as I move along

[bo]

Moving along in the games I need to ask questions.
1-playing the Germans, it is may 1942 and it looks like an easy German victory, AI is good in close combat[&o] but other wise makes poor decisions, needs a pep talk.[:-]

2-Playing the allies, Germany as the AI did a decent job in defeating Poland, France, Denmark, Belguim, and the Netherlands, but it is now July 1941 and the allies are sitting around waiting for Germany to do something, I finally took off the FOW to see what is going on and lo and behold the Germans are sitting in the middle of France picking their noses and doing nothing WHAT GOES HERE? If you Wastelands are not going to improve the AI in this area what can I do to get the Germans moving. I am not complaining about the AI as I believe that no one to date in any computer war game can create an AI to match experienced wargamers, just not possible, too hard of a job and programmers just dont know enough to really improve it, not their fault, I believe the technology for a good AI is many years down the road. This is the absolute truth as I see it. Maybe just as well because I would hate to lose to a computers AI[:-]

Bo

[bo]

I just went back here to see if anyone could explain the lack luster performance of the German AI after they defeated France, shouldnt they be considering attacking England or the USSR? But what really annoys me about this particular forum TOW is lack of participation by forum members, I am not talking about the 10 or 12 of us who read the forums and try to assist other people in their problems with the game, same 10 or 12 every day every week every month. 51 people read my post and not one comment [not that I require a response or the post is good enough to respond to] I have seen other posts where hundreds have read a good post but maybe only 10 respond to it. You people who read and never respond shame on you! You may have great ideas about this game that Anraz and company might appreciate even if they cannot change what you would like to see done, suggestions should never be taken as a negative affront to the game but as a way of bringing new and fresh ideas that just maybe programmers might say wow I wish I thought of that. So you forum readers who never respond deserve what you get in a game, so get off of your duff crank up the keyboard and make yourself heard PLEASE!

Bo

[Wolfe1759]

ORIGINAL: bo

I just went back here to see if anyone could explain the lack luster performance of the German AI after they defeated France, shouldnt they be considering attacking England or the USSR? But what really annoys me about this particular forum TOW is lack of participation by forum members, I am not talking about the 10 or 12 of us who read the forums and try to assist other people in their problems with the game, same 10 or 12 every day every week every month. 51 people read my post and not one comment [not that I require a response or the post is good enough to respond to] I have seen other posts where hundreds have read a good post but maybe only 10 respond to it. You people who read and never respond shame on you! You may have great ideas about this game that Anraz and company might appreciate even if they cannot change what you would like to see done, suggestions should never be taken as a negative affront to the game but as a way of bringing new and fresh ideas that just maybe programmers might say wow I wish I thought of that. So you forum readers who never respond deserve what you get in a game, so get off of your duff crank up the keyboard and make yourself heard PLEASE!

Bo

Fair enough comment.

I personally had read but not responded to you initial post because I didn't feel that I've at this stage played ToW enough to really add a comment that would be either well informed or particularaly constructive, I haven't as yet experienced (or possibly noticed) a similar occurance or have any way to know if it is more than a one off instance.

I have pitched in and commented on the easy stuff such as interface, unit mods and some of the AI in the short scenarios where given a more limited amount of play an input can be made.

Again do think you make a fair comment but everybody should feel free to "lurk" as well as contribute.

[axisandallies]

IDK, Bo. I think this game was ment for you to play the Axis. I understand your point of view, the game needs a total overhaul. I bought this game knowing I would play the Germans. I enjoy this game so much, that even tho it is flawed it's still a good game. I'm happy with it. Matrix games thank you.

[sabre1]

Bo,

I'm still just lurking and not ready to buy yet. Too many irons in the fire, but I keep track just to see what is going on with the game. So sorry for lurking. [;)]

[cpdeyoung]

Road to Victory was almost scripted. Italy attacked France when Lille fell, war between the Soviet Union and Germany always happened by July 1941, Pearl Harbor, and America joining the Allies came right on schedule, and the Russian Winter of 1941-1942 was a brutal shock to the Germans and was the crisis of the game.

I think the developers tried to make this game more flexible. I have seen games where the AI (Axis) never attacks the USSR. I think the developers have moved to a model where there is a chance for Barbarossa to be "prepared for", and then it will happen a few turns later.

They may well take a look if enough games seem "stalled".

Chuck

[Mike Parker]

One thing I have noticed is that the AI seems (I say seems as this is just my own observation) to be passive when it doesn't have a goal.
 
For example I play Italy alot with the Germans as the AI, I notice that they do pretty darn good until France falls.  Then they sit around and do not much of anything puttering around with the entire bleepin wehrmacht in Occupied France.  Then when Yugo event or Greek event occurs they once more get a reason to do something.
 
I surmise that while the Axis AI has a foe (like France) that they get compelling reasons to go kill France.. even sometimes they batter their way through the Maginot rather than going through the low countries.  Then when France falls they see the UK but they know there is no way they can invade.. so their troops sit in France trying to invade England... but the naval resources never pop up.
 
Instead they should probably have something that tells them "Sealion aint happenin' go do something in the Balkans or go array yourself on the eastern front".  I would love to see the wehrmacht deploy in Austria/Czechoslovakia and then invade Yugoslavia.. or to go deploy in Poland or something.
 
I will sometimes go f11 them when they stall out and manually DOW somebody to get em moving.
 

[micheljq]

I played 2 games, one with Britain, it was challenging. I did the mistake to attack Vichy France in 1940 and ended up with a lot of german armor, infantry arriving in Syria, and pushing me until I lost Suez.

I did hold Cairo and there was many naval battles in Mediterrenean, finally in 1941, I was able to push back the Axis and retake Jerusalem. That game ended there because v.1.60 arrived.

I am playing another game as UK and USA, the 1941 scenario. It's september 1942, Paris is just liberated, Sicily is taken and I am advancing in southern Italy. I do not feel any challenge, USA has more than 10K PPs in reserve. I had some difficulties with the first landings in Sicily.

Also, I am puzzled I liberated Paris, but it does not trigger any event. Vichy is still there and neutral, I was asking myself if a Vichy collapse event will happen, as it did historically in august 1942.

[Manalishi]

I cant really say too much because I am still bumbling about trying to figure things out. I am playing as the Allies because I figure there are a lot of folks who will want a decent Allied opponent, so I want to learn them first. It is a bit of a load but that is okay. Plus I have a buddy who is already well into learning the ways and means of the Axis.
 
So, to be truthful, I dont really have too much to say about things just yet, although I am paying close attention to these forums. It is good to see a fair sized community for this game. My initial impression, based on gameplay and the words of this community, is that the game probably truly shines in multiplayer mode rather than solo. Grand strategy games of this size and scale tend to suffer from poor AI simply because programming an AI to account for all the possibilities is pretty darn hard to do. Making the multiplayer game balanced is, or ought to be, a greater priority.
 
One suggestion I have, with regard to air vs. naval in sea zones, is to maybe take the sea zone attack capability from the tactical bomber and give it to the strategic bomber instead. I offer this suggestion because, at the time, no one except the Japanese and maybe the Americans recognized the true potential of air power against surface ships at sea. I think the Royal Navy used air power as primarily a recon force at sea, and a ground support force against land targets. Germany certainly did not pursue any kind of naval air doctrine, and their tactical bombers were specifically trained for ground attack and high altitude bombing. By giving the naval attack capability to strategic bombers appears to solve this problem because Germany starts the game with no strategic bombers and therefore must build them at a pretty hefty price, which could potentially reflect the time and training required to actually develop and implement the doctrine. The UK starts with one strategic bomber, which could represent the fledgling ability of the Royal Navy to attack ships at sea, who has a slight advantage since they actually have aircraft carriers.
 
Its just an idea that I thought I would share that may or may not have some potential. It doesnt address the actual combat issues or anything so much as it mitigates their impact and places such operations into a more strategic category. Esentially, air power against naval vessels at sea becomes one more (expensive) goal to achieve, and one must actually plan and pursue such a goal, if desired.
 
Anyway, thats about all I have right now. I'll try to post more stuff as it becomes relevant. You guys are already doing a pretty bang up job and I enjoy reading your thoughts. Keep it up, and thanks!
 
&nbsp; <M>

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Wolfe

ORIGINAL: bo

I just went back here to see if anyone could explain the lack luster performance of the German AI after they defeated France, shouldnt they be considering attacking England or the USSR? But what really annoys me about this particular forum TOW is lack of participation by forum members, I am not talking about the 10 or 12 of us who read the forums and try to assist other people in their problems with the game, same 10 or 12 every day every week every month. 51 people read my post and not one comment [not that I require a response or the post is good enough to respond to] I have seen other posts where hundreds have read a good post but maybe only 10 respond to it. You people who read and never respond shame on you! You may have great ideas about this game that Anraz and company might appreciate even if they cannot change what you would like to see done, suggestions should never be taken as a negative affront to the game but as a way of bringing new and fresh ideas that just maybe programmers might say wow I wish I thought of that. So you forum readers who never respond deserve what you get in a game, so get off of your duff crank up the keyboard and make yourself heard PLEASE!

Bo

Fair enough comment.

I personally had read but not responded to you initial post because I didn't feel that I've at this stage played ToW enough to really add a comment that would be either well informed or particularaly constructive, I haven't as yet experienced (or possibly noticed) a similar occurance or have any way to know if it is more than a one off instance.

I have pitched in and commented on the easy stuff such as interface, unit mods and some of the AI in the short scenarios where given a more limited amount of play an input can be made.

Again do think you make a fair comment but everybody should feel free to "lurk" as well as contribute.

Hi Wolfe I was not referring to posters such as yourself, you are a contributor to these posts and everyone is allowed to "lurk" [love that word kind of scary] but I believe a lot of people who read these posts are leery for some reason to post, maybe they feel they dont have enough insight into the game to comment or maybe they are afraid to because someone will point out something they said as wrong and they will feel foolish, look at the number of people who read anyones post and then look at the number of people who respond to that post and then most of the posting is by the same people who answered the post and are posting back and forth to each other in that post. I think posting and answering posts does have some influence on the Wasteland's programmers, if no one had posted after this game was released do you actually believe there would have been a patch 1.60? This is not a knock on Anraz and company its just telling it like it is. Wastelands have been cooperative to players desires and probably will continue to do so but only if you let your feelings be known. I admit I dont answer a lot of posts because of the techinical language used and I dont feel qualified [poor excuse to not learn the language] to comment on some of the posts.

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Manalishi

I cant really say too much because I am still bumbling about trying to figure things out. I am playing as the Allies because I figure there are a lot of folks who will want a decent Allied opponent, so I want to learn them first. It is a bit of a load but that is okay. Plus I have a buddy who is already well into learning the ways and means of the Axis.

So, to be truthful, I dont really have too much to say about things just yet, although I am paying close attention to these forums. It is good to see a fair sized community for this game. My initial impression, based on gameplay and the words of this community, is that the game probably truly shines in multiplayer mode rather than solo. Grand strategy games of this size and scale tend to suffer from poor AI simply because programming an AI to account for all the possibilities is pretty darn hard to do. Making the multiplayer game balanced is, or ought to be, a greater priority.

One suggestion I have, with regard to air vs. naval in sea zones, is to maybe take the sea zone attack capability from the tactical bomber and give it to the strategic bomber instead. I offer this suggestion because, at the time, no one except the Japanese and maybe the Americans recognized the true potential of air power against surface ships at sea. I think the Royal Navy used air power as primarily a recon force at sea, and a ground support force against land targets. Germany certainly did not pursue any kind of naval air doctrine, and their tactical bombers were specifically trained for ground attack and high altitude bombing. By giving the naval attack capability to strategic bombers appears to solve this problem because Germany starts the game with no strategic bombers and therefore must build them at a pretty hefty price, which could potentially reflect the time and training required to actually develop and implement the doctrine. The UK starts with one strategic bomber, which could represent the fledgling ability of the Royal Navy to attack ships at sea, who has a slight advantage since they actually have aircraft carriers.

Its just an idea that I thought I would share that may or may not have some potential. It doesnt address the actual combat issues or anything so much as it mitigates their impact and places such operations into a more strategic category. Esentially, air power against naval vessels at sea becomes one more (expensive) goal to achieve, and one must actually plan and pursue such a goal, if desired.

Anyway, thats about all I have right now. I'll try to post more stuff as it becomes relevant. You guys are already doing a pretty bang up job and I enjoy reading your thoughts. Keep it up, and thanks!

<M>

For a guy whose bumbling around you sure put into this post a lot of good insight into this very good game, many poster will agree with everything you said here and believe me we are trully glad to hear from you.

Bo

[bo]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

One thing I have noticed is that the AI seems (I say seems as this is just my own observation) to be passive when it doesn't have a goal.

For example I play Italy alot with the Germans as the AI, I notice that they do pretty darn good until France falls.  Then they sit around and do not much of anything puttering around with the entire bleepin wehrmacht in Occupied France.  Then when Yugo event or Greek event occurs they once more get a reason to do something.

I surmise that while the Axis AI has a foe (like France) that they get compelling reasons to go kill France.. even sometimes they batter their way through the Maginot rather than going through the low countries.  Then when France falls they see the UK but they know there is no way they can invade.. so their troops sit in France trying to invade England... but the naval resources never pop up.

Instead they should probably have something that tells them "Sealion aint happenin' go do something in the Balkans or go array yourself on the eastern front".  I would love to see the wehrmacht deploy in Austria/Czechoslovakia and then invade Yugoslavia.. or to go deploy in Poland or something.

I will sometimes go f11 them when they stall out and manually DOW somebody to get em moving.

[/quote
Hi Mike glad to hear from you, maybe my big mistake was to not agree to the armitice when offered by the German AI, I continued to fight on as France and just maybe this confused the AI and did not allow it to make plans for England or Russia. Next time I will accept the German AI terms for a Vichy France and see what happens.

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: sabre1

Bo,

I'm still just lurking and not ready to buy yet. Too many irons in the fire, but I keep track just to see what is going on with the game. So sorry for lurking. [;)]

Evil lurker, boy what are we going to do with you, you should have been here for my first post WOW did I have to eat crow after that one, made a fool of myself, apoligized and moved on, the good posters here accepted my apology and I responded by trying to be more positive, but really Sabre 1 its a very well done game and truthfully there is not many out on the market of this caliber, the AI is a problem as in every game and may never be fine tuned by anybody, anywhere. I know never is a strong word but at my age never is a good word.

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: axisandallies

IDK, Bo. I think this game was ment for you to play the Axis. I understand your point of view, the game needs a total overhaul. I bought this game knowing I would play the Germans. I enjoy this game so much, that even tho it is flawed it's still a good game. I'm happy with it. Matrix games thank you.

A&A you had better read up on Mark Clark and the Anzio invasion and his failure to cut off the German units trying to get to Northen Italy and see if he was an Eagle or a tweety bird. I agree with the above but it is fun to play the allies now and then, I realize in all WW2 computer games throughout computer history it is more fun to play the Germans because it is the axis who sets the pace of the game.

Bo

[micheljq]

I agree with you Manalishi (what does Manalishi means?). The game must be better in multiplayer mode than solo I guess. But I think our opinions can affect the way it is developed, the devs could possibly improve the AI with time (they already did some improvement thank you). I like playing this game solo.
I also think of the modders who could with time do something with the AI.

ORIGINAL: Manalishi

I offer this suggestion because, at the time, no one except the Japanese and maybe the Americans recognized the true potential of air power against surface ships at sea. I think the Royal Navy used air power as primarily a recon force at sea, and a ground support force against land targets. Germany certainly did not pursue any kind of naval air doctrine, and their tactical bombers were specifically trained for ground attack and high altitude bombing. By giving the naval attack capability to strategic bombers appears to solve this problem because Germany starts the game with no strategic bombers and therefore must build them at a pretty hefty price, which could potentially reflect the time and training required to actually develop and implement the doctrine. The UK starts with one strategic bomber, which could represent the fledgling ability of the Royal Navy to attack ships at sea, who has a slight advantage since they actually have aircraft carriers.

Just want to say that I do not agree fully with this affirmation. Do not forget that the british developed a lot of aircraft carriers before and during the war, in fact Great Britain was the first major power to ever build an aircraft carrier. They had quite a naval-air doctrine, but maybe not the resources that USA had, and their primary use was in the European theater not in the Pacific.

The germans, had a naval-air doctrine, they did began the construction of 2 major aircraft carriers and 1 of their heavy cruisers, the Seydlitz, was supposed to be refitted as and aircraft carrier during his construction, none of those projects were finished however. Despite that, the Luftwaffe bombers were used a lot to attack the Royal Navy merchant fleet from Norway and France during all the war. As of the italians, they did also used their bombers to attack the allied fleets in the Mediterranean all during the war. When Italy surrendered, the country had 2 aircraft carriers in construction but that were not finished.

[axisandallies]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: axisandallies

IDK, Bo. I think this game was ment for you to play the Axis. I understand your point of view, the game needs a total overhaul. I bought this game knowing I would play the Germans. I enjoy this game so much, that even tho it is flawed it's still a good game. I'm happy with it. Matrix games thank you.

A&A you had better read up on Mark Clark and the Anzio invasion and his failure to cut off the German units trying to get to Northen Italy and see if he was an Eagle or a tweety bird. I agree with the above but it is fun to play the allies now and then, I realize in all WW2 computer games throughout computer history it is more fun to play the Germans because it is the axis who sets the pace of the game.

Bo

I credit that to German Leadership, maybe you should re-read that part of history.....

[bo]

ORIGINAL: axisandallies

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: axisandallies

IDK, Bo. I think this game was ment for you to play the Axis. I understand your point of view, the game needs a total overhaul. I bought this game knowing I would play the Germans. I enjoy this game so much, that even tho it is flawed it's still a good game. I'm happy with it. Matrix games thank you.

A&A you had better read up on Mark Clark and the Anzio invasion and his failure to cut off the German units trying to get to Northen Italy and see if he was an Eagle or a tweety bird. I agree with the above but it is fun to play the allies now and then, I realize in all WW2 computer games throughout computer history it is more fun to play the Germans because it is the axis who sets the pace of the game.

Bo

I credit that to German Leadership, maybe you should re-read that part of history.....

A&A I wish we could stay on topic but since I started on your hero I will try to finish, the invasion at Anzio was done to bypass the German strong points across the long boot of Italy and cut off all German retreat to the north but Clark decided against orders, to turn left and head towards Rome, he entered Rome on june 6th 1944 sound familiar that date? Please can we get back on topic.

Bo

[WarHunter]

Bo Said,

You may have great ideas about this game that Anraz and company might appreciate even if they cannot change what you would like to see done, suggestions should never be taken as a negative affront to the game but as a way of bringing new and fresh ideas that just maybe programmers might say wow I wish I thought of that.

My ideas.

A way to reorder the ships in a fleet after it is created.

No decimal. Keep the Whole numbers on the counters.

CV's with a CAP ability to intercept Land based Aircraft attacks into sea zones.

Land based Fighter units based in or adjactent to a port, the Ability to fly intercepts against Land based bombers attacking sea zones.

Recon ability into sea zones from Tactical and Strategic air units.

More AI only events that target geographic/city hexes to allow more aggressive flow into the mid game.

German naval AI to keep a minimum Baltic fleet of Ships and subs.

Air and Naval Leaders.

A chance for Leaders to be lost during the war. Replacement leaders available. &nbsp;

New unit called a "Battlegroup" or "Krampgroup". When a Corp sized unit is reduced to less than 1 strenght point, replace it with a unit which must be upgraded into a Division before another upgrade can build into a Corp.

Combined arms attack of Armor & Infantry, should have a chance to cause a retreat from "Field Forts" level 4 and below.

No Armor or Air units allowed in Mountain hexes.&nbsp;

[AH4Ever]

ORIGINAL: bo

Playing the Germans, May '42 and it looks like an easy German victory.

Playing the Allies, Germany as the AI did a decent job in defeating Poland, France, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands, but it is now July '41 and the Allies are
sitting around waiting for Germany to do something... The AI, I believe that no one to date in any computer war game [has created] an AI to match experienced war gamers ...I believe the technology for a good AI is many years down the road.

I agree that the AI is weak but the technology does exist, let's not forget "BIG BLUE". God only knows (and maybe Bill Gates) how much games and PC's would cost if AI was the driving factor of the Gaming Industry and not Graphics.

As for the quick victories that seem to be the norm when playing against the AI, I would love to play a game that goes the distance. That's why I feel the game needs more events, especially to deal with the situation after one of the Alliances is eliminated.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: AH4Ever

ORIGINAL: bo

Playing the Germans, May '42 and it looks like an easy German victory.

Playing the Allies, Germany as the AI did a decent job in defeating Poland, France, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands, but it is now July '41 and the Allies are
sitting around waiting for Germany to do something... The AI, I believe that no one to date in any computer war game [has created] an AI to match experienced war gamers ...I believe the technology for a good AI is many years down the road.

I agree that the AI is weak but the technology does exist, let's not forget "BIG BLUE". God only knows (and maybe Bill Gates) how much games and PC's would cost if AI was the driving factor of the Gaming Industry and not Graphics.

As for the quick victories that seem to be the norm when playing against the AI, I would love to play a game that goes the distance. That's why I feel the game needs more events, especially to deal with the situation after one of the Alliances is eliminated.

Right on AH totally agree with you, what you might not like me saying is I would be willing to pay any amount of money within reason to get a superb AI in a war game, you mention Big Blue I assume you mean IBM's chess playing abilities, that reminds me of a conversation I had with the programmers of computer 3rd Reich about their horrible AI,and how come chess games have terrific AI's, of course I was torn to shreds by them in a nice way about how a computer chess game is only 64 squares total and with all the moves that can be stored in memory of some of the greates chess players in history, it is easy for these computer chess game programmers, but a computer war game is thousands of hex's and with so many different combinations its impossible to even come anywhere near the AI of a chess game, But AH that was almost 20 years ago that conversation, and we are still pretty far away from solving this AI problem, who knows maybe some day it will happen and my grand children will enjoy the AI.

Bo