Matrix Games Forums

I want to find out if my views are in the minority here.

Did you buy this game (or are you thinking of buying) primarily to:

1. Play against an AI that uses clever tactics, but which will play very differently from the historical human generals (for example, by giving up Minsk to defend further back), or

2. Play against an AI that gives you a reasonable facsimile of WW2 operational decisions, as per actual history (for example, by standing and fighting in 1941 even if a pocket is formed), or

3. Play PBEM vs. a human - anything goes.

Please post your thoughts.

I didn't really put that much thought into who or what I would be playing except that I did plan to break into PBEM with this title.

But, probably the AI, because with the full campaign, that will take a really long time PBEM.  So, probably 60# #1, 40% #3.

The 2nd one - well, I don't know exactly the tactics they used because I'm not a historian on WW2 from the Russian front.  It interests me but I'm not very learned on what or how they did it, just that the Germans took their shot then the Soviets counterattacked and the Germans couldn't handle it.

Definitely choice #1 for me. If I'm free to not make historical mistakes, then I feel that the AI should also be able to avoid them.

I bought a game what will reasonably recreate what it was to be "in Command" of the East front. As far as AI. I understand there are limitations. Because I would imagine it would be hard as the AI to decide when to go on the overall strategic offensive?

So I guess I would say a challenging AI that has realism, but is not tied into doing exactly what their real life counterpart did. After all, this is a simulation, that from the moment the first move was made, history was changed. (if that makes any sense).

I second stormbringer3. Surprise is the essence of warfare.

Considering how often people complain about the poor quality of AI in strategy games, it is strange to find someone complaining that the AI is too cunning, and not folding over and dying like it is "meant" to.

I would imagine that the Germans in 1941 also felt the Soviets weren't fighting the way they were supposed to - like the Poles and the French who had folded in a matter of weeks. They didn't know whether or not the Soviets would evacuate Minsk or retreat to the Dnepr, so why should you?

#2 for me [:)]

#2

#1 and #3 for me

1 and 2 for me. I play wargames against the AI only (so far), and I can live with more or less historicity.

Henri

#1 until I get the hang of things then move up to #3

Most of redmarkus' issues with the AI are found in a post by me in which I praised the AI. To be honest, it is very hard for me to answer that question.

I am still very much impressed by the AI, it is the best I have seen in such a huge game. But I do understand where you are coming from, as I am really divided myself. It feels weird to see such a defense in depth. It also seems really unrealistic for the Soviet's in 1941. On the other hand, it is giving me a tremendous game experience.

Here are a couple of thoughts:

a) For one, you said that you will go PBEM now. You will most probably not get any Soviet player to react like the real Soviets did. They will probably mostly employ a strategy like the Soviet AI does, which again goes to show just how good the AI is on defence.

b) I as the German player in this game/simulation have the benefit of hindsight. So does your Soviet PBEM partner. If I, as the German player get to avoid all the historic mistakes, not sending Guderian south, pushing extra for Leningrad and start preparing for Blizzard and avoiding Stalingrad or Kursk, I would surely win, wouldn't I? Would that not make playing kind of mood? Knowing, that the AI is exactly doing what the Soviets did in WW2, so I can easily use a blueprint to win?

c) I think if we have the Soviet AI defend like they did in history, we would easily achieve pockets even bigger than the Wehrmacht did in history. This again means that the AI would be a walkover or would need significant cheating/troops appearing out of nowhere to survive.

d) You cited board games like FITE as being able to realistically simulate the real thing. As far as I know, most Soviet players in FITE have avoided the big mistakes made by the Soviets in real life. The AI does the same here I think.

Again, not sure what I really think of this. This defence in depth just does not feel right when I face it. But it sure is a lot of fun. And I have only played 11 turns so far. Way too early for a final judgment.

#1 for me too.

AI for learning then on the PBEM, "anything goes" within the realm of historical capability.

AI first, then (a big exception: in Witp I ALWAYS avoided PBEM: thousands of turns = a huge commitment [;)]) PBEM, I guess [8D]

1 and 3 for sure... Player has benefit of hindsight and its not a re-enactment of the war in the east...

in other words - war is hell, deal with it *grins*

1 & 3 for me. Although, for now, I'm more in the #1 camp until I can get free time to commit to PBEM.

It would be impossible for an AI to match human cunning and the ability to learn patterns after repeated games. I do like an AI that puts up a good enough fight to make the game interesting. If the AI performs at least as well as a beginning human player then I'm content.

#3 this is where the game will really shine.

What if I bought the game AND tested it?[:D]

Thanks all.  My preference is for 2 and 3, but I see that 1 and 3 are the winners here.

FSP, I'm not saying that the AI should do everything as per history.  Obviously that wouldn't work as a game.  But in the early months it should be in major 'shock' and it's ability to make big strategic moves should be very limited IMHO. 

All I know is that I've never seen a Soviet AI behave like this, but I have played other War in Russia games where I couldn't take Moscow, Leningrad AND Stalingrad.

I'm playing multi now, so I will see how that goes.

#1 and #3.

Just an opinion: I don't think that #2 is even possible EXCEPT when done as seperate scenarios since the actions of the AI are inherently dependent on the path taken to the action decision point.