Rommel in Africa scenario AI???

[henri511]

I chose to play this scenario because of the low number of units and because the of remembrances of the board game Afrika Korps. When I played this scenario as the Germans, there was none of the ebb and flow of the real batttle, so I decided to see how it would go when the AI played both sides.

After 36 moves, the Germans still had not moved a single unit! (By this time in the real war, Rommel had already attacked Tobruk). The British were at least using their nearby units to take unoccupied territory, but the bulk of their forces stayed milling around Alexandria.[:'(]

Whatdahell is going on? Is this an AI problem or a scenario problem. If a scenario problem, didn't anybody playtest the first few moves of this scenario before putting it in? [:@]

To paraphrase someone, "I have seen Afrika Korps, and lemme tell ya, you ain't no Afrika Korps!" [:-]

Henri

[Chuck2]

I'm afraid to report that this scenario is PBEM-only. It was a common occurance in the late-COW period for scenario designers not to program the AI, especially with larger scenarios.

[Oleg Mastruko]

LOL
 
<edited for decency>
&nbsp;
[:D]

[jbunnelle]

Being interested in PO only, I think the major problem with the PBEM scenarios is how they are flagged as such.  Ideally, I think they should have their own directory in the scenarios folder, with subdirectories by theater/era.  Either that, or put "(PBEM)" at the end of the scenario's file name.  Really sucks when I find a scenario I'd love to play against the AI and reading "PBEM only" somewhere in the scenario description. 

[henri511]

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the scenario description that says that it is pbem only. Am I bliind?[:@]

Henri

PS No wonder I beat the stuffings out of the British as the Germans...[:'(]

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: hen5ri

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the scenario description that says that it is pbem only. Am I bliind?[:@]

Henri

No, you are not blind. It was an oversight on our part.

Sorry, but that scenario is not PO enabled, and is designed for PBEM play only. It should have been noted in the scenario descriptions, but unfortunately, it was neglected.

A simple check to see if a scenario is enabled for PO play is to load the scenario in the scenario editor, and then choose the menu option "Deployment". Then click on some arbitrary units, and look down in the micromap display in the lower right-hand corner. If you see only a single objective point for the formation(s), then the scenario is not enabled to play as the PO.

If you only see a 1 for the formation, then it only has one (the minimum) objective point. Objective points will show up in the micromap as integer numbers ranging from 1 to 39. Generally, the more numbers you see, the more thought a scenario designer has put into trying to develop a working PO. If there is only one OP per formation, then the formations have no guidance as to where to position themselves, and will generally sit in place, doing nothing.

[jungelsj_slith]

It seems like adding PO AI to each scenario would have been a really worthwhile feature for TAOW III.&nbsp; It doesnt feel like a very professionally made product when a large number of scenarios aren't playable because of this.

[Catch21]

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy
It seems like adding PO AI to each scenario would have been a really worthwhile feature for TAOW III. It doesnt feel like a very professionally made product when a large number of scenarios aren't playable because of this.

Adding PO AI just isn't possible, since many of the scenarios made were/are totally volunteer efforts.

Once you've mastered the PO in the scenarios that have it, I believe you will always find that a good human player is always going to be a far better opponent. Not to mention they can (unfortunately?) talk too. Take the plunge and maybe try PBEM. I guarantee you will never regret it.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy

It seems like adding PO AI to each scenario would have been a really worthwhile feature for TAOW III.  It doesnt feel like a very professionally made product when a large number of scenarios aren't playable because of this.

Worthwhile? I don't disagree, as long as you wouldn't mind paying $80.00 for the game and get it two years down the road, instead of today for $40. Adding PO functionability to a scenario takes a lot of planning, and playtesting, and is best managed by the person who designed the original scenario. The larger and longer scenarios, in particular, get exponentially more complex in terms of PO programming, and could take months to years to evaluate in playtesting.

[sol_invictus]

While I would certainly have liked a PO AI for all scenarios, I can't fault Matrix for not doing that much heavy lifting. Hopefully, the original scenario designers will update their scenarios and most new scenarios will incorporate a PO AI. But as stated, the really big scenarios are probably best played against a living brain.

[wolflars]

Implementing the PO for scenarios is a long and arduous process, I remember designing a few scenarios years ago and being very frustrated so I also cannot fault either Matrix or the original designers for not having PO in their designs.&nbsp; However, it would be nice to have a easy to glance at "flag" as to which ones are PO playable .&nbsp; While I agree that a human opponent is best I like to sharpen my claws on the PO, at least until I feel comfortable with TOAW's game engine again.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: wolflars
However, it would be nice to have a easy to glance at "flag" as to which ones are PO playable . 

In addition to the public "beta" patch that is currently available, and will shortly be made "official", we are working on a larger patch that will be released in another couple of months. When we do release that one, we will include a new scenario descriptions list, and the scenario briefings will have the information prominently displayed so that you can indeed tell at a glance whether the scenario is PO playable. Thanks for your understanding on the issue.

[Johnus]

Wouldn't it be easy and helpful to just post a list of which scenarios, not so noted, do not have a PO ??

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Johnnie

Wouldn't it be easy and helpful to just post a list of which scenarios, not so noted, do not have a PO ??

It would be, if we had such a comprehensive list compiled. When we put out our first "real" patch in a couple of months, we'll include such a list. The public beta patch now up, is not the first "real" patch, but rather an "emergency" patch...[;)]

In the meantime...with the exception of the Balkans '12 scenario, I believe you can play any of the scenarios in the Classic TOAW against the PO, either side. You can also play any of Bob Cross's scenarios against the PO, either side. You can play Two Weeks in Normandy against the PO, either side. You can play the version of Anoymous Heroics that is in the Tutorials sub-folder against the Red PO, and the others there are either copies of, or derivatives of Classic TOAW scenarios, so they can be played against PO, either side. The others I can't personally vouch for, at the moment, and off the top of my head.

[jungelsj_slith]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Worthwhile? I don't disagree, as long as you wouldn't mind paying $80.00 for the game and get it two years down the road, instead of today for $40. Adding PO functionability to a scenario takes a lot of planning, and playtesting, and is best managed by the person who designed the original scenario. The larger and longer scenarios, in particular, get exponentially more complex in terms of PO programming, and could take months to years to evaluate in playtesting.

Make it an easier process.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy
Make it an easier process.

It's very easy to sit by the sidelines and throw peanuts, or to be a Monday Morning Quarterback. You want to flesh out exactly how you would "Make it an easier process?"

[Bloodybucket28th]

While I have no clue as to how you could make&nbsp;enabling PO in a scenario an easier process, as to getting a list of scenarios that are rated&nbsp; for complexity and solitaire suitability, that really does sound like a job for the community.&nbsp; Rugged Defense has a good list of scenarios that are rated for complexity.&nbsp; Here is an example of a "bullet synopsis" there.&nbsp; While it gives some good info, and the blurb written by the designer goes in to much&nbsp;more detail about solitaire (he suggests you stick to the German side) and special rules, there isn't a way that I can see for the community to add ratings or reviews.

---

&nbsp;
Belgium, Ardennes,
December 16, 1944,

Axis army of 187 units opposed to Allies army of 279 units
for a battle of complexity 1.28 at Battalion(II) level
on a 2.5 Km/Hex map
for 36 turns of Half Day each.

---

&nbsp;
They also have a play history for the scenario, and other useful information.&nbsp; It would be great (IMHO) if&nbsp;they also had a way for the community to add ratings for balance, PBEM use, solo use, and a short comment.

[geozero]

Scenario design is a long and tedious labor...but I can see where the TOAW 3 may have some issues.&nbsp; Taking the original scenarios and then adding 130 community created ones... giving a nice big 200+ scenarios to boast to the new incarnation does not in of itself make the game any better.
&nbsp;
A gamer should not have to manually load the scenario into the editor to see whether or not it can be played solo. Asking the gamer to do this is not good PR because many people don;t know or want to know about the editor.&nbsp; They don't buy the game to design scenarios...they buy the game to PLAY.&nbsp; I think this concept has been lost, and the game is not just marketed to the grognard, scenario designing, arm chair general, wannabee.
&nbsp;
Matrix did not have to wait months or years, nor charge $80 for this.&nbsp; Just a simple way to let the gamer know if the scenario is playable or not.&nbsp; I wonder just how many of those 130 scenarios are PBEM only. Not that that is a bad thing...it just doesn't come across IMO to the typical gamer as good PR.
&nbsp;
After all, it is marketed as a new game and not a mega patch...

[jungelsj_slith]

Well said, geozero. I'll reply to Mr Jamiam tomorrow when I have a couple minutes to get my thoughts down. Hopefully this ends up being constructive.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy
Hopefully this ends up being constructive.

That would be appreciated. I look forward to your reply.