This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!
I think the pbem fanboys dont understand the original intension of the thread starter at all.
To make it more clearly to you think this way :
You own a car brand A. You have problems with it and it needs repair. The poster asks for help. Instead of helping some ppl start to talk about a car brand B imho but obviously this wont help at all....
What I think is attempted to say is that: The AI is of dubious value in most games, and this is probably no vexation.
On the same time, I think what that is trying to say is: It can probably never be fixed, so you should probably get that other brand instead.. (play a human instead..) who works very good..
About all these "just play a human" posts has encouraged me to do is NOT to play a human. We get it already, you love PBEM. Great. I'm glad you love it. Some of us don't. We'd like to discuss issues with the AI occasionally and try to find better ways for it to work.
AE has been a HUGE improvement to playing the AI so apparently, contrary to your post, it can be fixed.
I think the pbem fanboys dont understand the original intension of the thread starter at all.
To make it more clearly to you think this way :
You own a car brand A. You have problems with it and it needs repair. The poster asks for help. Instead of helping some ppl start to talk about a car brand B imho but obviously this wont help at all....
Ive played 99,9% of my wargame and strategic game time against the IA, from Task Force 1942 to WitP, from Steel Panthers I to Combat Mission III. And still I greatly enjoy the few times I could actually play against someone made out of flesh and bones. I don't need someone to come to lecture me about my PBEM "fanboyism": there is narrow-thinking on both sides of the fence here, and you're not gonna get heard better starting to label "us" with names.
I just don't enjoy 2 player in any game. I have tried it and it's just not my cup of tea. I don't think 2 player is bad. I think it should be in AE for the folks who enjoy it. I'm just not one of those folks. I some times play games en masse for a while but then do some thing else for a while. I like AE and might play it for a 2-3 week binge of solid playing but then might not pick it up for several weeks. A testamony from me to WITP and AE is I have never removed them from my PC sense launch, the only program I can say that about. I would like to see the AI improved and I know this has GOT to be a topic of discussion at patch meetings. As I stated earlier AE is a VERY complex program and requires VERY complex AI. Matrix has been very supportive of the community and I don't expect this to change. All I do is voice my issues on the boards to try and improve an outstanding product. But if at the end of the day I'm told something can't be done I will trust it's true (for what ever reason) and accept it. We all can enjoy games vs. the AI and PBEM, after all it takes all types for the very diverse community we have here. I know everyone wants as good a game as I want. Matrix has delivered but it can use some tweaking with out detracting from what an excellent game it is.
I have 2 sons with 3 computers all networked and I really don't enjoy any kind of multi player with them (and yes I have tried several games). They enjoy the heck out of it and I don't discourage them but I just don't enjoy it.
Very nicely stated, mullk.
I must back that up particularly the amount of playing time. Because this game is complex I need a periodic rest from it and as such I can go up to 2 or so weeks away from this game, which rules out the PBEM option for me. Also when I play it I want play at times convenient for me.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that there is not an AI made that can challenge a human without cheating in a complex game like AE. I think the day that happens we'll revisit the computers-taking-over-the-world paranoia from the 70's and 80's. We'll break out the Rush:2112 albums and Tron. [:D]
About all these "just play a human" posts has encouraged me to do is NOT to play a human. We get it already, you love PBEM. Great. I'm glad you love it. Some of us don't. We'd like to discuss issues with the AI occasionally and try to find better ways for it to work.
AE has been a HUGE improvement to playing the AI so apparently, contrary to your post, it can be fixed.
You not say why you do not like e mail game. witp ai can change too if someone took time to do. they do do not take time. fault matrix on this. this game may be easier to change ai but old game not impossible. you say ai in ae huge improve over witp. others say not. again you not say why you think it is better.
I just don't enjoy 2 player in any game. I have tried it and it's just not my cup of tea. I don't think 2 player is bad. I think it should be in AE for the folks who enjoy it. I'm just not one of those folks. I some times play games en masse for a while but then do some thing else for a while. I like AE and might play it for a 2-3 week binge of solid playing but then might not pick it up for several weeks. A testamony from me to WITP and AE is I have never removed them from my PC sense launch, the only program I can say that about. I would like to see the AI improved and I know this has GOT to be a topic of discussion at patch meetings. As I stated earlier AE is a VERY complex program and requires VERY complex AI. Matrix has been very supportive of the community and I don't expect this to change. All I do is voice my issues on the boards to try and improve an outstanding product. But if at the end of the day I'm told something can't be done I will trust it's true (for what ever reason) and accept it. We all can enjoy games vs. the AI and PBEM, after all it takes all types for the very diverse community we have here. I know everyone wants as good a game as I want. Matrix has delivered but it can use some tweaking with out detracting from what an excellent game it is.
I have 2 sons with 3 computers all networked and I really don't enjoy any kind of multi player with them (and yes I have tried several games). They enjoy the heck out of it and I don't discourage them but I just don't enjoy it.
Very nicely stated, mullk.
I must back that up particularly the amount of playing time. Because this game is complex I need a periodic rest from it and as such I can go up to 2 or so weeks away from this game, which rules out the PBEM option for me. Also when I play it I want play at times convenient for me.
I can understand the 2 weeks away argument....what I don't understand is the "...at times convenient for me." argument.
In PBeM you receive a turn from your opponent and you work on it when it is convenient for you.
What amazes me how its nearly always the Allied people playing the Japanese AI complaining. A 6 year old could beat the Japs even with the best (non cheating) AI . Thats Boring.... 3 cheers to trying to make an interesting AI for the AFB to play against.
Come on the Japanese had real people so the AI cannot do better and they dis abysmal.
Lastly AIs for a very open and complex game like AE are incredibly expensive to write and Matrix is a small company you need a team of 5 for 2 years thats serious dollars. AE has a an average AI but considering the game is so open its prob below average compared to simpler games . There is no way around this sure there are scripts but there will always be some critical thing which it will do which is utterly self destructive.
When I want to play, I want to play, I don't want to be waiting for some guy to get permission from his wife to do the next turn. Just curious, in a game this long head to head has anybody ever finished a game before somebody drops out ?[&:]
Well, I only play against the AI. My sachedule is such that I can only play in spurts. I'll have a whole weekend where I can crank out three weeks or a month of game time, but then may not be able to get back to it for a couple of weeks. A human player wouldn't tolerate waiting on my turns in the off-period, and I wouldn't tolerate waiting for someone else even a few hours during my "on" time.
If the game is designed to be PBEM only, then it should say so. If it's PBEM "highly encouraged," then Matrix should just say that up front, as well, BUT tell us that the AI cheats and how it cheats to some extent. Then, the consumer knows what his $100 is giving him.
As a one-time very serious military histirian, I play the game to explore strategical possibilites, so it's disconcerting to discover that the AI doesn't have to refuel, or it soesn't need air support, or it .....you get the idea. Those things mean that the side I play is bound by historical conditions, but the other side is not. So, it's strategic decisions are scripted, or worse, arbitrary. I would hope that the cheats would be based on reducing the impact of certain historical restrictions, rather than eliminating them altogether. It far preferable, for example that the AI gets an air repair bonus of some percent, or it uses fuel at some reduced rate, or it can load troops a little faster, or .... well, those are better than just having no fuel needed for a TF. If the Japanese have no fuel or supply restrictions then they can do VERY ahistorical things. That is a problem for me, given the reason I play in the first place.
All that said, I'm not very disappointed in the AI at all with AE. A little too adventurous, I suppose, but MUCH better than WITP. It seems to place the player in the position of not knowing what to expect, so all possibilites have to be considered (and with the AI cheats NOTHING is impossible, my only real complaint, I guess.) But, I've found that even with all the cheats, by mid to late '42, a Japanese AI is pretty much screwed. It's frittered away it's CVs, it's pilots are inexperienced, and it's ability to conduct offensive operations is essentially over. That's pretty close to what happend, ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT HOW IT HAPPENED. So, I get to plan the inevitable counter-attack pretty much like it was done historically. So, it seems to work out about right. What goes on under the hood may not be all that bad after all.
But please, gents, don't pontificate that we're stubborn, or cowardly, or that we like to replay turns to cheat. That's demeaning to a number of serious AI players out here and it makes you look small. I happen to love the game and will play it a long time. I'm 60 frikkin' years old and expect that one day a doctor will tell my wife "... he said he wants to finish this turn before we cut off the life support ...."
Occasionally, and randomly, problems and solutions collide. The probability of these collisions is inversely related to the number of committees working on the solutions. -- Me.
ORIGINAL: Matto
Problem is, that in PBEM are allied little bit boosted ... I´m playing two campaigns from both sides, both only in December 41 and in both are Japanese in troubles ... it is not easy attack like in old WitP. I cannot imagine, how it will look at 1943 ...
Where did you get this[&:]? The Allied side was not boosted in (or for) PBEM games.
I think he's dealing with an Allied player who's making better use of "hindsight" than he is. The Japanese do need to operate on a "shoestring" early on, and an Allied player who pushes everything to the max can tie some nasty knots in it. Probably more a need for discussion and some houserules/gentlemen's agreements than a major re-write.
There are two types of Allied players. Those that consider the early game troops in the Philippines, Malaya and Indonesia as fodder and will use them in a manner that slows the JFB down at every turn, and those that play at Sir Robin, hoping to save those troops for an even more powerful end-game push.
I actually prefer playing the first type, since the game is general more challenging the whole way through.
I have played both PBEM and vs the AI. There are pro and con for both. It's like the fight between the JFB and AFB. Some are not going to change their mind no matter what you say or do. IMO, it is easier to win vs the Japanese AI regardless of the settings. The Allies just have too much stuff to overcome. Taking on the Allies AI with the difficulty setting on hard or very hard will be more challenging. Neither will be able to give you the same challenge as a human opponent, but that is true of any computer game vs the AI. I always play the AI using 2 or 3 day turns.
I think the pbem fanboys dont understand the original intension of the thread starter at all.
To make it more clearly to you think this way :
You own a car brand A. You have problems with it and it needs repair. The poster asks for help. Instead of helping some ppl start to talk about a car brand B imho but obviously this wont help at all....
Since we have a car analogy: a part of the problem is that you bought a hybrid, and all hybrids tend to run better in one mode or the other.
About all these "just play a human" posts has encouraged me to do is NOT to play a human. We get it already, you love PBEM. Great. I'm glad you love it. Some of us don't. We'd like to discuss issues with the AI occasionally and try to find better ways for it to work.
AE has been a HUGE improvement to playing the AI so apparently, contrary to your post, it can be fixed.
While the scripts can be tweaked, as I said earlier, Chickenboy was complaining about the cheating.
That cannot be fixed. So my original answer is still correct: if you want to play an opponent that doesn't cheat, your ONLY option is a human.
"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
ORIGINAL: pad152
There are only two types of game AI
Everytime I see a "two types" of statement, I still to this day can't help but think of The Good The Bad & The Ugly in which Tuco always has those comical lines about two types....
There are two kinds of people in the world, my friend. Those who have a rope around their neck and those who have the job of doing the cutting.
There are two kinds of spurs, my friend. Those that come in by the door, those that come in by the window.
.....but one of the best lines from that movie (even though it was not a "two types") was the following:
*Approaching a column of grey-clad cavalry*
Tuco: (shouting) God's with us because he hates the Yanks too!
*Officer pats the grey dust from his blue uniform*
Blondie: God's not on our side because he hates idiots also.
Everytime it brings a smile to my face.
Classic
"In times of war, the Devil makes more room in Hell"
Well, I only play against the AI. My sachedule is such that I can only play in spurts. I'll have a whole weekend where I can crank out three weeks or a month of game time, but then may not be able to get back to it for a couple of weeks. A human player wouldn't tolerate waiting on my turns in the off-period, and I wouldn't tolerate waiting for someone else even a few hours during my "on" time.
If the game is designed to be PBEM only, then it should say so. If it's PBEM "highly encouraged," then Matrix should just say that up front, as well, BUT tell us that the AI cheats and how it cheats to some extent. Then, the consumer knows what his $100 is giving him.
As a one-time very serious military histirian, I play the game to explore strategical possibilites, so it's disconcerting to discover that the AI doesn't have to refuel, or it soesn't need air support, or it .....you get the idea. Those things mean that the side I play is bound by historical conditions, but the other side is not. So, it's strategic decisions are scripted, or worse, arbitrary. I would hope that the cheats would be based on reducing the impact of certain historical restrictions, rather than eliminating them altogether. It far preferable, for example that the AI gets an air repair bonus of some percent, or it uses fuel at some reduced rate, or it can load troops a little faster, or .... well, those are better than just having no fuel needed for a TF. If the Japanese have no fuel or supply restrictions then they can do VERY ahistorical things. That is a problem for me, given the reason I play in the first place.
All that said, I'm not very disappointed in the AI at all with AE. A little too adventurous, I suppose, but MUCH better than WITP. It seems to place the player in the position of not knowing what to expect, so all possibilites have to be considered (and with the AI cheats NOTHING is impossible, my only real complaint, I guess.) But, I've found that even with all the cheats, by mid to late '42, a Japanese AI is pretty much screwed. It's frittered away it's CVs, it's pilots are inexperienced, and it's ability to conduct offensive operations is essentially over. That's pretty close to what happend, ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT HOW IT HAPPENED. So, I get to plan the inevitable counter-attack pretty much like it was done historically. So, it seems to work out about right. What goes on under the hood may not be all that bad after all.
But please, gents, don't pontificate that we're stubborn, or cowardly, or that we like to replay turns to cheat. That's demeaning to a number of serious AI players out here and it makes you look small. I happen to love the game and will play it a long time. I'm 60 frikkin' years old and expect that one day a doctor will tell my wife "... he said he wants to finish this turn before we cut off the life support ...."
*Approaching a column of grey-clad cavalry*
Tuco: (shouting) God's with us because he hates the Yanks too!
*Officer pats the grey dust from his blue uniform*
Blondie: God's not on our side because he hates idiots also.
Everytime it brings a smile to my face.
Classic
Uh-uh, Deca. That's NOT the best line from the movie.
The best line from the movie was when they're in the town near Sad Hill Cemetery. Tuco and Blondie (The Man with no Name) have just finished gunning down all of Angel Eyes' flunkees. They look for him in a bombed-out building, but find the body of one of the henchmen with a note pinned to it. Tuco tries to read the note:
Tuco: "See you soon...id...id...I can't read what he wrote."
Blondie pulls the note out of his hand, finishing the written line: "Idiots. It's for you (hands the note to Tuco)."
Well, I only play against the AI. My sachedule is such that I can only play in spurts. I'll have a whole weekend where I can crank out three weeks or a month of game time, but then may not be able to get back to it for a couple of weeks. A human player wouldn't tolerate waiting on my turns in the off-period, and I wouldn't tolerate waiting for someone else even a few hours during my "on" time.
If the game is designed to be PBEM only, then it should say so. If it's PBEM "highly encouraged," then Matrix should just say that up front, as well, BUT tell us that the AI cheats and how it cheats to some extent. Then, the consumer knows what his $100 is giving him.
As a one-time very serious military histirian, I play the game to explore strategical possibilites, so it's disconcerting to discover that the AI doesn't have to refuel, or it soesn't need air support, or it .....you get the idea. Those things mean that the side I play is bound by historical conditions, but the other side is not. So, it's strategic decisions are scripted, or worse, arbitrary. I would hope that the cheats would be based on reducing the impact of certain historical restrictions, rather than eliminating them altogether. It far preferable, for example that the AI gets an air repair bonus of some percent, or it uses fuel at some reduced rate, or it can load troops a little faster, or .... well, those are better than just having no fuel needed for a TF. If the Japanese have no fuel or supply restrictions then they can do VERY ahistorical things. That is a problem for me, given the reason I play in the first place.
All that said, I'm not very disappointed in the AI at all with AE. A little too adventurous, I suppose, but MUCH better than WITP. It seems to place the player in the position of not knowing what to expect, so all possibilites have to be considered (and with the AI cheats NOTHING is impossible, my only real complaint, I guess.) But, I've found that even with all the cheats, by mid to late '42, a Japanese AI is pretty much screwed. It's frittered away it's CVs, it's pilots are inexperienced, and it's ability to conduct offensive operations is essentially over. That's pretty close to what happend, ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT HOW IT HAPPENED. So, I get to plan the inevitable counter-attack pretty much like it was done historically. So, it seems to work out about right. What goes on under the hood may not be all that bad after all.
But please, gents, don't pontificate that we're stubborn, or cowardly, or that we like to replay turns to cheat. That's demeaning to a number of serious AI players out here and it makes you look small. I happen to love the game and will play it a long time. I'm 60 frikkin' years old and expect that one day a doctor will tell my wife "... he said he wants to finish this turn before we cut off the life support ...."
BJ,
I could not have said it better than you just did. Bravo!
Pappy
Windows 10 Home 64
AMD Ryzen 7 3700x 3.70Ghz Processor
32 GB Ram
Nvidia GEFORCE GTX1080 w/8 GB
LG 32GK850F 2560x1440
[/center]
