My impression of the game after my first real game

[Glabro]

After my initial practise game with China, I was ready to try my hand as the Japanese in a game with no time limit or autovictory (I actually had it on and scored it, but found the war to be completely undecided at that point so switched it off and played on).

For the majority of my gaming time, I was truly excited and played with the "one more turn" mentality into the wee hours.

However, towards the end, the cans of worms started opening...Firstly, for some reason, after being defeated and surrounded in Moscow with a large army, the Soviets spent about a minute each turn not doing anything but wasting my time. The Germans didn´t seem to want to try and take it, and kept very small garrisons (eventually abandoning garrisoning the regions next to Moscow altogether) while the 30+ units in Moscow just sat there turn after turn, even as the Germans and the Western allies were deadlocked in the West as neither side seemed to want to attack each other for years...however, the Germans were losing the battle of attrition.

I as the Japanese had conquered the Soviet Union as far as the Urals, and had taken the resource-giving regions of the Pacific, as well as Pearl Harbor. The US naval AI seemed to be unwilling to attack me to take back Hawaii (let alone try striking at Japan itself, even though I had no garrison there which they could clearly see with their subs) with their mighty fleets far superior to mine, and each turn I chipped some off with my well developed carrier airgroups (plus land-based air units from Hawaii).

I wanted to go and help the Germans, so I developed my infantry to a superior level, and utterly crushed the commonwealth defenders of India with no casualties. I built up the transport fleets (and kept losing them to American subs until I had enough of an anti-sub fleet to kill them off) and soon had taken Africa and had entered the Mediterranean. I easily took the undefended Gibraltar and Malta, and landed on the undefended Western France (the huge allied army was in Western Germany). The allies seemed unwilling to want to use their armies let alone their large air force in England to bombard me, so I gradually started building up the infantry there as well as constantly researched both evasion and land attack. Eventually I had 40ish units there, and both evasion and attack at 10 (the Western Allies were at 8 each), and advanced eastwards to help the Germans. To my surprise, the huge allied army (140ish units) didn´t react to this at all. So, I decided to attack them, and the result....40 dead allied units, 0 dead my units. I was utterly stunned. A difference of two points on the evasion and land attack values meant that the western allied armies were totally powerless against me? I really had no need to build or research those silly artillery, flak etc, they were unnecessary. I attacked them again, and killed off a similar amount of allies with them causing 0 casualties in return. The Germans decided to attack as well, and drove the survivors to Denmark (30 units or so). Unsurprisingly, the Germans were unwilling to finish off those units in Denmark and thus free up their army for other purposes, but I guess that´s the AI again...
It was very simple to take Britain, as I sneaked my transports to the night undefended Scotland, as the RAF clearly still didn´t want to attack my units (the western allies airforce in England was pretty damn large), so thus I took England.

I had earlier on taken South America and the Panama Canal, and the Americans didn´t want to retake any of that, either. So, I landed in Panama with my army, attacked Mexico, and drove up and invaded the US with impunity, again killing 200ish units in the combats with no casualties in return, always with a numerically inferior army (about 1:3). I really didn´t feel like playing any more at that point...

While I do realize the importance of technological advances, surely despite superior weaponry and doctrines you would suffer casualties when you attack a very much numerically superior opponent? Especially as we´re talking about a difference of 2 or 3 levels each....

This problem is the same as in the ol´ Strategic Command, where teching up to be superior in the air meant you would dominate the skies with impunity no matter what, and win the war because of it.

My second problem was the serious lack of aggressiveness and initiative on part of the AI. Seems like they won´t do anything they´re not specifically scripted to do, like invading Italy and Normandy...they won´t use an opportunity to attack the enemy where he is the weakest, or where they´d gain the most.
This problem could be solved by simply playing only PBEM...but I really dislike how in PBEM, you are forced to MANUALLY go and do the mail message, put the save file attachment there, while the recipient has the hassle of receiving and putting each and every file in the save folder...I realize this is how PBEM has always been, but by the gods, why couldn´t I simply type the e-mail address of the recipient IN-GAME, and let the game worry about the hassle of moving save files? Oh well, I guess it´s impossible...

My final gripe was the supply system (I did play with Simple supply, but the points stand regardless). Armies cost money and resources not only to operate, but to MAINTAIN. They don´t just gobble up resources on the march or when fighting, but maintaining huge armies is expensive business. Currently the game only charges you for movement. This wouldn´t be so bad, but for the horrible expenses of moving fleets (although this wasn´t a problem for me in the late game, early on it was). Perhaps it is indeed realistic that fleets out on the sea but not moving cost nothing, but moving uses exorbitant amounts of resources in fuel....I wouldn´t know.

But the real problem is conquering territories : garrisons cost nothing at all to maintain, and most of my conquered territories didn´t even require a garrison! So basically, maintaining a recently-conquered world wide imperium is totally free. There´s 0 costs associated with maintaining your hold on conquered territories, and 0 chance of the conquered territory simply revolting because there is no garrison. While I do understand that in the macro scale of the game, such insignifigant garrisons such as one division of static troops (which wouldn´t be enough to be represented as a unit on the map in the game) are simply ignored, the fact that it´s completely safe & free is rather silly. Even the provinces with population that you leave without a garrison never revolt, the partisans just keep trying to harm the infrastructure in the province.

Those are my gripes. How is the community here, and perhaps even the developers, respond to my issues and perhaps allow me to get back to enjoying the game? As it is, I really want to like it, seeing as I spent money on it, but I cannot ignore these issues...

[Oleg Mastruko]

You did all that as Japanese? Please post the screenshot [:D]

What AI level was that, what supply rules did you use, and what - if any - handicaps for the AI?

And, finally, what was the final result of the game? AI is usually fairly aggressive towards provinces that have something, but regularly ignores areas with no resources and/or industra, which may explain your perceived lack of aggressiveness, at least to a degree.

Sorry if you already answered above questions, obviously I missed it (if you did).

O.

[aletoledo]

almost all very good points and honest.

However, towards the end, the cans of worms started opening...Firstly, for some reason, after being defeated and surrounded in Moscow with a large army, the Soviets spent about a minute each turn not doing anything but wasting my time. The Germans didn´t seem to want to try and take it, and kept very small garrisons (eventually abandoning garrisoning the regions next to Moscow altogether) while the 30+ units in Moscow just sat there turn after turn, even as the Germans and the Western allies were deadlocked in the West as neither side seemed to want to attack each other for years...however, the Germans were losing the battle of attrition.

I had one game as the WA, my PBEM opponent was japan and the AI was china. at one point the chinese had 18 units next to a 2 unit miltia occupied province. they had plenty of supply, but never attacked. it really was frustrated, but it made no sense not to harass the japs, since they were pushing into russia at the time. I suppose its not easy to program any games AI though.

But the real problem is conquering territories : garrisons cost nothing at all to maintain, and most of my conquered territories didn´t even require a garrison!

thats not true. every garrison location requires one supply per turn.

you other points about supply are valid, but there is only so much you can put into one game. I like the current supply system , its not too complicated to understand and (with advanced supply) can still affect combat significantly.

overall it sounds like you really strecthed the AI past what it was meant to play. it sound like you turned autovictory off and set no-end date. I think the AI will play fairly well within a game that has a 1946 end date, but if your game is going to go on for 10 years, I think its hard to program an AI to fight against every unusual scenario that can occur in such a long game.

[Rattlehead2005]

ORIGINAL: aletoledo



overall it sounds like you really strecthed the AI past what it was meant to play. it sound like you turned autovictory off and set no-end date. I think the AI will play fairly well within a game that has a 1946 end date, but if your game is going to go on for 10 years, I think its hard to program an AI to fight against every unusual scenario that can occur in such a long game.

See this is something that troubles me. Before this game came out, and the AAR's where still being submitted, i asked how was the replayability factor. My response(as i really dont feel like looking for the actual post) was, its high. How do they figure this? If the AI is so scripted, as it obviously is. I mean think about it, after you have beat the AI with all playable sides, whats left? My main problem so far is, i STILL can't get past 1946+ without some sort of freeze up and crash. Which i have sent in a saved game, and i am still waiting for a response in e-mail. So it seems the only thing left, after you have played the "scripted scenario's" to death, is...........PBEM? Mods? hmmm lets see...I absolutely hate the PBEM option(which is jus my personal opinion) and Mods are NOT all that easy to work with such a "scripted" game. Don't get me wrong, i really like the game, jus i am frustrated at the level of replay factor involved. Oh well mabey something can be done in next patch to address this. Untill then i stand "MUTE" in playing this game.

[Glabro]

A screenshot? Whaddyamean, you won´t take my word for it? *sigh*, okay, here it is.

.....AI level? You mean there´s a switch for the AI level? Damn! Well, I can´t find it....

As I said, simple supply (was my first real game after all) and no handicaps for the AI, it was essentially a normal game, except I gave myself the same rail transport capacity as the AI - I didn´t see any reason why the should have any more than I do!

The final result I described in my post. I conquered the world, except Germany had most of Europe.

[Glabro]

thats not true. every garrison location requires one supply per turn.

Glad to hear that, at least...but what do you mean by a "garrison location" ? A location with any size army in it? Any conquered province?

overall it sounds like you really strecthed the AI past what it was meant to play. it sound like you turned autovictory off and set no-end date. I think the AI will play fairly well within a game that has a 1946 end date, but if your game is going to go on for 10 years, I think its hard to program an AI to fight against every unusual scenario that can occur in such a long game.

Well, for starters, I hate arbitrary turn limits in most games. Secondly, I had autovictory on, but was completely baffled to see it turn up at the point after Russia had fallen and I´d taken the Philippines and most of China. The WA were VERY much into the fight at that point, and were even beating back the Germans in Europe, as well as making my naval life a hell with subs (I had not researched anti-sub techs enough). While it´s understandable that the US might have backed out and sued for a peace at that point, that´d have meant abandoning the rest of the world to the Axis....

But my main point still remains the research issue. If you single-mindedly develop your "infantry", you will be able to defeat anyone with impunity on land, while taking 0 casualties. That just doesn´t sound right...with such small differences as 2 or 3 levels.

[Glabro]

ORIGINAL: aletoledo

overall it sounds like you really strecthed the AI past what it was meant to play. it sound like you turned autovictory off and set no-end date. I think the AI will play fairly well within a game that has a 1946 end date, but if your game is going to go on for 10 years, I think its hard to program an AI to fight against every unusual scenario that can occur in such a long game.

While I don´t know much about AI-scripting, I would suppose you could make it more "generic" instead of being scripted to do a number or particular things. Other games have had AIs that actually DO attack enemy troops appearing in their vicinity, or trying to retake their lost territories, or, gods forbid, attack enemy areas that are not at all defended if there are resources to be gained by doing so.

The fact that the RAF left me totally in peace was baffling. It could have sunk my ships with impunity.

Perhaps the AI didn´t buy supplies?

Oh well. But if the research thing is not addressed, there´s no redeeming the game in my eyes...against a human opponent who could react to you researching your infantry and doing likewise to keep up, at least it´d be possible to play...still, it´s far too powerful.

[Grotius]

The AI has played differently against me in every game. And it plays tougher on the higher difficulty levels -- probably just because it has more supply and transport capacity and thus can afford to be more aggressive.

Of course, no AI compares to a human opponent, and there are plenty to be had here in this forum. PBEM games whiz along nicely.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Glabro
A screenshot? Whaddyamean, you won´t take my word for it? *sigh*, okay, here it is.

I would take your word, but just wanted to see UK painted japanese-red [:D] I never saw it myself.

As I said, simple supply (was my first real game after all) and no handicaps for the AI, it was essentially a normal game, except I gave myself the same rail transport capacity as the AI - I didn´t see any reason why the should have any more than I do!

Ah, there goes good part of your magic [:D]

Time to turn the settings to harder level or try PBEM.

O.

[Oleg Mastruko]

And another thing - do I see Fall of **1955.** on your screenshot? [X(][X(]

Well, glad you enjoyed the game, but all your post proves is that with "no time limit" and fairly easy settings, Japanese human player can beat any AI entity on the map. No wonder....

O.

[Joel Billings]

In GGWaW, a 1 point research edge is meaningful, a 2 point edge is superiority that in some cases can be decisive, and a 3 point edge will lead to total domination. The computer attempts to counter a lot of its opponents research, but it's only so smart. Usually if it is something the computer cares about, it doesn't want to fall more than 1 point behind without trying to catch up. There is a lot of scripting in the AI, but there are also more generic routines as well. If you are looking for a challenging game, you need to give the computer an edge (not yourself) and play with Fog of War, Advanced Supply and at least at the Challenging Level. Once you really understand the system, you should be at least at the hard level. The game has a lot of replayability if you give it an edge. If you're a good player, which it sounds like you are, I can't imagine how you expect it to be as good as you without giving it some advantages. One of the strengths of GGWaW is that we give you a lot of options (production, reserach, tactics, strategy), but that means the job of making the AI keep up with a human mind that much more challenging.

Also, it sounds like we should have been more clear that the AI is intended to give you a good game playing the standard game (with turn limits). We added the no turn limit option mostly for those wanting to set up new scenarios or those wanting to play head to head with a bidding system that would allow players to self-balance these games. The standard scenarios are balanced for games using the turn limits, and the AI has been programmed with the standard turn limits in mind.

So my suggestion to you is crank up the difficulty level and add some of the other options like FOW and Advanced Supplies and play with the turn limits. This should provide many challenging games especially as you try the different nations. I have never played a computer wargame that didn't need some kind of help in order to keep the game interesting. Either the game was cheating in a way that was obvious (like in GGWaW where we tell you the modifications), or it was cheating in a way that was hidden. I hope you'll find a way to enjoy the game.


As for the person that was getting crashes after 1946, I got the email you sent me but was unable to use the file. I sent an email back asking for information on how to use the file. Please respond to the email and hopefully you can get me a save file that I can test out. We certainly want to fix any crash we can confirm.

[Alan_Bernardo]

The guy might be playing on easy and giving the AI handicapps galore.

My first game was on easy, seeing that I wanted to get used to the system and what works well against what. As of the Fall of '46, Germany is barely hanging on and the WA (myself) is tearing across the Pacific, nearing Tokyo.

Though I am in no position to say what might or might not be wrong with GGWaW, it seems Galbro might be stretching things a bit with his "as the Germans and the Western allies were deadlocked in the West as neither side seemed to want to attack each other for years...however, the Germans were losing the battle of attrition."

Was that about 16 turns? Seems hardly likely but then who knows what happens once WaW is strung out way beyond 1946.

More of the same was "and drove up and invaded the US with impunity, again killing 200ish units in the combats with no casualties in return, always with a numerically inferior army (about 1:3)."

Killing 200 units? Doubtful. Don't know.

Then there was this "AI level? You mean there´s a switch for the AI level? Damn! Well, I can´t find it...."

Strange. That' the first thing that I looked for, was AI level. I knew from the past that I didn't have a wealth of experience in WaW types of games, so I was looking for some easy play at first.

Default level is "normal", I believe. So Galbro probably was playing on normal, if he didn't know about the AI level.

Two things I learned from Galbro's posts. One, he loves hyperbole. And two, I don't think GGWaW was meant to go very much beyond 1946.

Maybe the latter issue could be explored further when it comes time for the next patch.


Alanb

[ravinhood]

Well if you buy games for the play against the AI alone, you're in for a long road of pretty unsatisfying games. GGWAW is a PBEMers dream game come true. But, of course I wouldn't expect the AI to be extremely challenging. I don't see many AI's today that are.

I could list you a horde of games with lousy AI's, but, are great multiplayer/PBEM fun. But, I can probably list on one hand the number of games with an AI that provides challenge from beginning to end.

I'll be playing GGWAW for the PBEM ability and get years and years of enjoyment out of it because this one looks like a very popular PBEM game and it doesn't take a year to play out a game like WITP will I bet. heh

[Warspite3]

ORIGINAL: Glabro

After my initial practise game with China, I was ready to try my hand as the Japanese in a game with no time limit or autovictory (I actually had it on and scored it, but found the war to be completely undecided at that point so switched it off and played on).

For the majority of my gaming time, I was truly excited and played with the "one more turn" mentality into the wee hours.

However, towards the end, the cans of worms started opening...Firstly, for some reason, after being defeated and surrounded in Moscow with a large army, the Soviets spent about a minute each turn not doing anything but wasting my time. The Germans didn´t seem to want to try and take it, and kept very small garrisons (eventually abandoning garrisoning the regions next to Moscow altogether) while the 30+ units in Moscow just sat there turn after turn, even as the Germans and the Western allies were deadlocked in the West as neither side seemed to want to attack each other for years...however, the Germans were losing the battle of attrition.

I as the Japanese had conquered the Soviet Union as far as the Urals, and had taken the resource-giving regions of the Pacific, as well as Pearl Harbor. The US naval AI seemed to be unwilling to attack me to take back Hawaii (let alone try striking at Japan itself, even though I had no garrison there which they could clearly see with their subs) with their mighty fleets far superior to mine, and each turn I chipped some off with my well developed carrier airgroups (plus land-based air units from Hawaii).

I wanted to go and help the Germans, so I developed my infantry to a superior level, and utterly crushed the commonwealth defenders of India with no casualties. I built up the transport fleets (and kept losing them to American subs until I had enough of an anti-sub fleet to kill them off) and soon had taken Africa and had entered the Mediterranean. I easily took the undefended Gibraltar and Malta, and landed on the undefended Western France (the huge allied army was in Western Germany). The allies seemed unwilling to want to use their armies let alone their large air force in England to bombard me, so I gradually started building up the infantry there as well as constantly researched both evasion and land attack. Eventually I had 40ish units there, and both evasion and attack at 10 (the Western Allies were at 8 each), and advanced eastwards to help the Germans. To my surprise, the huge allied army (140ish units) didn´t react to this at all. So, I decided to attack them, and the result....40 dead allied units, 0 dead my units. I was utterly stunned. A difference of two points on the evasion and land attack values meant that the western allied armies were totally powerless against me? I really had no need to build or research those silly artillery, flak etc, they were unnecessary. I attacked them again, and killed off a similar amount of allies with them causing 0 casualties in return. The Germans decided to attack as well, and drove the survivors to Denmark (30 units or so). Unsurprisingly, the Germans were unwilling to finish off those units in Denmark and thus free up their army for other purposes, but I guess that´s the AI again...
It was very simple to take Britain, as I sneaked my transports to the night undefended Scotland, as the RAF clearly still didn´t want to attack my units (the western allies airforce in England was pretty damn large), so thus I took England.

I had earlier on taken South America and the Panama Canal, and the Americans didn´t want to retake any of that, either. So, I landed in Panama with my army, attacked Mexico, and drove up and invaded the US with impunity, again killing 200ish units in the combats with no casualties in return, always with a numerically inferior army (about 1:3). I really didn´t feel like playing any more at that point...

While I do realize the importance of technological advances, surely despite superior weaponry and doctrines you would suffer casualties when you attack a very much numerically superior opponent? Especially as we´re talking about a difference of 2 or 3 levels each....

This problem is the same as in the ol´ Strategic Command, where teching up to be superior in the air meant you would dominate the skies with impunity no matter what, and win the war because of it.

My second problem was the serious lack of aggressiveness and initiative on part of the AI. Seems like they won´t do anything they´re not specifically scripted to do, like invading Italy and Normandy...they won´t use an opportunity to attack the enemy where he is the weakest, or where they´d gain the most.
This problem could be solved by simply playing only PBEM...but I really dislike how in PBEM, you are forced to MANUALLY go and do the mail message, put the save file attachment there, while the recipient has the hassle of receiving and putting each and every file in the save folder...I realize this is how PBEM has always been, but by the gods, why couldn´t I simply type the e-mail address of the recipient IN-GAME, and let the game worry about the hassle of moving save files? Oh well, I guess it´s impossible...

My final gripe was the supply system (I did play with Simple supply, but the points stand regardless). Armies cost money and resources not only to operate, but to MAINTAIN. They don´t just gobble up resources on the march or when fighting, but maintaining huge armies is expensive business. Currently the game only charges you for movement. This wouldn´t be so bad, but for the horrible expenses of moving fleets (although this wasn´t a problem for me in the late game, early on it was). Perhaps it is indeed realistic that fleets out on the sea but not moving cost nothing, but moving uses exorbitant amounts of resources in fuel....I wouldn´t know.

But the real problem is conquering territories : garrisons cost nothing at all to maintain, and most of my conquered territories didn´t even require a garrison! So basically, maintaining a recently-conquered world wide imperium is totally free. There´s 0 costs associated with maintaining your hold on conquered territories, and 0 chance of the conquered territory simply revolting because there is no garrison. While I do understand that in the macro scale of the game, such insignifigant garrisons such as one division of static troops (which wouldn´t be enough to be represented as a unit on the map in the game) are simply ignored, the fact that it´s completely safe & free is rather silly. Even the provinces with population that you leave without a garrison never revolt, the partisans just keep trying to harm the infrastructure in the province.

Those are my gripes. How is the community here, and perhaps even the developers, respond to my issues and perhaps allow me to get back to enjoying the game? As it is, I really want to like it, seeing as I spent money on it, but I cannot ignore these issues...

I guess you did conquer the world, its 1955. Its like WW2 ended in 45 (for US anyway) but 46 is fine historically. The challenge is to play any of the campaigns and let it end at 46 like it is supposed to. Sure you can set it to no end date but it will take challenge out. What I do is set it to normal level and give germany and japan a 25 supply help. I have not played advanced supply rules yet either. My game stays challenging at these settings if I play the WA. If I play as japan, germany or both, I won't give a 25 supply help to me. You have to find the settings that work for you.

[Rattlehead2005]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings



As for the person that was getting crashes after 1946, I got the email you sent me but was unable to use the file. I sent an email back asking for information on how to use the file. Please respond to the email and hopefully you can get me a save file that I can test out. We certainly want to fix any crash we can confirm.

That would be me Joel, and i sent back an e-mail explaining how to open it. It requires Winrar(you can dl. it free). I just find it amazing you never heard of it. Either way, the reason i used it was, i sent you more then 1 file you need to play it back. It has a few txt. files that have been modded, so you obviously need those as well as saved file. I suppose i could also send it via Winzip(which resembles it) if Winrar is too much of a problem for you[;)]

[Glabro]

Hang on a second. You missed the main point in my post. I didn´t exactly bemoan about how easy it was to conquer the world per se, except that when I got the research superiority, I was totally unbeatable and took no casualties in the combats. What´s strange is that earlier on, when fighting with and against militia units (which generally have attack and evasion levels 1-2 levels below infantry at the start) the battles were not as clear-cut as mine were, here. Both sides did receive losses, and large numbers of chinese militia could overcome japanese infantry.
....and it seemed to me that tanks were not totally undefeatable by standard infantry, even though their attack and evasion levels were higher than infantry´s.

And here come the accusations of me playing on easy and giving the AI handicaps galore.....frankly, disappointing. The AI and me had the exact same settings - only natural for my FIRST game, right? Yes, in the future, I´ll let the AI have its advantage.
And yes, FOW was on, I couldn´t imagine playing without it. I most certainly did not give myself battle help or anything silly like that, I utterly loathe battle help either way. I could live with the transport and supply help, though, for the AI.

No, I did not exactly expect wonders of the AI, but it did prove a bit worse than I though - in not attacking my troops when he had the chance (the RAF against my fleets, for example).

I do understand that the game has been designed to end in 1946, and all of the elements are balanced towards this, such as the research....in a game ending in 1946, you don´t have time to research like in this game, nor do you have the unlimited resources of an imperium yet.

Still....I don´t want to play with such a turn limit. I want to fight the war to its conclusion. The war didn´t end in 1945 because that was the limit on how long each nation could be at war - it ended because the Axis powers capitulated!