Jap Player running turn multiple times

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
Kereguelen
Posts: 1454
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 9:08 pm

RE: Jap Player running turn multiple times

Post by Kereguelen »

ORIGINAL: DD696

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.

Hi,

this has been said before by Joe W. and (of course) remains true: The AI has been given priority for the AE-Team for some months now. And the team (actually the programmers, spending many sleepless nights) did many changes that are currently being tested. Ostensibly this was not possible before because it did not make much sense to test certain things before code-changes were done. Quite simple.

K
Yamato hugger
Posts: 3791
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Jap Player running turn multiple times

Post by Yamato hugger »

ORIGINAL: 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.

I dont work for Matrix or 2x3 Games. I am not compensated in any way shape or form. I do it because I know the system and I want to see the game get better. I do not have access to the code. Therefore I dont have the ability to insert checks in the code to see what the AI is actually doing, and thus I dont "test" using the AI nor do I "test" the AI.

I have no intention or desire to "prove" anything to you. If you want to understand how computers and computer programs work, I suggest you sign up for some classes so you can understand it better. Because clearly you dont understand what it is you are trying to argue about.

I dont test AIs. I was a tester for Avalon Hills Third Reich and all they wanted from us was to test the AI. In dozens of games the AI never once threw me out of France even. IMHO (which means in MY humble opinion) AIs are good to learn the mechanics of a game. I personally have never found one to be a challenge in any game.

As far as "we should all be expected to bow to your knowledge and abilities" I dont give a crap what you do. I dont care for 1 second if you choose to listen to me or not frankly.
User avatar
VSWG
Posts: 3217
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Jap Player running turn multiple times

Post by VSWG »

ORIGINAL: 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.
These parts of the code aren't called AI, they are just game mechanics. When Yamato Hugger talks about the AI, he means the tactical and strategic decisions made by a computer opponent.

It really doesn't make sense to test the AI before the game mechanics are working, and these are best tested in a head-to-head game, so that the tester can controll all variables, on both sides.
Image
User avatar
Gem35
Posts: 3420
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 7:51 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas

RE: Jap Player running turn multiple times

Post by Gem35 »

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Glad to hear it. No clue what you are talking about, but congrats.
Eveyone has heard of the The AE- Team[8D]
It doesn't make any sense, Admiral. Were we better than the Japanese or just luckier?

[center]Image[/center]
[center]Banner By Feurer Krieg[/center]
DD696
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 12:57 pm
Location: near Savannah, Ga

RE: Jap Player running turn multiple times

Post by DD696 »

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: 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.

I dont work for Matrix or 2x3 Games. I am not compensated in any way shape or form. I do it because I know the system and I want to see the game get better. I do not have access to the code. Therefore I dont have the ability to insert checks in the code to see what the AI is actually doing, and thus I dont "test" using the AI nor do I "test" the AI.

I have no intention or desire to "prove" anything to you. If you want to understand how computers and computer programs work, I suggest you sign up for some classes so you can understand it better. Because clearly you dont understand what it is you are trying to argue about.

I dont test AIs. I was a tester for Avalon Hills Third Reich and all they wanted from us was to test the AI. In dozens of games the AI never once threw me out of France even. IMHO (which means in MY humble opinion) AIs are good to learn the mechanics of a game. I personally have never found one to be a challenge in any game.

As far as "we should all be expected to bow to your knowledge and abilities" I dont give a crap what you do. I dont care for 1 second if you choose to listen to me or not frankly.

I worked for a good many years as a senior systems analyst, before that as a systems analyst, senior programmer and programmer. I have no need to go to school to learn about computers and programs.....been there, done that. Have a nice day.
USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
whippleofd
Posts: 617
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:40 am

RE: Jap Player running turn multiple times

Post by whippleofd »

RTLFC

IBTL
MMCS(SW/AW) 1981-2001
1981 RTC, SD
81-82 NPS, Orlando
82-85 NPTU, Idaho Falls
85-90 USS Truxtun (CGN-35)
90-93 USS George Washington (CVN-73)
93-96 NFAS Orlando
96-01 Navsea-08/Naval Reactors
User avatar
pompack
Posts: 2585
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 1:44 am
Location: University Park, Texas

RE: Jap Player running turn multiple times

Post by pompack »

ORIGINAL: Whipple

RTLFC

IBTL


well said! I think [&:]
whippleofd
Posts: 617
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:40 am

RE: Jap Player running turn multiple times

Post by whippleofd »

ORIGINAL: pompack

ORIGINAL: Whipple

RTLFC

IBTL


well said! I think [&:]

Replying to last for convience.

In before the lock.

Whipple
MMCS(SW/AW) 1981-2001
1981 RTC, SD
81-82 NPS, Orlando
82-85 NPTU, Idaho Falls
85-90 USS Truxtun (CGN-35)
90-93 USS George Washington (CVN-73)
93-96 NFAS Orlando
96-01 Navsea-08/Naval Reactors
User avatar
aciddrinker
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:03 pm
Location: Poland

RE: Jap Player running turn multiple times

Post by aciddrinker »

running turn multiple times

I my suggestion's:
1) Japan player making moves
2) Execute
3) And now: some 3rd party program(or some mod in game) automatically save (pre-selected in options) files and auto send to opposing side.
4) Same for Ally.
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”