From: Winnipeg, MB
But, back to the original question, why are victory point totals so low in competitive games?
Anyone willing to offer an explanation?
The AI fudges the industry mechanic, meaning they get more planes & rebuild more LCU's than is possible in a player controlled game.
I'd warrant that a significnant portion of the VP difference in your AI games originates from VP's generated from destroyed airframes and LCU's.
You don't get that kind of one-sided difference in player vs player games.
But its also one sided when you compare the 77k points the AI was able to score against me to what Japanese players are scoring in competitive games. The Allies aren't getting an increase in the number of planes, ships and troops for the Japanese side to run up more points by destroying. One would also presume the AI to be lesser effective at accumulating VPs than a human.
The really big question is how can the AI, which is presumably significantly handicapped when compared to a human, run up more points against a human than another human can?
I guess the obvious answer must be the overwhelming strength the AI side has in the Ironman games. Even a poor dumb AI following scripts is capable of running up a higher point total than a human if given sufficient resources.
To give the player against the AI more of a challenge, the game is given the ability to "cheat" and do things like teleport unengaged units to where they are needed, especially ships. I suspect that the AI might also give itself enough supply in all the bases it holds to be able to count the VPs for the base. Again, the idea is to challenge the Allied player to take the enemy bases to reduce the AI's VP total. I railed at the "AI Cheat" too, until I was made to realize that it had to be so if the solo player wanted any kind of challenge.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth