How can you guys stand PBEM?

[Drex]

The AI will tend to play the same way every time ( it has one style). Pbem allows you to play others with different styles of play - it will make you a better player to play others who can beat you. And the social component is important too. You have an opponent you can talk to, joke with, and perhaps curse at depending on how well a turn came out. I've tried going back to play the AI and it just doesn't give me the same thrills.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

You're right on target boss!

Fighting the AI is strictly for practice and learning the mechanics of the game. Let's face it, when you botch up a turn vs the AI it get's reloaded and replayed. Everybody does it! That's not an option in a PBEM game unless your opponent is very understanding.[;)]

Wow, no wonder the AI's were so lousy (sarcasm). And here I was thinking that people were just loading up single player games as 2 player games and checking up on the AI all the time that way. When will the AI ever learn that with every reload it needs to adjust everything to get around such human tactics?

[bordric]

Not "everybody" does it. I don't I make a mistake I live with it. I only save every 10 turns or so anyway.

[Halsey]

I'm not saying it's lousy. So if you lose 3 out of 5 CV's in an engagement while only sinking one you drive on. Yeah, well if you say so.[;)]

Computer games are all boardgames to me. The only real challenge is against a human being. As I said before, I've never seen an AI in any commercial game win. That's just reality. The thing is people who have only played computer games don't understand, or have forgotten, what a real boardgame is like. WITP is a boardgame. The only difference is the computer does the computations. So now you don't have to count hexes and roll dice.[;)]

As a note. I really don't care whether the AI is good or not. It's only useful for practice to me. War isn't understood until you have to face a human being in combat. This game tries to simulate this. Without the bloodshed of course.

[bordric]

No I would not restart, would be like masturbating and faking an orgasm or something.

Game is not so complex as most that were released in 2004. Could have done better from what I am seeing. Enemy bashing themselves to death on a base without any regard just because the script tells them too, that is not AI that is set script that says take X no matter what the cost. Seems like it would be easy to say stop when X becomes too costly... Like most games.

I do not have any desire to play a game were you have 4 or 5 turns a week. PBEM never worked for me and the players always quit or I do because there is no excitement to keep it going.

AI is sub-par complexity has nothing to do with it, the AI is bugged all to hell.

Oh and I care if the AI is good or not, because I like the vast majority of people bought it for single player.

[geozero]

The best Ai is a real human player. Hence the beauty of PBEM with this game. Though it will drag on for months to play, the small victories and fortunes of war are what mattert he most. It's not about winning or losing as much as it is about enjoying the game with a real human participant half way around the world...[:D]

[mogami]

Hi, Most of my PBEM games do between 10 and 20 turns a week. That translates to between 1.5 and 3 years to go the complete length. Now since I am Japan in most of these games I intend they run the complete distance. (Because the only way Japan surrenders with me is by points ratio) When it gets real bad I'll have the comfort of being able to do my turns faster. Thats another consideration. If we can turn 10-20 turns in SRA period we can turn 20-40 during quiet times.

[Veldor]

I'd like to propose a reason for why the A.I. is "so bad" that I hadn't quite seen posted yet, unless I missed it. The designers have already publicly stated that they could not "balance" the game all that well due to the inability to play out enough of the extremely long games during development. Especially once in its final format.

So I don't think it has as much to do with the complexity of the game so much as it does the overall LENGTH of the game.

Not that the A.I. is all that much better in the shorter scenarios but I feel the point is still the same.

I do also agree that most people prefer A.I. as their number one choice. A survey I've recently been conducting shows enormously high numbers of players listing it as their #1 prefered method. I've b!tched more than probably anyone in the past about bad A.I.'s but in part have founded my own game development company to try to help solve it.

The question I had asked myself was "Are traditional gaming A.I.'s really the best model for computer wargames or do other concepts (such as some of those used in more Business A.I. situations) actually map better?" Clearly traditional approaches to A.I. are not working for wargames (assuming those are the models being followed).

But I don't really think you can fault the game or the developers here. Nearly everyone admits WiTP is a bigger game than just about anything else out there. So the fact that the A.I. is usefull for anything at all is really just icing on the cake. I wish the state of the industry wasn't what it is. But don't fault the developers for that.

I'm hoping to do my part to help change and advance the computer wargame industry.

If some of you care so much about the state of the A.I. in this game why not do your own part and help the developer's continue to improve it instead of just complaining about it?

[Central Blue]

lots to think about here...

best solitaire games I've played were Age of Rifles, TOAW, Steel Panthers, and Talonsoft Campaign Series.

In the long run, if you play the scenario often enough, you'll generally figure out how to beat what the computer sets out to do. You can even win at the Little Big Horn if you play like Reno and Benteen rather than like Custer.

THis game, and PacWar before it, aren't really like the games I mentioned above. I can't think of another game that is so much about long term planning and supply. THis is true even if you play the AI, I think. To that extent, it mimics the war in the Pacific. And besides the peculiar considerations of operations in the Pacific Theater, I can't think of another game that tries to do equal justice to air, land, and sea operations.

It is certainly easy to "game" the AI in the few canned scenarios we've been given. But it is also possible to think of exertions against the AI as tests of operational plans and assumptions that governed conventional thinking at the time. That's a game too. Seems to me that's why the people that wrote the game gave us the opportunity to create scenarios of our own. Any one of us can write our alternate history of Pearl Harbor, or Clark Field, to begin with. It seems a tad persnicketty to lash the designers for poor scenario design when they gave us so many tools to create our own more perfect scenarios.

BTW, I do look forward to PBEM, because it is a different kind of game. I'll play the AI and the various user mods till the system stabilizes.

[spence]

Twenty years ago I was a staff officer with Coast Guard Atlantic Area Law Enforcement Branch and was often called upon to write up an oporder to intercept a "mothership" in the Northwest Atlantic scrounging (sad but true) up a cutter or two (well once there were two) from here and a plane from there to make the intercept before "mama" offloaded. When the hunt was up there a million things that could go wrong: weather, broken planes, broken ships, an "enemy" that often looked just like every other boat/ship in the vicinity, AND AN "ENEMY" THAT COULD TAKE SOME UNANTICIPATED COURSE OF ACTION . Having pulled the resources together and flashed off the orders, with nothing further that could be done, I always felt a sense of electric excitement unlike anything else in my experience.
It's not as intense, I guess cause it's not real life, but each time I send off a PBEM turn; I feel a shadow of that same nervous excitement. PBEM is sorta like real.

[Charles2222]

You bring up a good point Central Blue, in that there's not that much point in playing PBEM until the thing stabilizes. Only problem is that when playing AI-only, especially in a game of this size, you have the same problem; constant restarts for new patches.

[Charles2222]

That's pretty much the same thing I feel a lot of the time when playing any AI. It's just the ol' you-had-so-much-control-then-you-have-none.

[mogami]

Hi, Patches fix problems in ongoing games. Patches add new features to ongoing games. Patches do not change the OB in running games. Games I began with 1.21 are just pushing on. Any new game uses the most current version but I don't think the OB changes are hurting the running games any. The Japanese and Allied players have already made their plans based on the reinforcement and deployment at start.
The single largest change to how I play Japan brought about by a patch will be to my pilot training program. The new human controlled aircraft upgrade paths are going to make things a lot easier for Japan.
The air war in the early going to going to see a major change as the Allied player has to deal with more Oscar-I groups replacing the Nate. The Nate should be out of combat totally by March 1942. The longer ranged Oscar will allow Japanese TF to move farther faster and still have CAP. (The A6M2 are often tied down to CAP over TF now they will be able to escort bombers while Oscar groups cover ship movements. The IJAAF can now be assigned to islands as escorts for Kate/Val group that before required A6M2 to fly full range strikes with escorts.

I don't need to restart to employ this improvement.

[Toast]

ORIGINAL: bordric

Game is not so complex as most that were released in 2004. Could have done better from what I am seeing. Enemy bashing themselves to death on a base without any regard just because the script tells them too, that is not AI that is set script that says take X no matter what the cost. Seems like it would be easy to say stop when X becomes too costly... Like most games.

I do not have any desire to play a game were you have 4 or 5 turns a week. PBEM never worked for me and the players always quit or I do because there is no excitement to keep it going.

AI is sub-par complexity has nothing to do with it, the AI is bugged all to hell.

Oh and I care if the AI is good or not, because I like the vast majority of people bought it for single player.

I would have to strongly disagree with you on the contention this game is not as complex as other games released in 2004. As a matter of fact I think this is the most complicated computer game I have ever run across.

And I don't think the AI is bugged. Any AI that I have ever seen in computer wargames has been excellant in tactical situations but "stupid" with strategic decisions. This game is very unique in that "tactics" are more dependant on force compisition, orders given and luck than on mastering particular game mechanics. The computer AI is at a severe disadvantage. I think you have way too much faith in the state of computer programming. It really isn't that spohisticated. And this game does not provide an engine that takes advantage of the current state of computer programming: raw processing power. In this game planning is what wins and computer programs are just not good at strategic planning. THey can keep track of things well and calculate mathematical formulas very quickly but no one has yet to write a program that can plan and react to unforseen circumstances. Writing a good AI for this game would be a fascinating undertaking but one for a major research University with a lot of grant money and time and people on the project.

This seems to be a game for wargamers and wargamers crave human opponents. AI for a wargamer is for solitaire games: learning the mechanics of a game, exploring historical events, killing time. Most of the poeple who bought this game may want to play AI and are not interested in PBEM at all but it seems to me most of the people on this forum are interested in playing a human opponent (most, not all Thayne). And Thayne has brought up a good point about human players making the game play too "gamey", i.e. doing things that are not historically possible but allowed in the game. I think most of the players on this forum are bothered by "gamey" things allowed by the game and that is why there are so many threads on improving the land combat system and other things in the game which allow a human player to do things that were not possible historically. We want to play human players but we still want an historical simulation. We are trying to find a balance between what was done historically and what was possible historically so that we can examine "what-if's", see if we can do better than Yamamoto or Nimitz.

I can understand iof you bought the game for AI play only and respect that and I can understand if you are disappointed in the AI. It really isn't that good. I juist question whether it is even possible to make it anywhere near as good as even a bad human player. It can be made better, though. Most of us here on the forum would rather the developers spend more time fixing known (or percieved) problems with the game.

I do have one suggestion: play a short PBEM scenario, just to see what it is like. You don't have to make a major committment to the full war scenario. It is rather daunting. Post an opponent wanted message for a short scenario and even let your opponent know you just want to try PBEM to see if it is for you. You might find it a lot more fun than it would seem at first. And if not I think everyone here would understand and respect that.

But that is a only a suggestion to be ignored or contemplated as you see fit. I will agree with you that the AI in this game is not very good. I just don't think it can be made that much better.

[Wolfie1]

Whilst I'm still new to WitP, I am a big fan of PBEM. Before I acquired WitP I mainly played CS games and TOAW. I haven't played against the AI in the CS games for over two years, and I have NEVER played against the AI in TOAW in over three years owning it.

[Charles2222]

I was referring to patches in general, not just WITP. Besides, who is to say that the next patch, or the one after that won't make such changes? When a game takes likely over a year to play, it's at those moments that you start worrying two patches or more down the line. I mean, even if it's 4 patches later that code is changed, you're still restarting, and all the more painful it will be at such a late time.

[mogami]

Hi, You don't have to upgrade an existing game if the upgrade would require a restart.
Just make a new folder for the new version and use it for new games.
I think my opponenets are all happy with the way WITP currnetly is working I know I am. Still the new features and OB changes will be what I use for future games.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami


I think my opponenets are all happy with the way WITP currnetly is working I know I am.

You are happy with this game's current state? Land combat, logistics, naval combat, hyper pace of ops made possible by lack of any design limitations, etc....all this stuff does not disappoint?

Oh yeah, you were the one who said this game engine would be OK for a Mediterranean game. Russ, you are toooooooo bloody nice or something.[:D] Applying for a permanent position?[;)][:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

Being PC was not one of my New Years resolutions.[:D]

[mogami]

Hi, Yes I am happy. I recall a time before UV/WITP. Look I know the games weakness and my girlfriend is cross-eyed and bucktoothed but I still like her.
I'm a glass is half full person not a glass is half empty person.
The game works!!!! You can fight a good, fun war.
I limit myself I don't need more code. I'm sorry other people do. I'm sorry the designers have to write code so people will fight the war in the Pacific and not a great China war or Soviet-Japanese war. I'm sorry people exploit turn 1 movements and I'm sorry people don't give a hoot about their loss and venture out of their air cover. I'm sorry people try to out produce the USA with Japan and conduct rocket research in 1942. But it's not the games fault. If people have fun doing these things then the game isworking for them as well.
I don't expect the AI to be as smart as Von Manstein so rather then blow it's mind by invading India before I have a secure supply line through Burma I act like I am afraind of being caught.
And PBEM rocks so much.