Matrix Games Forums

It seems to me that the lack of playing of Ostfront may mostly be due to its large size and complexity. So I have made this ...

Ostfront Deathmatch

This is a very non-historical scenario that uses the Ostfront SFTypes. The idea is to allow you to mess around with the units in the familiar environment of something not far removed from a randomly-generated scenario.

Notes:-

The map is much reduced, at 83x86 hexes.
The Railhead network is not present.
The historical OOB is completely removed. The only units present at start are the HQs and a few garrison units.
Most of the historical event code is removed, apart from the weather.
New units can be created.
PPs may not be produced but are provided every turn.
Research is not required, and all Itemtypes are available from the start
Victory is based on VPs, and VPs affect Morale.
There are far fewer production centres and they are all clustered together for convenience. These centres will not suffer damage from strategic bombing since they are "Invincible".
Axis Minor and other "chrome" has been removed.

Unfortunately, despite being a lot simpler this scenario remains an impossibility for the AI. However, inter-turn processing and general performance is much faster.

Download at http://cruft.mattybuoy.net/ostmatch.pt2

You will also need the graphics files which are contained in the full Ostfront 0.96 package available at the top of the thread - tm.asp?m=1767848

P.S. I would like to play this if anyone is interested.

Ditto what Rik81 said on the other thread... impressive stuff.  This is a good, balanced and managable scenario for players to have a casual game without too many units.  Enough to get them into the system to then try your monster scenario.  Or on their own maybe tinker and make other battles... BvB  Salute!

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

It seems to me that the lack of playing of Ostfront may mostly be due to its large size and complexity. So I have made this ...

Ostfront Deathmatch

This is a very non-historical scenario that uses the Ostfront SFTypes. The idea is to allow you to mess around with the units in the familiar environment of something not far removed from a randomly-generated scenario.

Notes:-

The map is much reduced, at 83x86 hexes.
The Railhead network is not present.
The historical OOB is completely removed. The only units present at start are the HQs and a few garrison units.
Most of the historical event code is removed, apart from the weather.
New units can be created.
PPs may not be produced but are provided every turn.
Research is not required, and all Itemtypes are available from the start
Victory is based on VPs, and VPs affect Morale.
There are far fewer production centres and they are all clustered together for convenience. These centres will not suffer damage from strategic bombing since they are "Invincible".
Axis Minor and other "chrome" has been removed.

Unfortunately, despite being a lot simpler this scenario remains an impossibility for the AI. However, inter-turn processing and general performance is much faster.

Download at http://cruft.mattybuoy.net/ostmatch.pt2

You will also need the graphics files which are contained in the full Ostfront 0.96 package available at the top of the thread - tm.asp?m=1767848

P.S. I would like to play this if anyone is interested.

Speaking personally, it's the lack of AI that keeps me from checking it out. I haven't yet played against a human and I'm not particularly eager to.

I agree with Jeffrey H. here. There should be a poll on this matter, do you play AT against a human opponent or the AI?  I suspect the vast majority, 85% or so, plays against the AI. Because of the obvious reasons, the AI is patient. A bit dumb, but patient.

Yes. That's true for me too.
I LOVE Ostfront scenario! But I don't have enough time to engage human opponent. I play casualy during my free time. So AI is a must.

I tried Ostfront 0.96 - it's not a monster, just a lovely, cute scenario with proper equipment base and good map.
But even if editor allowed me to set AI in Ostfront scenario, it can't passe AI'"step 3".

And without AI - it's only beautiful but useless experience.

ORIGINAL: Joshuatree

I agree with Jeffrey H. here. There should be a poll on this matter, do you play AT against a human opponent or the AI?  I suspect the vast majority, 85% or so, plays against the AI. Because of the obvious reasons, the AI is patient. A bit dumb, but patient.

And it's always there waiting for you. And it's ego doesn't get in the way of having fun, it doesn't gloat when it discovers how dumb you are, it doesn't cheat in ways you don't understand or at least it doesn't bother you so much when you find that it has been cheating.

I'm sure there are other reasons but those are some of mine. I know it's nothing compared to a real live thinking human but given the peculiarities of the latter, it's a decent trade off.

ORIGINAL: Joshuatree
There should be a poll on this matter, do you play AT against a human opponent or the AI?

ORIGINAL: Hanti
So AI is a must.
And without AI - it's only beautiful but useless experience.

Well, I assume your opinions have been noted, but for this one you have but three choices: 1) Get the Captain to make an AI version (which will not be easy, not for the Captain, but for AT that is not geared for these type of scenarios vs AI), 2) Get someone else (yourself?) to make an AI version (same constraints as for all of us. AT AI will not easily manage these type of scenarios) or finally 3) Skip this scenario (Not a fun option!)

BTW, what should the result of the poll be used for? AT can already do both PBEM and AI, so it's not like Vic would design out one of the options, and the scenario designers are free to choose how they optimize their scenarios regardless of what the poll would say? Myself? I play both AI and PBEM, but mainly AI due to RL issues like work, family and more work... But right now, I'm honestly mostly tweaking the excellent Third Reich scenario (vs AI btw).

Just to clarify.

This is not Human Only out of prejudice, it just won't work with the AI due to being too different. Nothing I can do.

It's not that I (we?) accuse you of prejudice. It's just that I feel that AI capable scenario will be far more popular. You asked why only so little number of people plays Ostfront. It's because it's BIG scenario (time consuming) AND it' only PBEM scenario.
One thing you can't change - it's size of it (to preserve scale).

Why do you and Widell say it's difficult/impossible for AI?
What is so specific that makes it AI uncapable?
Is that unmobile HQs that kills AI?


PS: What about masterfile of Ostfront that will make possible random games against AI (with all those units and specialised factories) on random maps?

Since I do not have the code I don't know why the AI fails to work, but I am sure I can do nothing about it. The editor does not allow you to re-program the AI in any meaningful way.

As to the masterfile idea, this was initially my plan but it caused too many problems so I had to ditch it. My motivation was to create an Eastern Front scenario that I wanted to play, not produce an AT "enhancement module". That's not my job.

To be honest it is something of a miracle that I managed to create this scenario at all. The editor has some serious problems when you stretch it like this, and I spent a lot of time dealing with referential integrity bugs of one kind and another.

@ Widell
 
Well the results of a poll could show that 30/50/80% of the AT players play against AI because of RL issues. If the majority of players would really, really appreciate an improved AI then the developers could spend maybe a "little" [;)] more time on the AI. I'm not saying the AI is bad... but it ain't brilliant either. I guess that a better and improved AI would also mean higher AT sales.
I mean, it would be really something if the AI would be able to cope with the scenarios Captain Cruft made [&o]

ORIGINAL: Hanti
It's just that I feel that AI capable scenario will be far more popular.

This is a tough one to judge, but I assume that measuring by # of downloads, then yes. Measured by forum activity, I think PBEM is the most valuable.

ORIGINAL: Joshuatree
Well the results of a poll could show that 30/50/80% of the AT players play against AI because of RL issues.

The result is most likely in the 60 to 80% range in reality, but, and this was discussed in other forums as well, it's the people that voice their opinions that will have an impact on future development, and the PBEM'ers have a track record of being very active both playing and designing scenarios. Again, just as a reminder, I do all three (AI, PBEM, scenario design), so I'm not speaking for or against anything. Given that, the result of the poll would indicate what the players frequenting this site wants, and that might well be in the 20 to 40% range?

Finally, look at WitP, where you are more or less obliged to make a huge commitment in time and effort to finish one of the bigger scenarios, and still it's happening. I guess the reluctance to play this kind of scenario is more related to the current customer base of AT then anything else. If this and the monster version of it could be integrated in the official release of AT and the game marketed with that information, it would attract that type of player, and aka the activity would increase. Look at TOAW where most of the discussions are focused around monster scenarios like DNO, FitE and the Vietnam scenarios.

ORIGINAL: Joshuatree
If the majority of players would really, really appreciate an improved AI then the developers could spend maybe a "little" [;)] more time on the AI. I'm not saying the AI is bad... but it ain't brilliant either. I guess that a better and improved AI would also mean higher AT sales.
I mean, it would be really something if the AI would be able to cope with the scenarios Captain Cruft made [&o]

I think we all want a "better" AI, but that is a huge, huge undertaking for Vic (or anyone else) to do. Look at HTTR and COTA which I consider having the most challenging AI right now even if the concepts is totally different vs AT, the amount of time the developers have put into that development is most likely the majority of the time spent on the whole project. Maybe 80% of the effort goes into making sure the AI can cope with any new feature introduced.

That being said, if AT could cope with these kind of scenarios in the future, would be absolutely amazing!

ORIGINAL: Hanti
Why do you and Widell say it's difficult/impossible for AI?
What is so specific that makes it AI uncapable?

Just as Captain Cruft said, this goes beyond what was initially intended for the AI to deal with, and just guessing as an amateur scenario designer, it has to do with the number of SFTypes and how to utilize that in an efficient way. I'm also assuming transforming Action Cards into Events is hard to balance for the AI.

I'm struggling with similar problems when making my own version of the Third Reich scenario. It's fine with SFTypes and complex research trees for the Human side, but for the AI, it needs to be fairly straightforward, and having said that, the Third Reich scenario is not even close to what the Captain has done here.

Yeah I know, we all want a better AI... it was just wishfull thinking on my side. Then again, we can still hope one day the AI *will* be able to do a surprise paradrop combined with an armored pincer movement... sigh.

Your scenario is interesting.Your moral idea is good.The upgrades in cities is sure correct.
But for the gamer a lot of work.

But is only one. The artillery option consumes always all AP´s.Therefore it is not to be combined possible Ari with other weapons.I find that really stupid.It would be could adjust me dearly that one.With Ari shoot, attack and advance.
That is however only a general determination and has nothing with your good scenario to do.

V.

The artillery is separate now. If you look at the actual scenario not the old screenshots.

For those that only play the AI, you could do this like many of us did in the old board wargame days -- play against yourself.  This game is so huge that you may well forget what the other side was doing by the time you get around to doing each side's turn.  The other option is take a chance and find a human opponent that is laid back and in no hurry.  That way you can relax and do your turn at your own pace and that opponent wont push you for turns if real life gets in the way.
This deathmatch scenario will not overwhelm you with units, so it may be easier for one to get familiar with the scenario. Then when you feel comfortable step up to the .96 version... with enough interest and encouragement, maybe someday the captain will be willing to see this through... salute!  BvB

ORIGINAL: BvB

For those that only play the AI, you could do this like many of us did in the old board wargame days -- play against yourself.  This game is so huge that you may well forget what the other side was doing by the time you get around to doing each side's turn.  The other option is take a chance and find a human opponent that is laid back and in no hurry.  That way you can relax and do your turn at your own pace and that opponent wont push you for turns if real life gets in the way.
This deathmatch scenario will not overwhelm you with units, so it may be easier for one to get familiar with the scenario. Then when you feel comfortable step up to the .96 version... with enough interest and encouragement, maybe someday the captain will be willing to see this through... salute!  BvB

True...I hadn't thought of that.

Diving in here late - where can one download the 'original' Ostfront scenario?

I found this and since it covers much of the same ground I'm working on and looks interesting, tried the download link. No good. Is this why not many people play original Ostfront? I never even found mention of it till I started trawling the forum.

ORIGINAL: BK6583

Diving in here late - where can one download the 'original' Ostfront scenario?

Bk,

It's in the Scneario Bank on the approved list of scenarios on the community site (pretty far down the list, it's been there for a while now).

http://www.advancedtactics.org/

Rick