.....but i would rather have a turn based game with hexes ( or much more
provinces and other important spots like strategic ports, cities, forts etc )
turn based allows PBM and i like playing PBM ( in the last times i play SPWAW
almost only as PBM )
Maybe Im too harsh?
Moderator: maddog986
RE: Maybe Im too harsh?
I think you do sort of fit into a crowd pretty much all by yourself LES when it comes to this hotseat playstyle for computer games. But, if that's your cup of tea, there's nothing wrong in that. But, by the same token the MAJORITY of us that do play computer games are looking for that opponent in the AI. It's also not impossible to make competent AI's, I've seen them in my 20+ years of computer gaming, but, what has happened are that the developers have gotten away from competent AI's and more into the eyecandy, 3D graphics, things that are pretty and nice for the game, but, with an AI lacking, much moreso than the AI of yesteryears imho.
The reason why I prefer a computer opponent is "my time is the best time to play" syndrome. The biggest problem I found when growing up and into board games was always this time constraint by my friends or even my own if I went to their house and played. Someone or all of us have to go, we'd spend hours setting up a game and play one or two turns and someone always had to go, then another, then another. Not to mention the MESS that was left behind by my socalled friends.
Who had to clean that up? ME!!!! lol Playing against a computer opponent is always on my time scale, and I certainly don't have to clean up after it, give it a beer or provide pretzels for it to eat.
A computer opponent is CONVENIENT above all else. Plus the fact you can save the game and don't have to worry about the cat chewing up the pieces or messing up the board.
What's lacking in computer opponents and I'm really surprised some game devlopers haven't implemented something like this a lot in games, is taunting, jiving, ribbing the human player when they make a mistake! LOL, I think it would be so funny after a human loses a battle or the game if the computer AI would make some quirk remarks about how he/she played. I noticed CIVILIZATION III does this and I like that. It drives me to play them again and crush them and then do my own jiving and ribbing! LOL I know it's pure psychological, but, it's fun and rewarding. I also think it would be funny in turn based games if the computer player chided the human player when he/she took to long to make their moves and one of my pet peives here would be after RELOADING a SAVED game, say something like "AHHH CHEATING ME AGAIN ARE YOU?" lol Just a little something more to give LIFE to the AI.
I guess what I am looking for in a computer opponent is a HAL type and one that I can get pissed off at for always beating me! LOL It's actually more fun when you lose and lose and lose and finally WIN, than it is to win and win and win and finally lose. To me anyways. I had a friend that could smoke me in chess EVERY SINGLE GAME, time and time again, then that fateful day came I FINALLY BEAT his arse, I don't know if you have any idea the feeling one gets after the long struggle to get there and all those losses in a row, but, to me it was euphoric.
The reason why I prefer a computer opponent is "my time is the best time to play" syndrome. The biggest problem I found when growing up and into board games was always this time constraint by my friends or even my own if I went to their house and played. Someone or all of us have to go, we'd spend hours setting up a game and play one or two turns and someone always had to go, then another, then another. Not to mention the MESS that was left behind by my socalled friends.
Who had to clean that up? ME!!!! lol Playing against a computer opponent is always on my time scale, and I certainly don't have to clean up after it, give it a beer or provide pretzels for it to eat. A computer opponent is CONVENIENT above all else. Plus the fact you can save the game and don't have to worry about the cat chewing up the pieces or messing up the board.
What's lacking in computer opponents and I'm really surprised some game devlopers haven't implemented something like this a lot in games, is taunting, jiving, ribbing the human player when they make a mistake! LOL, I think it would be so funny after a human loses a battle or the game if the computer AI would make some quirk remarks about how he/she played. I noticed CIVILIZATION III does this and I like that. It drives me to play them again and crush them and then do my own jiving and ribbing! LOL I know it's pure psychological, but, it's fun and rewarding. I also think it would be funny in turn based games if the computer player chided the human player when he/she took to long to make their moves and one of my pet peives here would be after RELOADING a SAVED game, say something like "AHHH CHEATING ME AGAIN ARE YOU?" lol Just a little something more to give LIFE to the AI.
I guess what I am looking for in a computer opponent is a HAL type and one that I can get pissed off at for always beating me! LOL It's actually more fun when you lose and lose and lose and finally WIN, than it is to win and win and win and finally lose. To me anyways. I had a friend that could smoke me in chess EVERY SINGLE GAME, time and time again, then that fateful day came I FINALLY BEAT his arse, I don't know if you have any idea the feeling one gets after the long struggle to get there and all those losses in a row, but, to me it was euphoric.
WE/I WANT 1:1 or something even 1:2 death animations in the KOIOS PANZER COMMAND SERIES don't forget Erik! and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?
and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?
RE: Maybe Im too harsh?
I am sympathetic to what the Paradox game developer said.
Let's face it: wargamers and grognards of all stripes are one bitchy group of customers. We're bitching, complaining, whining, the games are never good enough. There is always somebody who will say: this unit was not there in the second week in January 1942, it came in the third week instead". There another one will came and pretend the contrary, based on a different historical source.
Personally, I had fun with HOI. I bought it only after they released the first 2 patches though. In all honesty, the game was behaving correctly (except for one bug that prevented me to get the Vichy France event...or perhaps it was just me who did something wrong...whatever).
It makes me laugh when people criticizes games because more often than not, their critics relate to the very personal interpretation they have of this conflict, and that is extremely subjective. There are zillions way to do a grand strategic wargame on WWII. But there might be only one way to do it that could relate to the interpretation and vision you have of this conflict. So if you don't get this exact wargame, you will find faults and problems with all the other ways of doing it.
What the Paradox developer said was essentially this: "The more complex a game is, the more risk we run of getting it wrong somewhere, and the more risk we run of getting it wrong, the more risk we run of being bashed by the community, lose sales and end up losing money on the title, which is really a shame since making complex games requires a lot more time $$$ and efforts than an easy one".
I don't think everybody realizes that developers are normal human beings who need to earn a living, and people don't realize that wargame developers are very tiny companies. When they sweat tears and blood with very long hours to produce a wargame, and they then see the thing trashed on details instead of looking at the overall picture, don't wonder why after they will aim for more "easier" games. Making complex games that will be endlessly bashed by some short-sighted bitchy grognards who will then sink the title with bad rap is not the best way to encourage innovation and difficult projects among wargame developers.
Let's face it: wargamers and grognards of all stripes are one bitchy group of customers. We're bitching, complaining, whining, the games are never good enough. There is always somebody who will say: this unit was not there in the second week in January 1942, it came in the third week instead". There another one will came and pretend the contrary, based on a different historical source.
Personally, I had fun with HOI. I bought it only after they released the first 2 patches though. In all honesty, the game was behaving correctly (except for one bug that prevented me to get the Vichy France event...or perhaps it was just me who did something wrong...whatever).
It makes me laugh when people criticizes games because more often than not, their critics relate to the very personal interpretation they have of this conflict, and that is extremely subjective. There are zillions way to do a grand strategic wargame on WWII. But there might be only one way to do it that could relate to the interpretation and vision you have of this conflict. So if you don't get this exact wargame, you will find faults and problems with all the other ways of doing it.
What the Paradox developer said was essentially this: "The more complex a game is, the more risk we run of getting it wrong somewhere, and the more risk we run of getting it wrong, the more risk we run of being bashed by the community, lose sales and end up losing money on the title, which is really a shame since making complex games requires a lot more time $$$ and efforts than an easy one".
I don't think everybody realizes that developers are normal human beings who need to earn a living, and people don't realize that wargame developers are very tiny companies. When they sweat tears and blood with very long hours to produce a wargame, and they then see the thing trashed on details instead of looking at the overall picture, don't wonder why after they will aim for more "easier" games. Making complex games that will be endlessly bashed by some short-sighted bitchy grognards who will then sink the title with bad rap is not the best way to encourage innovation and difficult projects among wargame developers.
RE: Maybe Im too harsh?
ORIGINAL: Tzar007
I am sympathetic to what the Paradox game developer said.
Well I would have to ask; what do they expect?
Other detailed strategy games manage to get good reviews, and other companies manage to avoid the tag "alpha-ware" when they release games, so why not Paradox? Having played HOI 1.0 and EU2 1.0 I believe the unfinished reputation they have is well deserved and won't be undone just because Victoria was pretty good.
When every patch in every game manages to break as much as it fixes then I have no problenm when people say "wait for 1.08" or whatever.
I'm a fan of independent films and music too, but that does not mean that some emotional attachment, or fawning adoration to the label or artists is going to make me buy a product I don't like. If Paradox, or anyone else for that matter, can't release stable games I like then I won't buy them.
Victoria was a pleasant surprise, I expected to put it down and come back in a few months, but I've been playing it since release. That's enough to prompt me to get CK when it comes out. If that's a farce then I'll probably hold off the next one.
Honestly, this is the only industry which attempts to blame customers, deadlines, and probably the phases of the moon for it's own inadequacies. This is not really related to Paradox, but I'm tired of every excuse short of "the dog ate my source code" to justify crap.Let's face it: wargamers and grognards of all stripes are one bitchy group of customers
If it's too hard stop making it. If there isn't time make cuts. I don't care what goes into the production of my refridgerator, so why should care about other people's software development, I have enough trouble with my own
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
RE: Maybe Im too harsh?
I missed out on the pre 1995 era computer wargames basically.
As such it is a gaping hole for me personally.
But Ravinhood has likely got it right. I think AIs have been likely left to long out of the design priority in favour of visual appeal.
Computer games in my opinion use the same formula armour design uses.
Firepower
Protection
Mobility
Or with games
Accuracy
Playability
Fun Factor
I think the over zealous indulgence of 3d has hurt computer wargaming. I think the over zealous indulgence of real time has hurt computer wargaming.
I am confident, a wargame using ordinary 2d graphics employing a common turn structure, but with an AI that will make you feel stupid, will always outsell something that merely looks like a good arcade game.
With some of the games in 3d real time, I get an almost reactionary urge to look for the quarter slot when I start one.
As such it is a gaping hole for me personally.
But Ravinhood has likely got it right. I think AIs have been likely left to long out of the design priority in favour of visual appeal.
Computer games in my opinion use the same formula armour design uses.
Firepower
Protection
Mobility
Or with games
Accuracy
Playability
Fun Factor
I think the over zealous indulgence of 3d has hurt computer wargaming. I think the over zealous indulgence of real time has hurt computer wargaming.
I am confident, a wargame using ordinary 2d graphics employing a common turn structure, but with an AI that will make you feel stupid, will always outsell something that merely looks like a good arcade game.
With some of the games in 3d real time, I get an almost reactionary urge to look for the quarter slot when I start one.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
RE: Maybe Im too harsh?
LOL that was good Sarge, about the quarter slot! That's how I feel about most RTS games and FPS.
The one other thing about older games of the 80's, early 90's is you didn't have to wait on any patch for the game to be great, in fact you didn't see a patch at ALL. I must have bought a game a month in the 80's and early 90's. These were/are quality games as far as play value, but, of course the graphics are not what you see today. But, heck, I'd rather play something fun and playable than look at silly pictures shoot each other with make believe bullets.
In the last few years I've hardly seen anything I was interested in. My game a month has just about dropped to a game or two a year. Now that is pretty sad. But, one of the problems behind this is, it takes a lot of coding time to put those pretty pictures in. Games that used to come out by the month, now come out by the year or two years or FIVE YEARS!! I feel the industry is only hurting themselves by putting so much time into a product....you put five years into something and if it is flop you are busted. But, put a month or two into a product, if it flops, you still have 10 more months to make many more products and you only need ONE to be great. It's the eyecandy that is ruining the gaming industry, I'm getting bored waiting on a game I am interested in, when there was a time I couldn't buy them fast enough, there were so many great games coming out, and turn based and wargames too.
I've got the funds, money isn't an object, but, wasting it on pure eyecandy with a crap AI I will not do anymore. I'll wait till it's bargain bin price on ebay, before I will shell out full price for crap like Paradox puts out upon release anymore. I don't care if they patch till the moon explodes, if it suxs when it's released it suxs period. I bought HOI upon release and here I am waiting after a year and a half after release for them to fix a bug for the allied amphibious assualts since day one. It makes the allied AI useless in the game.
Basically I look at it this way. I lived a long time with games withOUT Paradox and I can live a long time with games withOUT Paradox still.
Matrix games are starting to interest me more, but, I'm still waiting for land based European, North Africa and Pacific games from them. Somehow they got stuck with the Russian front and Operation Market Garden and that has to be the two lowest forms of wargaming themes I want to play. Sorry Matrix, but, I'm only being honest.
The one other thing about older games of the 80's, early 90's is you didn't have to wait on any patch for the game to be great, in fact you didn't see a patch at ALL. I must have bought a game a month in the 80's and early 90's. These were/are quality games as far as play value, but, of course the graphics are not what you see today. But, heck, I'd rather play something fun and playable than look at silly pictures shoot each other with make believe bullets.
In the last few years I've hardly seen anything I was interested in. My game a month has just about dropped to a game or two a year. Now that is pretty sad. But, one of the problems behind this is, it takes a lot of coding time to put those pretty pictures in. Games that used to come out by the month, now come out by the year or two years or FIVE YEARS!! I feel the industry is only hurting themselves by putting so much time into a product....you put five years into something and if it is flop you are busted. But, put a month or two into a product, if it flops, you still have 10 more months to make many more products and you only need ONE to be great. It's the eyecandy that is ruining the gaming industry, I'm getting bored waiting on a game I am interested in, when there was a time I couldn't buy them fast enough, there were so many great games coming out, and turn based and wargames too.
I've got the funds, money isn't an object, but, wasting it on pure eyecandy with a crap AI I will not do anymore. I'll wait till it's bargain bin price on ebay, before I will shell out full price for crap like Paradox puts out upon release anymore. I don't care if they patch till the moon explodes, if it suxs when it's released it suxs period. I bought HOI upon release and here I am waiting after a year and a half after release for them to fix a bug for the allied amphibious assualts since day one. It makes the allied AI useless in the game.
Basically I look at it this way. I lived a long time with games withOUT Paradox and I can live a long time with games withOUT Paradox still.
Matrix games are starting to interest me more, but, I'm still waiting for land based European, North Africa and Pacific games from them. Somehow they got stuck with the Russian front and Operation Market Garden and that has to be the two lowest forms of wargaming themes I want to play. Sorry Matrix, but, I'm only being honest.
WE/I WANT 1:1 or something even 1:2 death animations in the KOIOS PANZER COMMAND SERIES don't forget Erik! and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?
and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?RE: Maybe Im too harsh?
ORIGINAL: ravinhood
LOL that was good Sarge, about the quarter slot! That's how I feel about most RTS games and FPS.
The one other thing about older games of the 80's, early 90's is you didn't have to wait on any patch for the game to be great, in fact you didn't see a patch at ALL. I must have bought a game a month in the 80's and early 90's. These were/are quality games as far as play value, but, of course the graphics are not what you see today. But, heck, I'd rather play something fun and playable than look at silly pictures shoot each other with make believe bullets.
First games I had in 82 had crash bugs in them, no patches=no fixes. One was Galactic Empire the other name I don't recall. With rose tinted glasses the past might seem glorius, but it wasn't. Add to that the fact that calculators probably have more processing power than the hardware from those days and you'l remember how simple and basic games were.
It's sad, but they want the money so they find the largest audience they can. Same with all media unfortunately.I'm getting bored waiting on a game I am interested in, when there was a time I couldn't buy them fast enough, there were so many great games coming out, and turn based and wargames too.
Matrix games are starting to interest me more, but, I'm still waiting for land based European, North Africa and Pacific games from them. Somehow they got stuck with the Russian front and Operation Market Garden and that has to be the two lowest forms of wargaming themes I want to play. Sorry Matrix, but, I'm only being honest.
If there's a demo of HTTR then try it. Despite the cliched material it's truly revolutionary gameplay.
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
RE: Maybe Im too harsh?
I parrot this not really knowing, but knowing those that said it were making a competent comment.
And that comment was, as our computers have gotten more and more powerful, those designing software have often gotten lazy with the software.
I think in some ways, a game of today, regardless of how "cool" it might look, might actually not be as well "built" as earlier games, when the computer that was running it, had a lot less to use to run it.
Again, its outside of my expertise.
But AI is in my opinion where its at today. No amount of "cool" will make a stupid playing game worth 50 bucks to me.
And yes, I have seen stupid arcade games, that no one played and they crashed and burned.
And I have seen board games that sucked, and they never went anywhere.
Computer wargames, need to tone down the love affair with visual, and get back to being what wargamers expect, that being a decent mental challenge.
Well at least that is what gets me interested. If my intellect is not required, than no amount of visual is going to get to me.
If I want cool funny mayhem where things kill each other with splashy visual effects, I am going to play a game of Worms.
And that comment was, as our computers have gotten more and more powerful, those designing software have often gotten lazy with the software.
I think in some ways, a game of today, regardless of how "cool" it might look, might actually not be as well "built" as earlier games, when the computer that was running it, had a lot less to use to run it.
Again, its outside of my expertise.
But AI is in my opinion where its at today. No amount of "cool" will make a stupid playing game worth 50 bucks to me.
And yes, I have seen stupid arcade games, that no one played and they crashed and burned.
And I have seen board games that sucked, and they never went anywhere.
Computer wargames, need to tone down the love affair with visual, and get back to being what wargamers expect, that being a decent mental challenge.
Well at least that is what gets me interested. If my intellect is not required, than no amount of visual is going to get to me.
If I want cool funny mayhem where things kill each other with splashy visual effects, I am going to play a game of Worms.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
RE: Maybe Im too harsh?
ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
I parrot this not really knowing, but knowing those that said it were making a competent comment.
And that comment was, as our computers have gotten more and more powerful, those designing software have often gotten lazy with the software.
I think you are onto the right idea there. In theory, languages and tools are available now which could only be dreamt of even a decade ago. Add to that the hardware unification (remember when you had to choose VGA, EGA and SVGA graphics [;)] ) through DirectX and you should have a far more stable development and deployment environment to work with. BUT the industry is easier to enter now, and has grown so rapidly over the last few years that the quantity of programmers has definately lowered the quality.
Further, management is more important now than ever. Missing deadlines and failing to deliver stable games is a failure in management. I don't play, but I watch my nephews play console games, or FPS on the PC and I am struck by how few problems there are in those games. Perhaps their profitability has resulted in better quality staff and management working for companies producing those genres. I wonder how a non strategy gamer would react if I showed Pax Romana or [insert almost any game here] and explained that most of the game didn't work [:(]
AI just doesn't appear sexy enough to sell games. From observing how they work, there doesn't appear to be any change in the technology or techniques used over the last decade. Although it's been panned in reviews, I am quite interested in Universal Combat and might pick it up, it's supposed to use a learning AI.But AI is in my opinion where its at today. No amount of "cool" will make a stupid playing game worth 50 bucks to me.
IMHO, wargames need to modernize. The potential audience is not going to spend enough time to get into a game if the first impressions are bad, if the interface is awkward, or if it takes more time to translate a command to the game than it does to make the decision.Computer wargames, need to tone down the love affair with visual, and get back to being what wargamers expect, that being a decent mental challenge.
Well at least that is what gets me interested. If my intellect is not required, than no amount of visual is going to get to me.
If I want cool funny mayhem where things kill each other with splashy visual effects, I am going to play a game of Worms.
I haven't seen any great visuals in wargames lately, which ones would you say are using style over substance?
-
EricGuitarJames
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 12:02 am
- Location: Not far enough away for some!
- Contact:
RE: Maybe Im too harsh?
As regards 'style over substance' I think 'Eric Young's Squad Assault' is a guilty example - it looks great, sounds great, but still doesn't play as well as the 'Close Combat' series! I've just patched it to 1.06 so I'll be returning to it shortly to give it another chance.
HoI is a fun game to play - apart from the combat - but is about as 'realistic' as 'Diplomacy'.
HoI is a fun game to play - apart from the combat - but is about as 'realistic' as 'Diplomacy'.
It's Just a Ride!
RE: Maybe Im too harsh?
The Total War games are another, while not excellent quality pictures, this is way far past anything you saw in the 80's or early 90's as far as graphic content goes. But, even so, the AI in the Total War games is ignorant, without modding by some pretty darn good modders the game would lay in the pile of dust that other games have found because the AI was so beatable on the highest level of difficulty.
This is what I'm driving at, I pulled out an old game from the commodore 64 "War of the Lance" by Dave Landrey. Haven't played it in years, set it on the highest difficulty and proceeded to get my hiney removed from me as time ran out. Oh I was fighting some great battles and awesome defenses, but, I just couldn't push the AI enough to reach it's capital before time ran out. To me this was AWESOME a 14 year old+ game with miniscul graphics but a determined and strong AI, just defeated ME!
Now I've recently pulled out CENTURION DEFENDER OF ROME, once again setting it on it's highest level and once again I am getting my hiney thrased, they are coming at me like ant's to honey, I'm struggling just to keep an army on the field to thwart them off, I'm down to my last full army and Carthage and Macadonia are at my footsteps!! Once again another game 14 years old or nearabouts, with an AI that is about to trounce me.
That's what I'm talking about with AI's. Why are AI's of 14 years ago or more kicking butt and the AI's today are as easy on Expert as they are on easy level?? I don't understand it, and then yes I do. Developers and Publishers have gone to the NEWBIE, the design idea is thus: We gotta make it easy for the masses, so they will buy lots of games, let them think they are soooooo good at them and they will buy even more. Well that may be fine and dandy for the newbie wargamer, but, what about us grognards? Does our money mean nothing? I suppose not, it's rare to find a decent AI on the most extreme levels of a computer wargame these days, unless of course you include RTS games, which I do not care for.
I'll give another example of a firecracker game with a mediocre AI. COMBAT MISSION, all one has to do is stack up their command on one side of the field of battle or the other and you can flank the heck out of the computer AI, every game, every time. It does not adjust for this. So I have to adjust to have a decent game against the AI. And if I didn't give the AI full handicap and 25% or more bonus to units over mine, it still wouldn't win very often. The majority of the time the battles end up in a draw or my victory. This isn't bad, but, I don't get the euphoric feeling the AI is playing with too much common sense.
I'm not saying I haven't ever lost to the Combat Mission AI, it's just rare and usually only when I have GREEN troups and it has UBER ELITE VETERAN troups! Heck I had to do something to give it a better chance and make it more of a challenge.
This is what I'm driving at, I pulled out an old game from the commodore 64 "War of the Lance" by Dave Landrey. Haven't played it in years, set it on the highest difficulty and proceeded to get my hiney removed from me as time ran out. Oh I was fighting some great battles and awesome defenses, but, I just couldn't push the AI enough to reach it's capital before time ran out. To me this was AWESOME a 14 year old+ game with miniscul graphics but a determined and strong AI, just defeated ME!
Now I've recently pulled out CENTURION DEFENDER OF ROME, once again setting it on it's highest level and once again I am getting my hiney thrased, they are coming at me like ant's to honey, I'm struggling just to keep an army on the field to thwart them off, I'm down to my last full army and Carthage and Macadonia are at my footsteps!! Once again another game 14 years old or nearabouts, with an AI that is about to trounce me.
That's what I'm talking about with AI's. Why are AI's of 14 years ago or more kicking butt and the AI's today are as easy on Expert as they are on easy level?? I don't understand it, and then yes I do. Developers and Publishers have gone to the NEWBIE, the design idea is thus: We gotta make it easy for the masses, so they will buy lots of games, let them think they are soooooo good at them and they will buy even more. Well that may be fine and dandy for the newbie wargamer, but, what about us grognards? Does our money mean nothing? I suppose not, it's rare to find a decent AI on the most extreme levels of a computer wargame these days, unless of course you include RTS games, which I do not care for.
I'll give another example of a firecracker game with a mediocre AI. COMBAT MISSION, all one has to do is stack up their command on one side of the field of battle or the other and you can flank the heck out of the computer AI, every game, every time. It does not adjust for this. So I have to adjust to have a decent game against the AI. And if I didn't give the AI full handicap and 25% or more bonus to units over mine, it still wouldn't win very often. The majority of the time the battles end up in a draw or my victory. This isn't bad, but, I don't get the euphoric feeling the AI is playing with too much common sense.
I'm not saying I haven't ever lost to the Combat Mission AI, it's just rare and usually only when I have GREEN troups and it has UBER ELITE VETERAN troups! Heck I had to do something to give it a better chance and make it more of a challenge.
WE/I WANT 1:1 or something even 1:2 death animations in the KOIOS PANZER COMMAND SERIES don't forget Erik! and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?
and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?RE: Maybe Im too harsh?
ORIGINAL: ravinhood
The Total War games are another, while not excellent quality pictures, this is way far past anything you saw in the 80's or early 90's as far as graphic content goes. But, even so, the AI in the Total War games is ignorant, without modding by some pretty darn good modders the game would lay in the pile of dust that other games have found because the AI was so beatable on the highest level of difficulty.
That's a good example, but I don't think Total War is a typical strategy game. It's got a very simple strategic game (Risk++) combined with RTS. It also sells a lot of units and crosses over between different audiences. I played it and think it's ok, but I would never hold this game to be a great strategy game.
Well, the older games you mentioned are simpler, and AI technology is/was able to provide a decent opponent. They probably also cheat like crazy [:)] As new features and styles of play were introduced when games became more complex, the AI was left behind.That's what I'm talking about with AI's. Why are AI's of 14 years ago or more kicking butt and the AI's today are as easy on Expert as they are on easy level?? ...I'll give another example of a firecracker game with a mediocre AI. COMBAT MISSION, all one has to do is stack up their command on one side of the field of battle or the other and you can flank the heck out of the computer AI, every game
MP has been used as an excuse and justification for crap AIs, I had a few arguements on the HOI board when people would say "well just play MP then..."
RE: Maybe Im too harsh?
fyi... We considered neither HoI nor EU2 to be overly complex. And we plan to make games similar to them from now on.
__________________
Johan Andersson
Europa Universalis I/II - Lead Programmer
Hearts of Iron - Lead Programmer
Victoria - Lead Programmer
johan@paradoxplaza.com
"Teamwork can only take you so far, then the truly evolved individual seizes personal glory." - Montgomery Bur
heh, just pulled that from my thread on HOI, I sort of took it too the forum what Ian had said above, wanted to get a response out of him.
To Dinsdale: Ahhhh I tend to agree, MP MP MP MP, blah on MP, I started buying computer games because I wanted a SP opponent that could play on my terms and my time. In the early days of computer wargaming I certainly got this. I really have an almost endless list of computer wargames to play, but, of course I'm always seeking that all time spectacular wargame of wargames, that beats them all hands down for years on end. For many years the "original" Civilization held this crown. And not until recently and with the use of DOSBOX have I been able to go back to those wonderful games of the 80's and early 90's. DOSBOX was a blessing, now I can play games from the old days on WinXP. Well at least with DOSBOX installed on WinXP. All those wonderful SSI wargames are now at my fingertips again. Gary Grigsby titles, Dave Landrey titles, Kroeger titles. The best wargame programmers of that time in my opinion. Cept of course for Sid Meiers Civilization. He's good as well. Can you imagine the wargame we might get if you got all four of those brains together? Or even a MMOG? I haven't seen the likes of these progammers in games in years. I know I haven't played any Maxtrix games, but, I have doodled with the demo of EYSA, it's pretty tough, I got slaughtered my first play at the demo. If a demo can slaughter me, the rest of the game must be pretty good.
Also while you may not consider the Total War engine to be a strategy game, the reviewers and game magazines do. And each one of their games received STRATEGY GAME of the YEAR AWARDS from either GAMESPY, or PCgamer and a couple of others.
It's what the public views as a majority anymore. It used to be what I viewed or you viewed, but, we have been left behind for the thumb twits(chers) and whinny babies of the new era, that wants simple, fast, speed of reward, powergaming, satisfaction. The new grognard appears, heh, isn't he ugly! lol
Just think in another say what 40-50 years the grognards will be those RTS fans, the FPS fans and I bet they are beaching about "virtual reality" programs that aren't near as much fun as their old RTS and FPS were! lol Although myself I have my ideas about true "virtual reality programs" and if they are anything like I AM ENVISIONING, they are gonna rock, but, I won't be playing any wargames! LOL ROFL I would love to see virtual reality hit about the time I retire, old, ugly, grey and wrinkled, but, with virtual reality, heh, well I think you can imagine the FUN I can have in my retirement years with it.
__________________
Johan Andersson
Europa Universalis I/II - Lead Programmer
Hearts of Iron - Lead Programmer
Victoria - Lead Programmer
johan@paradoxplaza.com
"Teamwork can only take you so far, then the truly evolved individual seizes personal glory." - Montgomery Bur
heh, just pulled that from my thread on HOI, I sort of took it too the forum what Ian had said above, wanted to get a response out of him.
To Dinsdale: Ahhhh I tend to agree, MP MP MP MP, blah on MP, I started buying computer games because I wanted a SP opponent that could play on my terms and my time. In the early days of computer wargaming I certainly got this. I really have an almost endless list of computer wargames to play, but, of course I'm always seeking that all time spectacular wargame of wargames, that beats them all hands down for years on end. For many years the "original" Civilization held this crown. And not until recently and with the use of DOSBOX have I been able to go back to those wonderful games of the 80's and early 90's. DOSBOX was a blessing, now I can play games from the old days on WinXP. Well at least with DOSBOX installed on WinXP. All those wonderful SSI wargames are now at my fingertips again. Gary Grigsby titles, Dave Landrey titles, Kroeger titles. The best wargame programmers of that time in my opinion. Cept of course for Sid Meiers Civilization. He's good as well. Can you imagine the wargame we might get if you got all four of those brains together? Or even a MMOG? I haven't seen the likes of these progammers in games in years. I know I haven't played any Maxtrix games, but, I have doodled with the demo of EYSA, it's pretty tough, I got slaughtered my first play at the demo. If a demo can slaughter me, the rest of the game must be pretty good.
Also while you may not consider the Total War engine to be a strategy game, the reviewers and game magazines do. And each one of their games received STRATEGY GAME of the YEAR AWARDS from either GAMESPY, or PCgamer and a couple of others.
It's what the public views as a majority anymore. It used to be what I viewed or you viewed, but, we have been left behind for the thumb twits(chers) and whinny babies of the new era, that wants simple, fast, speed of reward, powergaming, satisfaction. The new grognard appears, heh, isn't he ugly! lol
Just think in another say what 40-50 years the grognards will be those RTS fans, the FPS fans and I bet they are beaching about "virtual reality" programs that aren't near as much fun as their old RTS and FPS were! lol Although myself I have my ideas about true "virtual reality programs" and if they are anything like I AM ENVISIONING, they are gonna rock, but, I won't be playing any wargames! LOL ROFL I would love to see virtual reality hit about the time I retire, old, ugly, grey and wrinkled, but, with virtual reality, heh, well I think you can imagine the FUN I can have in my retirement years with it.
WE/I WANT 1:1 or something even 1:2 death animations in the KOIOS PANZER COMMAND SERIES don't forget Erik! and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?
and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?RE: Maybe Im too harsh?
To Dinsdale: Ahhhh I tend to agree, MP MP MP MP, blah on MP, I started buying computer games because I wanted a SP opponent that could play on my terms and my time. In the early days of computer wargaming I certainly got this. I really have an almost endless list of computer wargames to play, but, of course I'm always seeking that all time spectacular wargame of wargames, that beats them all hands down for years on end. For many years the "original" Civilization held this crown. And not until recently and with the use of DOSBOX have I been able to go back to those wonderful games of the 80's and early 90's. DOSBOX was a blessing, now I can play games from the old days on WinXP.
Do you have a list of games? Are they from underdogs or do you still have the originals?
Civ is a fine example of why AI's appeared better; rampant cheating [:)]
MP is just the ultimate "we couldn't be bothered to make the AI more than braindead-enjoy yourselfs online folks" cop out.
I found EYSA to be a frustrating experience, first Matrix game I bought that I think is a dud. The squad AI appears so poor that my own troops behave with no cohesion or order at all. I know they are working on patching it, so I might get back in a couple of months.I know I haven't played any Maxtrix games, but, I have doodled with the demo of EYSA, it's pretty tough, I got slaughtered my first play at the demo. If a demo can slaughter me, the rest of the game must be pretty good.
They also call Rise Of Nations strategy [;)] I just don't think it's the type of game where strategy is the focus. Compared to something like OPART it's about as strategic as The Sims.Also while you may not consider the Total War engine to be a strategy game, the reviewers and game magazines do. And each one of their games received STRATEGY GAME of the YEAR AWARDS from either GAMESPY, or PCgamer and a couple of others.
There are some games I'm looking forward to which hopefully might do; Empires In Arms, The Great War (Frank Hunter
s next game) and guardedly Crusader Kings.
Just to repeat, you should try HTTR, it's an amazing game, and while the AI has weaknesses, it's a little even as you need to rely on the AI yourself to organize attacks.
RE: Maybe Im too harsh?
OMG! You're gonna buy CRUSADER KINGS? Heh, I'm not buying another Paradox game until I see RAVE REVIEWS of it by 3 particular magazines. I'm done supporting Paradox after HOI.
Gamespot has already dumped on TWO THRONES....have you read the review? LOL, I think someone at Paradox musta pissed someone off at Gamespot, cause Paradox games are getting a smoking over there now.
Gamespot has already dumped on TWO THRONES....have you read the review? LOL, I think someone at Paradox musta pissed someone off at Gamespot, cause Paradox games are getting a smoking over there now.
WE/I WANT 1:1 or something even 1:2 death animations in the KOIOS PANZER COMMAND SERIES don't forget Erik! and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?
and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?RE: Maybe Im too harsh?
ORIGINAL: ravinhood
OMG! You're gonna buy CRUSADER KINGS? Heh, I'm not buying another Paradox game until I see RAVE REVIEWS of it by 3 particular magazines. I'm done supporting Paradox after HOI.
Gamespot has already dumped on TWO THRONES....have you read the review? LOL, I think someone at Paradox musta pissed someone off at Gamespot, cause Paradox games are getting a smoking over there now.
I was pretty happy with Victoria. I didn't play 1.02 and aside from some minor problems, 1.01 was a decent game. Not sure about 1.03, the undelying economy appears to be in meltdown with lots of people finding strange things going on with the micro-economic side. I'll still get CK, VIC won me over after HOI, which I didn't like because of the underlying game more than the bugs.
I saw the Two Thrones review, I'm not sure what Paradox gain by selling a repackaged Svea Rike which must be nearly 4 years old by now.
RE: Maybe Im too harsh?
They need money that's why, after the poor sales of Victoria. Hardly anyone bought it. Well those were IAN's words. So I guess they are grubbing for nickels and dimes now to stay afloat. I have the feeling if Crusader Kings stumbles, Paradox is in financial trouble.
WE/I WANT 1:1 or something even 1:2 death animations in the KOIOS PANZER COMMAND SERIES don't forget Erik! and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?
and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
RE: Maybe Im too harsh?
The market is not cruel so much as the market is able to tell you what you might be trying to ignore.
When a company fails their market to often, they end up no longer in business.
And me, I have to many worries worth worrying over, to waste tears on worrying over people that haven't earned it.
I worry over Matrix Games for instance, because they are trying so hard, but perhaps are trying to do to much.
The last thing I am going to do, is miss a company that was just in it for the money and to hell with the customer.
Ok lets see, 3 posts from now, I predict some high priest attacks me.
When a company fails their market to often, they end up no longer in business.
And me, I have to many worries worth worrying over, to waste tears on worrying over people that haven't earned it.
I worry over Matrix Games for instance, because they are trying so hard, but perhaps are trying to do to much.
The last thing I am going to do, is miss a company that was just in it for the money and to hell with the customer.
Ok lets see, 3 posts from now, I predict some high priest attacks me.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
-
EricGuitarJames
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 12:02 am
- Location: Not far enough away for some!
- Contact:
RE: Maybe Im too harsh?
ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
The market is not cruel so much as the market is able to tell you what you might be trying to ignore.
When a company fails their market to often, they end up no longer in business.
Hence the demise of Talonsoft? That's my opinion anyway[;)]
It's Just a Ride!
RE: Maybe Im too harsh?
ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames
Hence the demise of Talonsoft? That's my opinion anyway[;)]
I just wish they'd lasted long enough to release the Napoleonic game they promised [&:]
I think VIC's poor sales were a combination of bad reviews and the fact that it was/is almost impossible to find in stores. Throw in some bad blood from HOI victims and there you have it.