Beta Testers: Winning % ?

[jchastain]

I love this game. And I really love the detailed battle sequences. But over a matter of days, as I have begun to understand the dynamics of the detailed battles, I find myself winning the vast majority of fights - even when greatly outnumbered. While the AI knows the basics, a disciplined players can almost always prevail. So I am curious: To the beta testers, do you find yourself able to win most of the time once you finally comprehend how everything works? What percentage of games that you play do you now find yourself winning? And what percentage of detailed battles do you win? Thanks!

[SLTxDarkknight]

I have found that dependent on scenario, and how late in the scenario you are things are easier earlier, can get a bit hairy at times but ultimately I win a vast majority of the battles

[Uncle_Joe]

I entered the beta kind of late and had to play a lot of catch-up. I rarely played games out to conclusion so I cant really give you a winning percentage.

I did point out in the beta that it seemed like the vast majority of us were winning tactical battles with inferior forces (even though we didnt fully understand what was going on). I have lost a few battles here and there, but not as many as I think I should have given some of the force mismatches.

I know the tactical AI has been tweaked since then and it does do better now. I'm sure there is still room for improvement and once they have time to get through the issues being presented here and on the bug forum, they'll probably go back and try to tighten it up more.

Obviously you can increase the game's difficulty level to present more challenge, but how you feel about AI 'cheats' is likely to determine whether that is satisfying or not. On the flip side, you could give MP a try and see how you fare against other people. [;)]

[bluemonday]

I feel like the tactical combat is almost an exploit - you can seriously outperform the AI if you fight the tactical battles. The only limitation is time.

[wodin]

Oh dear,

I was getting all hyped up for this game. For me though if someone is constantly beating the AI so soon after release it is very off putting indeed.

Will this be tweaked in a patch?

If so I will buy.

[ess1]

I think that the option of allowing a Tactical Battle with pbem has to be the answer.
I did post my misgvings on this in another thread.

[bluemonday]

I'm not sure how allowing tactical battles in PBEM would help anything. If anything it would unbalance the game further. With the Quick Combat option, the AI has a much better chance, and thus players wouldn't be at so much of an advantage. If you allowed tactical battles in PBEM you'd tip the balance towards nations that fought a lot of big battles early, like France or Austria or Russia.

[ess1]

I,m sorry, perhaps I did not make myself clear.
The pbem option would be for human players. I do not see what advantage that would give to AI Nations.

[bluemonday]

I see - I misunderstood you. I thought you meant human players should be able to use Tac Combat in PBEM against the AI. My mistake.

But how would your solution (of allowing the human players to fight tactical combat against each other in PBEM) help the situation?

[ess1]

ORIGINAL: bluemonday

I see - I misunderstood you. I thought you meant human players should be able to use Tac Combat in PBEM against the AI. My mistake.

But how would your solution (of allowing the human players to fight tactical combat against each other in PBEM) help the situation?

As someone that plays wargames (HPS & BG) only by pbem within a club I have assumed that those wargamers would have a "best man won" satisfaction.
Without a save function might not be a good idea though. Of course, all those taking part would have to agree to tactical battles.
We are provisionally starting up one within the Napoleonics Wargame Club.

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Oh dear,

I was getting all hyped up for this game. For me though if someone is constantly beating the AI so soon after release it is very off putting indeed.

Will this be tweaked in a patch?

If so I will buy.

I'm with you there Wodin and because of it have since ordered SUPREME RULER 2010 instead since what I'm reading about the AI in it is far greater than most any game out there, the AI gangs up on you, you can find yourself in 3 front wars in no time and be crushed to itty bitty pieces if you don't watch your P's and Q's.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Oh dear,

I was getting all hyped up for this game. For me though if someone is constantly beating the AI so soon after release it is very off putting indeed.

Will this be tweaked in a patch?

If so I will buy.

I've never met an AI I couldn't beat the heck out of within a couple days or less after learning the system, have you?

Unless the AI is given massive cheats which isn't an improved AI, but rather handicapping which is different, then I would expect most humans to beat an AI within a couple days or less.

[Uncle_Joe]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

I've never met an AI I couldn't beat the heck out of within a couple days or less after learning the system, have you?

Unless the AI is given massive cheats which isn't an improved AI, but rather handicapping which is different, then I would expect most humans to beat an AI within a couple days or less.

Exactly. There is nothing wrong with AI in the game. Its just thats its an AI. When you do the tactical battles, the AI doesnt do stupid things or make bad moves. But it simply cant plan and execute the way a skilled human player can.

[willgamer]

But it simply cant plan and execute the way a skilled human player can.

Depends greatly on who you ask. There are many of us whose goal is role playing/immersion who could care less about exploits to beat the AI.

Perhaps that would make a good polling question someday: What is your main reason to play CoG? Win/Roleplay/Other... [:)]

[Uncle_Joe]

No exploits needed...just sound tactics and some advanced planning.

There are no 'tricks' that I've needed to use. There are no 'sucker punches' or anything of the sort. Its simply a good grasp of the tactics, the terrain, and the capabilities of the troops involved.

If your definition of 'roleplaying' means making dumb moves or somesuch on purpose because it might have actually happened that way, then you are more then entitled to do so. From my point of view, I try not to do anything that wouldnt work historically on the battlefield.

But like it or not, we have FAR more info and control over the battles than our historic counterparts did. So, unless you are putting severe restricitions on yourself and what you can order, then you have a tremendous advantage. And that advantage in the hands of an experienced gamer is enough to tilt the balance in some situations.

[Ralegh]

If you go into detailed battle with a good force mix and adequate morale, and some leaders, and aren't outnumbered too badly, then you should win the battle. Miss one of those and the issue is in doubt.

One thing that is making this seemed biased is that we normally brag about our biggest victories here on the forum - not the battles we lost.

At this stage, I would say that if you are one of those players looking for SUPER AI at the TACTICAL level, you should look elsewhere. Its good, but not super. If you want a challenging game over a long period, it is here - the AI is pretty good strategically and tactically, and there are POWER settings to allow handicapping.

Please note: even without handicapping, winning as Sweden or Turkey is very hard.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

I've never met an AI I couldn't beat the heck out of within a couple days or less after learning the system, have you?

Unless the AI is given massive cheats which isn't an improved AI, but rather handicapping which is different, then I would expect most humans to beat an AI within a couple days or less.

Actually it can take myself and others Im sure more than one or two days to beat an AI.

Maybe Im not a human...

[jchastain]

Wodin -
You'll be able to reasonably consistently beat this AI in detailed combat within a few days. I'm pretty sure of that. The games are long enough that it will be much longer before you are able to actually win a full strategic game. But this is one of those remarkably fresh games that is just a little bit different and a whole lot of fun. If you don't play it, then you're really missing out on a great experience.

[ravinhood]

Unless the AI is given massive cheats which isn't an improved AI, but rather handicapping which is different, then I would expect most humans to beat an AI within a couple days or less.

I include that as part of the beating process, the handicaps and advantages, so, no, not all AI's are beatable in a couple of days playing the most difficult level for me. If the AI is a pushover on the most difficult level, it's a pretty sorry game in my book.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Unless the AI is given massive cheats which isn't an improved AI, but rather handicapping which is different, then I would expect most humans to beat an AI within a couple days or less.

I include that as part of the beating process, the handicaps and advantages, so, no, not all AI's are beatable in a couple of days playing the most difficult level for me. If the AI is a pushover on the most difficult level, it's a pretty sorry game in my book.

That has nothing to do with the AI though. There is nothing 'intelligent' about upping an attack factor or giving extra money to buy more units etc.

Handicapping doesn't make the AI better as in it will perform better moves or act more 'human' with intelligent unpredictableness, but rather it just gives the human more to fight against. Whether it more units or more morale or whatever...