Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah Studio
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: I REALLY want to like this game but

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> RE: I REALLY want to like this game but Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/23/2012 6:29:58 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1687
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gravyface_
Dude, go enjoy the outdoors! Put away the Internet.


Good advice, but it's OK, I'm getting out and about as well, best of both worlds.


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to gravyface_)
Post #: 31
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/23/2012 8:12:40 PM   
Grimnirsson


Posts: 117
Joined: 12/25/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Sounds about right though: was it any good?


I have the current 3.4 version and am still learning the game, but yes I can say it's great. A true sim with a staggering amount of scenarios on about every war you can imagine. Highly recommended!

_____________________________


(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 32
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/24/2012 1:17:40 AM   
gravyface_

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 4/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grimnirsson

quote:

Sounds about right though: was it any good?


I have the current 3.4 version and am still learning the game, but yes I can say it's great. A true sim with a staggering amount of scenarios on about every war you can imagine. Highly recommended!


I meant the Elmer mode you were speaking of.

(in reply to Grimnirsson)
Post #: 33
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/24/2012 2:32:54 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1826
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Unfortunately there are too many other options for games that work better than ToF at the moment. That do not require a lot of effort on my part to 'fix'. So I will be hopeful that an expansion (or even a completly revamped new version) will be developed at some point. I will check back now and again to see if anything is different. I am really glad that others are willing to put the time into this as hopefully that means that there are maybe future patches, etc. versus the game being left in its current state.

(in reply to gravyface_)
Post #: 34
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/24/2012 3:39:44 AM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 3422
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Unfortunately there are too many other options for games that work better than ToF at the moment. That do not require a lot of effort on my part to 'fix'. So I will be hopeful that an expansion (or even a completly revamped new version) will be developed at some point. I will check back now and again to see if anything is different. I am really glad that others are willing to put the time into this as hopefully that means that there are maybe future patches, etc. versus the game being left in its current state.


your statement is total poppycock

I have been playing the game vanilla, with no mods, quite successfully and with great fun, both solo and multiplayer. The best WWII strategy game available. Witness my and others' AARs for examples of how fun the game is.

You started this thread complaining about the ease of SeaLion. Well, DON'T DO SEALION! Why try to stress the AI to breaking point? Why not play the game in a more historical, realistic fashion?

Naval game doesn't work? Wrong again. It's quite fun, especially the convoy raiding and ASW.

For would-be buyers of the game, do not be dissuaded by this thread.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 35
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/24/2012 6:56:09 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1826
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Wow! nice reply. So I make my opnion known and give exact details about my issues with the game and because you like the game so much, my opnions are 'popycock'? I also guess you missed the point where I said the game in multiplayer would work much better and be far more enjoyable.

If the game is supposed to be an ACCURATE or even a REASONABLE approximation of WWII, then ignoring the possible of Sealoion because it 'stresses the AI to the breaking point' is absurd. Other games going all the way back to Avalon Hill's Third Reich allow the ability of launching Sealion in a realistic manner versus what happens with ToF. Just beacuse the game does a poor job of being able to handle it is not a reason for me to 'make up house rules' just so the game does not break. Like I said there are many other games that I do not have to 'fix' in order to get a reasonable approximation of WWII in the ETO.

And I am sorry the naval game IS busted if the AI is putting the majority of its ships in single ship fleets. I will agree with you that the naval combat and raiding is fun when the AI does this because you can't get hurt and they get slaughtered as detailed in my OP.

If the devs chose not to address these issues that is fine by me as it is their IP and budget. So if they have the time and monies to further patch the game, great. I will certainly try it out again. If they can't due to time and budget constraints then I will just move on. No big deal to me

I will also admit that ToF is vastly imporved over ToW. maybe when they come out with ToD (Time of Distruction ) the game will be once agin vastly imporved. I would certainly buy a new version of the game if one was made (or an expansion).

I am glad you love the game so much and you love playing it. However, I do not due to the issues I have outlined. So we will just have to disagree on this. However, that does not give you any reason to disrespect my opnion just because it differs from yours. I hope you can be more reasonable in your replies going forward.

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 36
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/24/2012 10:41:46 AM   
Grimnirsson


Posts: 117
Joined: 12/25/2011
Status: offline
quote:

I meant the Elmer mode you were speaking of.


The games I played vs Elmer were tough, but I'm learning the game mostly via PbEM with my partner now, she's into wargames as well, call me a lucky guy :).
If you are interested in how the PO works I would suggest you jump over to the TOAW folder here on matrix, there are a lot of veterans of the game explaining everything in detail.

_____________________________


(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 37
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/24/2012 4:14:19 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1687
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Unfortunately there are too many other options for games that work better than ToF at the moment. That do not require a lot of effort on my part to 'fix'. So I will be hopeful that an expansion (or even a completly revamped new version) will be developed at some point. I will check back now and again to see if anything is different. I am really glad that others are willing to put the time into this as hopefully that means that there are maybe future patches, etc. versus the game being left in its current state.


I have many games on the shelf which I should really like, but don't, as whatever the developers were working at, doesn't work for me. There are few enough companies working in this field as it is, so any support given is not wasted, if it helps keep this corner of the industry going.

There are more accurate games and there are fun games, ToF is in between, I think accuracy is often won at the cost of flexibility. To get a responsive AI, the games have to work within fairly narrow limits, restricting the player to the same limits. There are times when that cost is worth paying to get a more accurate game, but also it's just as rewarding to have more uncertainty and flexibility in the game, each game fills a different need.

It's all fantasy in the end, no real commander knows the position of all his forces all the time, exactly how far each of them can move, exact condition of each unit, weather effects everywhere - for each turn period, exact odds for combat, either before, or after the event, etc., none of it is really accurate to the real events. The only certainty in war is uncertainly and I find that in ToF.

I like not being trapped in a rigid framework and if I don't like some aspect of this game, it often can be changed with in-game preferences. If I don't agree with some design decisions, I can change them (mostly by small file changes - computing degree not required), which is refreshing, but you have to be able to use the flexibilty and work the changes, no pain no gain. I don't look on it as 'fixing' the game, more as an opportuny to possess a game that can be tuned to my taste. Equally I recognise that some players will not expect to have to do this, but I have also enjoyed the game from ver. 1.00 and the mods and adjustments are enhancing the experience. Even the 'best' games are considered as broken, from time to time, on their respective forums, gone are the days when games were just published, it is now always an evolving process of update and mods.

Most of my interest has been in making the game more realistic, more competent modders are achieving even more. I am not concerned so much by the often random results, as to my mind, many stranger events have happened in reality. You mentioned the Red Sea convoy and lack of response from the Allies. In reality there were wide variations in performance, the British, from Malta, were very active in interdicting Axis convoys in the Mediterranian, but then quite ineffective in attacking the 'Channel Dash', when operating from home base, with all the advantages that should bring. History is full similar incidents, the USN did not spot an enormous 6 carrier fleet approaching Hawaii, with obvious ill intent, the Germans did not see the 5th Guards Tank Army at Kursk, during its 200 mile approach march and many more. The moral being that in war, s**t happens, and I see that as a contribution to realism, even if it is by omission, rather than design. Real war is chaotic, it doesn't roll along with neat odds calculations.

I don't think it's so much that the devs choose not to address these issues, more an uncertainty as to how some changes will affect the overall performance of the game, some things they have changed quickly, others not, I am not competent to judge. They have shown an eagerness to respond to forum comments, but are understandably not prepared to immediately make changes that might cause problems in other areas.

Everyone is welcome to their own opinion and all of this discussion should not be about fixing the game one way, or other, but in finding the preferences and options where we can all win and this game has more preferences and options than most. I would argue the merits of any case, but never object to an alternative option for anything, there is often room in this game for more than one solution.

Live long and prosper.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 8/24/2012 9:24:40 PM >


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 38
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/24/2012 4:52:42 PM   
vonRocko

 

Posts: 1196
Joined: 11/4/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner


Well, DON'T DO SEALION! Why try to stress the AI to breaking point? Why not play the game in a more historical, realistic fashion?

Naval game doesn't work? Wrong again. It's quite fun, especially the convoy raiding and ASW.




So the Royal Navy doing nothing to defend the channel or British beaches is ok with you. If protecting the channel is to much "stress" for the AI, then I could only imagine how bad the AI really is.

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 39
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/24/2012 5:07:26 PM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 3422
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline
I just get so tired of guys who play the game to test its limits, rather than enjoying its many, many great features. Then they judge the game on those fringe aspects, rather than the many great features.

Play the game through, an entire campaign scenario, ALL aspects, then give your definitive opinion.

(in reply to vonRocko)
Post #: 40
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/24/2012 8:59:29 PM   
vonRocko

 

Posts: 1196
Joined: 11/4/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

I just get so tired of guys who play the game to test its limits, rather than enjoying its many, many great features. Then they judge the game on those fringe aspects, rather than the many great features.

Play the game through, an entire campaign scenario, ALL aspects, then give your definitive opinion.


I understand what you are saying, but the Royal navy not defending England is not a fringe aspect, but a critical flaw in programing. Every boat they got should be there.

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 41
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/24/2012 11:21:34 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1687
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vonRocko
quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

I just get so tired of guys who play the game to test its limits, rather than enjoying its many, many great features. Then they judge the game on those fringe aspects, rather than the many great features.

Play the game through, an entire campaign scenario, ALL aspects, then give your definitive opinion.


I understand what you are saying, but the Royal navy not defending England is not a fringe aspect, but a critical flaw in programing. Every boat they got should be there.


You are right that there should be more reaction to an invasion of the British Isles, but you would not want the same level of aggression in other theatres and under other situations. Then you are into scripting AI behaviour, which firstly takes out the uncertainty aspects and secondly, when you know the script, it neuters the AI.

Other games produce an apparently stronger AI, by designing to tight limitations so that the AI can cope, but how long before the game restrictions become irksome, or PBEM is the only challenge.

In a perfect world we want an AI that does it all, but recognising the shortcomings in present AI, I am not sure it's worth having a reaction to an operation that would probabily not have taken place, that would be inappropriate for the rest of the game, where more caution is required of the AI. Again, note the unexpectedly ineffectual British reaction to the 'Channel Dash', an AI scripted to Banzai action in the Channel would not let that happen. As soon as the human player realises that the AI is going to react in predictable ways, then they will amend their strategy accordingly.

If the devs can work it out, well and good, but in the meantime it's not a great loss in a game covering such a large field.

Comments in other threads highlight that the Devs know the naval part of the game needs improvement and it's not lack of interest, they have encouraged player involvement, some of ToF content has come from player input to earlier titles.

I am happy to stay on for the ride and see where it goes, enjoying the game in the meantime.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 8/24/2012 11:22:52 PM >


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to vonRocko)
Post #: 42
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/24/2012 11:50:29 PM   
gravyface_

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 4/21/2007
Status: offline
Can anyone confirm whether the Royal Navy issue is a repeatable "bug" or just a fluke? I'm on the fence here: I'm not playing the game because I have a few others on the go and from what I've been reading, it's in need or another update (or two). However, I think you need to be a) lenient with small, niche, development shops developing small, niche games b) really play the game thoroughly before unleashing a torrent of complaints in an online forum.

My two bits. Commence rebuttals.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 43
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/25/2012 12:37:37 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1826
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
I can tell you the same AI behavior has occured in the three games I have tried so far when I invaded England. So I would say 3 for 3 is not a good track record . For the entire German Navy to actually be sailing around the Channel and not lose a signle ship is not something I would say is 'testing the game to its limits'. Neither is creating enough LC in a week to land two corp the following week. Plus have this massive LC fleet slowly, oh so slowly also sail across the same channel without a single ship being sunk. This also occured in all thee games.

If the devs could not script a decent AI response to Sealion, then they should have just made the game so that Sealion could not be done. Of course then we would all complain about why they did that . The bottom line is that if the game allows a player to do something, then the game should be able to handle it. If not then, imho, that part is broken and needs to be fixed if the devs want the game to work correctly.

(in reply to gravyface_)
Post #: 44
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/25/2012 9:36:43 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1687
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
I don't know enough about the workings of AI systems to be sure what the solution is, but have already said that amphibious landings should need a great deal of preparation. You would not want to open it to exploitation, the player puts a transport 'bait' into the Channel, then pounds the RN when it makes a scripted massive response.

However, you do want the opposition to respond to amhibious operations, when they are real and need to set the preparation and cost so that it's only worth doing when it is real, not frivolous.

You want to be able to make small landings of divisional size, such as Dieppe (leads into the ability to evacuate ground units by sea), up to a full scale invasion. You have landings that can be launched from an ocean away, as in 'Torch', or from across the narrower Channel, complicating the surprise factor.

Payment of PPs in advance, over and above the cost of Amphibious Points, with designated landing beaches selected several turns ahead. The bigger the landing (especially the use of armour), the greater the PP cost and time delay. The AI could be let into this process, in reality you cannot make these preparations completely in secret and the AI could be set to make a more appropriate response.

I think air supremacy could play a part here, giving surprise advantages to the attacker, if you have supremacy, or in breaking through FOW if you try this without supremacy. At the moment you only have a chance to see an amphibious transport when it's loaded, which is too late if a landing has been in preparation for weeks. Something like creating the transports in ports several turns ahead and giving the opponent a chance to recce the contents of the ports, especially with air supremacy. You may be able to hide a BB or two, but you certainly couldn't hide 1000s of landing barges, again size matters, small landings would not be so easy to see during prepartion.

The main point is the visibily of amphibious transport fleets, if the AI doesn't make a full response to a BB fleet running the gauntlet in the Channel (or any where else), so be it, but force the earlier appearance of amphibious transport fleets, to give the opponent the chance to see them, by flying recce missions, or maybe automatically with airsupremacy, and prepare the response we want to see.

I wouldn't want to see things take out of the game (banning Sea Lion), but getting more options is always good.


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 45
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/25/2012 10:57:19 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1687
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
Here's something else to consider, during the early war period there was little in the way of specialised amphibious shipping, so can we have amphibious tech levels, or general naval tech level will set amphibious capability. At a low tech level, amphibious landings can only be launched from ports in the same, or adjacent sea areas, as the sea area of the designated landing beaches. This simplifies the surprise element, especially for Sea Lion, whereas, later in the war after buying higher naval and/or amphibious tech levels, landings can be mounted from further away, so that detection is only going to occur when the assault fleet is loaded and already at sea.

Most landings in the later war period seem to have arrived as a surprise, even though they were expected, with the actual landing beaches only revealed when the ships were off the coast.

I think the main point is that the game system will have the amphibious fleet visible well before the landing is made, with the landing beaches designated in advance and with a delay before the landing can be launched, surely the AI can be made to use some of this to respond in defence, not allowing it to pack the beach, but give it priorities and objectives to organise a reasonable response (the AI gets cheat help in other areas). The human player would have to work for the information, try for air supremacy, recce and bomb the ports, have air/naval units available to interdict the landing, or face the consequences.

So, Doomtrader, is this worth discussing further, is it likely to be something that could fly, or will it crash and burn.


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 46
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/25/2012 12:33:55 PM   
gravyface_

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 4/21/2007
Status: offline
Another thing to consider was that Sea Lion was just flat out impossible without:

- air superiority (Battle of Britain)
- ships (Germany Navy, landing craft)
- channel/current itself: there was just a handful of places to land, at certain times of the year, that the window of opportunity was so small as to make surprise highly unlikely and make defense certain.

I firmly believe Hitler would never have launched Sea Lion and chose to wage war with Britain via convoys and the air battle: it was his only feasible option.

Now, can that be reversed with Time of Fury? You can certainly load up on Navy and Air units, but the channel itself was never taken into consideration, nor landing terrain: from what I've read, you can land pretty much anywhere (and even heard that a successful combat roll is almost guaranteed!) and that's flatout wrong. I'd say on any given coast, there's going to far less places in which you can make an amphibious assault.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 47
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/25/2012 3:48:25 PM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 3422
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vonRocko


I understand what you are saying, but the Royal navy not defending England is not a fringe aspect, but a critical flaw in programing. Every boat they got should be there.


Sealion is indeed a 'fringe' aspect of the game. It never happened! But then, one of the great things about this game is that 'what ifs' can be tested.

With a multiplayer game of TOW, in which Sea Lion is attempted, if the British player defends the Channel with every naval asset, he'll get plastered by the Luftwaffe. At that stage of the war, IF the German player uses most of his air assets against the Channel, he'll gain superiority, and then the Royal Navy is done for. and Sea Lion proceeds.

when that happens, you guys are going to start complaining: where was the Royal Air Force!? The air-sea attack power is way out of kilter!! The Germans could never have gained air superiority!! Then you will claim that the game is worthless, it can't recreate the Battle of Brittain, etc etc etc.

Of course there are fifty adjustable game factors related to air strength, combat result rations, OOB, and so on, but vanilla, the above will happen.

Once again, how about playing the game to its strength - which is the ground war, instead of its weakest part, which may be naval AI.

I have lost against the AI in Barbarossa - take a look at one of my old AARs.

< Message edited by gwgardner -- 8/25/2012 3:51:08 PM >

(in reply to vonRocko)
Post #: 48
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/25/2012 5:41:46 PM   
vonRocko

 

Posts: 1196
Joined: 11/4/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner


Once again, how about playing the game to its strength

I do agree with you here, I try to play games with that attitude. I know it is tough, for a game like this, to have a great AI, but this AI seems to be missing some more basic problems. Rasputitsa has some interesting ideas. I'm better at picking flaws then offering solutions, so I'm glad he is around. Like the title of thread says, I want to like this game but....

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 49
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/25/2012 5:58:48 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1687
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gravyface_
Another thing to consider was that Sea Lion was just flat out impossible without:

- air superiority (Battle of Britain)
- ships (Germany Navy, landing craft)
- channel/current itself: there was just a handful of places to land, at certain times of the year, that the window of opportunity was so small as to make surprise highly unlikely and make defense certain.

I firmly believe Hitler would never have launched Sea Lion and chose to wage war with Britain via convoys and the air battle: it was his only feasible option.

Now, can that be reversed with Time of Fury? You can certainly load up on Navy and Air units, but the channel itself was never taken into consideration, nor landing terrain: from what I've read, you can land pretty much anywhere (and even heard that a successful combat roll is almost guaranteed!) and that's flatout wrong. I'd say on any given coast, there's going to far less places in which you can make an amphibious assault.


I am not suggesing that we turn ToF into an Operation Sea Lion simulator, the game is enjoyable enough as it is, but there is always room for some historical inprovement.

Push F9 in ver. 1.02 to see the hexes which are available as landing beaches, I suggest that the player should have to click on a hex, or hexes, which would then be highlighted (not on the opponents display) as planned landing beaches and pay PPs for each hex, to avoid people clicking the whole coast. This represents the planning and cost of preparaions for assault. After several turns delay, you then can create amphibious fleets in suitable ports (see previous post for suggested sea area restrictions), but there is a further delay (the more strength points loaded the longer the delay) in being able to launch them, giving the opponent an opportunity to spot the fleets and bomb them if they have the air power (the attacker would obviously what to mass air power in protection). After several turns delay, you are then free to launch an amphibious assault on the previously highlighted hexes. If you change the selected landing hexes, the PP cost and at least part of the delay applies again.

I can do much of this with personal house rules playing solo, but others think that the game should do it. I can choose landing hexes in advance, deduct extra PPs through F12 as preparation, load amphibious fleets, but hold them in ports to simulate training and further preparation, have to ensure air supremacy to protect them, before eventually launching an invasion. The AI will continue under the normal game rules, but it needs the help and a chance to react.

Landing is not always the difficulty if you can pick an empty beach hex, the combat die roll for landing depends on whether the landing hex is defended, or not, and how much air and sea bombardment you can bring in (landing hexes might be empty when you select them, but defended after the several turns delay in launching). The defender can make it more difficult by splitting units to cover more of the threatened coast (again F9 shows what you have to defend), can the AI do this if it can be given a 'beach defence mode', just like it knows to defend rail and city hexes, an 'invasion warning' in any area should get it defending beaches, the more I think about this game the more I like it.

I can make the game more realistic for myself and have done so in other parts of the game, which is why I'm happier with it than some, but how much can be done for the overall accuracy of the game.

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to gravyface_)
Post #: 50
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/25/2012 8:22:41 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1826
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonRocko


I understand what you are saying, but the Royal navy not defending England is not a fringe aspect, but a critical flaw in programing. Every boat they got should be there.


Sealion is indeed a 'fringe' aspect of the game. It never happened! But then, one of the great things about this game is that 'what ifs' can be tested.

With a multiplayer game of TOW, in which Sea Lion is attempted, if the British player defends the Channel with every naval asset, he'll get plastered by the Luftwaffe. At that stage of the war, IF the German player uses most of his air assets against the Channel, he'll gain superiority, and then the Royal Navy is done for. and Sea Lion proceeds.

when that happens, you guys are going to start complaining: where was the Royal Air Force!? The air-sea attack power is way out of kilter!! The Germans could never have gained air superiority!! Then you will claim that the game is worthless, it can't recreate the Battle of Brittain, etc etc etc.

Of course there are fifty adjustable game factors related to air strength, combat result rations, OOB, and so on, but vanilla, the above will happen.

Once again, how about playing the game to its strength - which is the ground war, instead of its weakest part, which may be naval AI.

I have lost against the AI in Barbarossa - take a look at one of my old AARs.


I agrre with your comments. But I ask where was the RAF when the German Navy was sailing around the Channel in my game? So it is not just the naval aspect of the game, it is the entire naval/air interaction which was a VERY important part of the ETO, the clashes in the Med, bombing the Italian fleet at Taranto, etc.

So while Sealion specificly may be a 'fring' item, the other operations (which really did happen) do not occur either due to the way air and see interact (or non-interact ). Sealion just highlights the problem better than so of the other actions that happen in the game.

Here is another good example. In early '43 the US goes to war with me. I have the majority of the German Navy stationed around England. The US sends a massive fleet along with LCs into a sea area where I have German SFs to invade Liverpool. So lets look at the sequence of events for this to occur in the game.

1. US AI loads the units on the ships
2. US AI sails this huge fleet across the Atlantic without me having any knowledge of it. I guess my Uboat patrols were all asleep
3. US AI reaches the Irish Sea
4. My fleets completely ignore not just the combat ships, but the LCs as well. My planes cannot fly as it is not my turn.
5. The units land with no opposition and proceed to get wiped out over the next few turns. The same invasion was repeated twice more with the same results.

What should have occured
1. Same as above
2. Should have some awareness this fleet was headed my way considering its size. Also should have gotten a rough idea of where it was going too.
3. The opposing naval should have had one (or more) clashes prior to the US fleet geting to the Irish Sea (considering we are talking a weeks worth of time here)
4. Air strikes (on both sides) should have occured
5. Other German naval forces should react to the US fleet prior to the landing actually occuring
6. The landing would not occur (and the LC should not be anywhere near the Irish Sea until this is determined) unless the US was able to get air superioty over the area.
7. Once Step 6 occures, then the landing can occur.
8. Some random portion of the landing units strengh, etc. should be impacted
9. Rush to capture a port asap (versus wandering around the countryside trying to capture VP locations).

So if the game AI launched DDay (which I respectfully submit is not a 'fringe' element) The US would land without any losses and would not even notice if
a) Opposing ships were in the Channel
b) They had air superioty or not
c) they captured any ports or not

So how can the Allies even come close to DDay in the game unless they are controlled by a human. If I am going to have to play both sides in a computer game, I'll play the computer version of DGs War in Europe instead. I buy these games for the AI, not to play aginst others. So if the AI is not doing its job, then them game gets punished for it.

As I have said before this game in mutltiplayer with all majors played by humans would rock. However, that is NOT why I purchased the game and why I am so vocal about its flaws. As I WANT the AI to be able to handle this situations with some ability, versus what it does now.

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 51
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/26/2012 1:06:49 AM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 3422
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline
I concede the point, about the overall AI. It sucks, with the exception of the Russian AI.

IF I were only going to play solo, and IF Barbarossa was not my focus, then the only way to play would be with AI very easy, human hard, but I dislike that kind of play.

Play the game against a human. You'll enjoy it.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 52
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/26/2012 8:35:04 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1687
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
The point was made early in the thread that AI is not good at taking the iniative and producing an imaginative attacking strategy. This applies to most games, unless the parameters of the game are so tightly structured that the AI can cope, but the human player is equally constrained. ToF is more flexibly structured, which is refreshing, both styles of game have their merits and I guess we all play both. Many games are presented as is, take it or leave it, you have to accept the design decisions in them. ToF has huge possibilities in preferences, settings, mods, file tweaks, solo house rules, maps, unit icons, almost everything can be changed, you may not want to do this, but it's all about choice.

The way to maximise the features in ToF against the AI, is to play the side that has the iniative, Axis early war, Allies late war. There is a lot the really like in this game.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 8/26/2012 9:08:00 AM >


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 53
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/31/2012 4:28:17 AM   
Razz


Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline
Try the Third Reich scenario.

Operation Sea Lion will be much tougher.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 54
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 8/31/2012 8:36:08 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1687
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

Here's something else to consider, during the early war period there was little in the way of specialised amphibious shipping, so can we have amphibious tech levels, or general naval tech level will set amphibious capability. At a low tech level, amphibious landings can only be launched from ports in the same, or adjacent sea areas, as the sea area of the designated landing beaches. This simplifies the surprise element, especially for Sea Lion, whereas, later in the war after buying higher naval and/or amphibious tech levels, landings can be mounted from further away, so that detection is only going to occur when the assault fleet is loaded and already at sea.

Most landings in the later war period seem to have arrived as a surprise, even though they were expected, with the actual landing beaches only revealed when the ships were off the coast.

I think the main point is that the game system will have the amphibious fleet visible well before the landing is made, with the landing beaches designated in advance and with a delay before the landing can be launched, surely the AI can be made to use some of this to respond in defence, not allowing it to pack the beach, but give it priorities and objectives to organise a reasonable response (the AI gets cheat help in other areas). The human player would have to work for the information, try for air supremacy, recce and bomb the ports, have air/naval units available to interdict the landing, or face the consequences.

So, Doomtrader, is this worth discussing further, is it likely to be something that could fly, or will it crash and burn.


Bump ! Doomtrader is this worth discussing further.


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 55
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 9/7/2012 4:14:36 AM   
Hairog


Posts: 349
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Appleton, WI
Status: offline
Air superiority should be the key or no air units present at all. No air superiority in a sea zone then no invasion should be possible.

This would take care of a Sealion and yet make a D-Day possible or for that matter a Sealion after Battle of Britain victory for the Luff.

If there are no air units for either side present then the invasion can happen. This would simulate things like Norway.

_____________________________

World War Three 1946 Blog
World War Three 1946 2nd Edition available at Amazon

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 56
RE: I REALLY want to like this game but - 9/7/2012 9:28:03 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1687
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog
Air superiority should be the key or no air units present at all. No air superiority in a sea zone then no invasion should be possible.

This would take care of a Sealion and yet make a D-Day possible or for that matter a Sealion after Battle of Britain victory for the Luff.

If there are no air units for either side present then the invasion can happen. This would simulate things like Norway.


Air superiority is key, but I think players should have to fight for it. At the moment you can load up amphibious fleets then look for an empty beach to land on. Air superiority is key to being able to fly the recce missions to find such beaches.

However, in reality there is a huge amount of planning in any amphibious operation, which I am suggesting can be simulated by introducing a delay period, with the amphibious fleets loaded, giving time for the air war to be fought, defender to fly recce flights to find the fleets, bomb the ports, attacker to suppress this air power, let combat decide who can has assembled the required air units to win the air war.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3175683



_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Hairog)
Post #: 57
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> RE: I REALLY want to like this game but Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.110