fact that I DO have a lot of experience with the game is in itself a positive I would think. One thing you may not know about me is I am a playtester for various projects and patch coordinator for 1.807 and in that regard it is my job to find and post problems with the game. And some of those problems are quite frustrating to me. And I thank God every night that I am an American and have the right to say what I think. And in that regard I also realize that everyone else has the right to agree or disagree. I personally wish every other government on the planet would realize this and well -- getting off topic.

I have played GG games since Guadalcanal Campaign back in the Apple II days with SSI. Played PacWar (WitPs grandfather) for many many years and frankly most of the routines in this game are the very same ones GG has used since the beginning of time. A lot of PacWar is in WitP, but a lot of the best stuff from that game was left out. Malaya is a restricted command in PacWar along with ABDA and FFE thus the "Sir Robin" defense isnt really viable in that game. The signals intell is much better in it. HQs actually have a purpose in it and you have a reason to actually keep a HQs units together. A TFs origin HQ matters, the list goes on and on. Frankly the only real plus to WitP over PacWar is the daily movment vs weekly and WitP doesnt use the "hiway" naval movement system that PacWar does.

So there is also a frustration that a 4th generation game really isnt even on par with its 2nd generation counterpart.

[DD696]

I think that there are a many people who have a great deal of experience with the game. I'd be happy to put my record up against yours. For over four years now I have played this game almost exclusively. I am retired and regularly devote 8-14 hours a day to it and may get thru 30-40 turns in one day when the action is slow and I'm just directing convoys, or 15-30 when the action is hot and heavy. I have had periods of frustration with the game when I have given it up for a couple months, but I always return and tackle it. I think it could safely be said that I am a full-time WiTP player.

I only play against the AI. I agree completely that many PBEM'ers believe that they are far superior to anyone who plays against the AI. To that I say that I actually play the game. I don't sit and wait for turns and waste time with inane posts. I am vastly pleased that the AE team is making the effort to improve the performance of the AI. If that is not done, I wouldn't waste my money on it. I don't post over in the AE forum since a day or two after the announcement of AE because the team was quite touchy and refused to say anything about it at the time. Erik Rutkins told me they had already answered a couple of my questions, which I took as the "shut up and don't come back" offer to me.

Without an AI, the game would be completely untestable. It would sure be a bug infested wilderness to explore upon release, wouldn't it? As it is, it will be difficult enough for them to test it for the 43-46 time frame and I really wonder how they are going to do it without scenarios in those time frames. I am sure no one has the time to run an AI game up the end date all the countless times needed to test it adequately. I do have confidence that they will do their best and I commend them for making the effort needed to please the vast majority of players.

[Yamato hugger]

Bug testing (at least by me) is usually done in 2 player mode with me playing both sides. This way I have total control and know that the computer didnt do anything to influence whatever it is I am testing.

When I was playtesting 3rd Reich, thats all they wanted us to test was the AI. There wasnt even a 2 player option in it initially (they added it after the game was released because the general public demanded what all of us testers had demanded from the outset - a PBEM mode). The AI was so bad in that game the computer German player never once threw me out of France in 30+ games!

[DD696]

How long would it take you to test this game from December 1941 until March 1946 playing both sides? Doing it enough times for it to be meaningful? Perhaps if that was done we could expect the game in 2058 at the earliest, providing, of course, that you did not have to do any restarts due to data errors or faulty programming.

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Bug testing (at least by me) is usually done in 2 player mode with me playing both sides. This way I have total control and know that the computer didnt do anything to influence whatever it is I am testing.

When I was playtesting 3rd Reich, thats all they wanted us to test was the AI. There wasnt even a 2 player option in it initially (they added it after the game was released because the general public demanded what all of us testers had demanded from the outset - a PBEM mode). The AI was so bad in that game the computer German player never once threw me out of France in 30+ games!

[DD696]

Just to expand a bit on your PBEM only testing. I would reckon that you might be able to sell 100-200 copies of the game to PBEM'ers. I would guess that the developers and Martix would like to make about a million or so off the game, therefore the game price would be around $10,000. Naturally, a few AI players would be suckered into buying it before word got out that it was unplayable, so you might be able to get by with a price of $5,000. But, after a test span of 50 years I am sure the price would have to upped somewhat.

Of course, if it sold for $50, they could expect to receive $10,000, and perhaps up to $20,000 for the game, after it had been tested for 50 years. It is a good thing that I didn't sign up to invest in such a scheme. Have you?

I would really prefer that it had a decent AI used for testing the game and to provide a basis for sales, and that we see it available for sale within the next year or so. Everybody would be happy then, except for the ones that say "Release it now! It don't need no stinkin' testing".

[Yamato hugger]

You dont need an AI to "test". In fact it works MUCH better without one for testing purposes. Unless of course you are testing the AI itself. I dont do that.

And I am on the AE team as well btw.

[Gem35]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

You dont need an AI to "test". In fact it works MUCH better without one for testing purposes. Unless of course you are testing the AI itself. I dont do that.

And I am on the AE team as well btw.

I loved that show, the AE team,
with Hannibal and B.A. and Murdock....

[Yamato hugger]

Glad to hear it. No clue what you are talking about, but congrats.

[DD696]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

You dont need an AI to "test". In fact it works MUCH better without one for testing purposes. Unless of course you are testing the AI itself. I dont do that.

And I am on the AE team as well btw.

Would you care to attempt to prove that "fact"? I would be very interested in knowing how you can test out all the aspects of the game that the programming handles without making use of it. How do you test the fact that planes fly or do not fly unless they go thru the coding routines? How do you test the air combat routines? How do you test the surface to surface combat routines? They are AI routines just as sure as are the computer decisions that determine when and where to invade, defend, run a convoy, etc. It appears to me that without these countless AI routines there is not a game to work with.

But since you are on the AE team I suspect we should all be expected to bow to your knowledge and abilities. Since some members of the AE team do not bother testing out the AI routines, then I must wonder about the effort other members say they are putting into it, and I must truly question the quality of the testing that is being done.