France '40 - first review

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Hi,

Well, first one I saw that is - by Jim Cobb

http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/articles.php?p=449&page=1&cat=52

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
40 answers Last reply
More about france review
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    From the review:

    " Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly meaningful
    ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it plays
    defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to be
    allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
    scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."

    That's all I need to know to give it a pass.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "David" <nospam@home.net> wrote in message
    news:V9idnZd30faWhF3fRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
    > From the review:
    >
    > " Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly
    meaningful
    > ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it plays
    > defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to be
    > allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
    > scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."
    >
    > That's all I need to know to give it a pass.
    >
    >

    no game playing friends? too bad.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 12:44:28 -0400, "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    >
    > no game playing friends? too bad.

    Congratulations, you just crossed the line between mere fanboy and
    raving lunatic.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <ikXAQswvEku5tpHGSJ1SkFLJIfWO@4ax.com>,
    fakeaddress@hotmail.com says...

    > > no game playing friends? too bad.
    >
    > Congratulations, you just crossed the line between mere fanboy and
    > raving lunatic.

    "Just?"

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts
    the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops
    in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of
    liberals."
    - Karl Rove
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 14:39:44 -0400, Giftzwerg
    <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >In article <ikXAQswvEku5tpHGSJ1SkFLJIfWO@4ax.com>,
    >fakeaddress@hotmail.com says...
    >
    >> > no game playing friends? too bad.
    >>
    >> Congratulations, you just crossed the line between mere fanboy and
    >> raving lunatic.
    >
    >"Just?"

    I stand corrected.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "David" <nospam@home.net> wrote in message
    news:V9idnZd30faWhF3fRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
    > From the review:
    >
    > " Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly
    meaningful
    > ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it plays
    > defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to be
    > allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
    > scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."
    >
    > That's all I need to know to give it a pass.
    >

    Same 'ole, same 'ole in the HPS/Talonsoft camp.


    >
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <V9idnZd30faWhF3fRVn-2Q@adelphia.com>, nospam@home.net
    says...
    > From the review:
    >
    > " Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly meaningful
    > ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it plays
    > defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to be
    > allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
    > scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."
    >
    > That's all I need to know to give it a pass.

    I just thought that was how their AI was supposed to work.

    --

    Epi

    ------------
    It seems quite amazing to me that so many people
    wish to harm part of what a symbol stands for in
    order to protect the symbol.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Epi" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d2a273b311e305c98972b@news.east.earthlink.net...
    > In article <V9idnZd30faWhF3fRVn-2Q@adelphia.com>, nospam@home.net
    > says...
    >> From the review:
    >>
    >> " Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly
    >> meaningful
    >> ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it plays
    >> defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to be
    >> allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
    >> scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."
    >>
    >> That's all I need to know to give it a pass.
    >
    > I just thought that was how their AI was supposed to work.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Epi
    >

    True, I didn't expect the AI to be any good. I'm just still bitter that the
    AI hasn't improved very much after Battleground Iteration XXX.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <doydnfhoU-gj913fRVn-1A@adelphia.com>, nospam@home.net
    says...

    > >> " Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly
    > >> meaningful
    > >> ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it plays
    > >> defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to be
    > >> allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
    > >> scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."
    > >>
    > >> That's all I need to know to give it a pass.
    > >
    > > I just thought that was how their AI was supposed to work.

    > True, I didn't expect the AI to be any good. I'm just still bitter that the
    > AI hasn't improved very much after Battleground Iteration XXX.

    Why should they improve the AI?

    Improving the AI won't move them an inch closer to releasing the next
    $50 game - but taking the same game engine and throwing together another
    scenario will. Until their customers want more than just another $50
    scenario pack - IE, show some disinclination to purchase another samey-
    same $50 sausage - HPS will cheerfully supply the same engine and AI
    over and over and over again.

    And why shouldn't they, when they receive "reviews" like this one that
    positively *gloat* over the fact that it's just another sausage!?


    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts
    the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops
    in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of
    liberals."
    - Karl Rove
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Mmmmmmm! Sausage!

    Dirk

    "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d2a3895416d372a98a0d9@news-east.giganews.com...
    > In article <doydnfhoU-gj913fRVn-1A@adelphia.com>, nospam@home.net
    > says...
    >
    >> >> " Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly
    >> >> meaningful
    >> >> ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it
    >> >> plays
    >> >> defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to
    >> >> be
    >> >> allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
    >> >> scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."
    >> >>
    >> >> That's all I need to know to give it a pass.
    >> >
    >> > I just thought that was how their AI was supposed to work.
    >
    >> True, I didn't expect the AI to be any good. I'm just still bitter that
    >> the
    >> AI hasn't improved very much after Battleground Iteration XXX.
    >
    > Why should they improve the AI?
    >
    > Improving the AI won't move them an inch closer to releasing the next
    > $50 game - but taking the same game engine and throwing together another
    > scenario will. Until their customers want more than just another $50
    > scenario pack - IE, show some disinclination to purchase another samey-
    > same $50 sausage - HPS will cheerfully supply the same engine and AI
    > over and over and over again.
    >
    > And why shouldn't they, when they receive "reviews" like this one that
    > positively *gloat* over the fact that it's just another sausage!?
    >
    >
    > --
    > Giftzwerg
    > ***
    > "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts
    > the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops
    > in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of
    > liberals."
    > - Karl Rove
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 17:24:30 -0400, Giftzwerg
    <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >And why shouldn't they, when they receive "reviews" like this one that
    >positively *gloat* over the fact that it's just another sausage!?

    I was actually surprised at the positive sloant, since the author
    recently posted a bit of a rant here recently about these games being
    cookie cutter games, with no real advances, etc.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Michael A. Oberly" <kitch@SPAMOFF columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:i2s0c1pm8c8daguroqj89uq5343kn1i060@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 17:24:30 -0400, Giftzwerg
    > <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>And why shouldn't they, when they receive "reviews" like this one that
    >>positively *gloat* over the fact that it's just another sausage!?
    >
    > I was actually surprised at the positive sloant, since the author
    > recently posted a bit of a rant here recently about these games being
    > cookie cutter games, with no real advances, etc.

    I'm not surprised at all. This is Jim Cobb, after all.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Giftzwerg schreef:
    > Why should they improve the AI?
    >
    > Improving the AI won't move them an inch closer to releasing the next
    > $50 game - but taking the same game engine and throwing together another
    > scenario will. Until their customers want more than just another $50
    > scenario pack - IE, show some disinclination to purchase another samey-
    > same $50 sausage - HPS will cheerfully supply the same engine and AI
    > over and over and over again.

    Things might be changing - apparantly the peasants are starting to
    grumble a bit and in response Glenn Saunders posted this :

    http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28930

    Notice that they worked *a whole week* on changes in the engine :)

    > And why shouldn't they, when they receive "reviews" like this one that
    > positively *gloat* over the fact that it's just another sausage!?

    Well, I liked the review - especially when you combine these 2
    paragraphs :

    "Given these considerations, a good game design can provide a system
    where players can change Allied doctrine and tactics in a believable
    way. The latest entry in HPS and John Tiller's Panzer Campaign
    series, France '40, tackles this daunting task with an
    extraordinarily fine assist by David Guegan."

    "The German superiority is shown by giving units a higher morale number
    balanced against a short time from for victory and dwindling local
    supply values as the spearheads advance. The Allies' bad training and
    doctrine is seen in their usually low morale value."

    This gives you exactly the information you need, nothing is hidden. I
    don't mind if a reviewer has a liking for a particular engine/system as
    long as he's clear about the facts.

    Greetz,

    Eddy Sterckx
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    eddysterckx@hotmail.com wrote:
    (snip)
    > Things might be changing - apparantly the peasants are starting to
    > grumble a bit and in response Glenn Saunders posted this :
    >
    > http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28930
    >
    > Notice that they worked *a whole week* on changes in the engine :)
    >(snip)
    > Greetz,
    >
    > Eddy Sterckx

    Even though I've given up on the series due to non-existant AI and
    grandtactical oddities in the operational framework, I checked out the
    thread.

    Laudible that JT is adapting the engine based on player feedback.

    One 'improvement' stands out though:
    " When an indirect fire unit fires on a Hard Target, either hard
    vehicles or units deployed in a hard fortification, then the disruption
    effect is twice that of normal."

    So indirect (artillery?) fire is more effective against hard vehicle
    (than v soft targets) and hard fortification (than v soft or no fort?).

    "Incoming shells! Quick, everybody out of ze Panzer!"


    - von Schmidt
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Vincenzo Beretta wrote:
    > > One 'improvement' stands out though:
    > > " When an indirect fire unit fires on a Hard Target, either hard
    > > vehicles or units deployed in a hard fortification, then the disruption
    > > effect is twice that of normal."
    > >
    > > So indirect (artillery?) fire is more effective against hard vehicle
    > > (than v soft targets) and hard fortification (than v soft or no fort?).
    >
    > I do not have the game, but maybe the disruption effect is doubled *instead*
    > of causing losses.

    IIRC fire can cause both losses and disruption in the series.
    Mayhaps a Hard target does not suffer (hardly) any casualties and the
    disruption effect is changed to offset that.

    Still, having the disruption effect being twice as much on HT as on
    'normal'(normal = indirect on soft and hard target? or direct fire on
    soft?) does not make much sense.

    Surely the major effect IRL of indirect fire on soft targets IS
    disruption?
    And surely the major reason for hardened shelter is to protect against
    losses and disruption?

    Reminds me a bit of the effect of >155mm in a TOAW patch, which would
    increase in effectiveness as the entrenchment level of the target
    increases.
    It does not compute.

    von Schmidt
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:aIGdnYb30K9ysV3fRVn-iw@comcast.com...
    >
    > "David" <nospam@home.net> wrote in message
    > news:V9idnZd30faWhF3fRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
    > > From the review:
    > >
    > > " Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly
    > meaningful
    > > ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it plays
    > > defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to be
    > > allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
    > > scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."
    > >
    > > That's all I need to know to give it a pass.
    > >
    > >
    >
    > no game playing friends? too bad.
    >
    >


    fanboy? i wouldn't buy a tedioustiller game for anything. but the constant
    crying about AI here gets tiresome, find people to play with. i think many
    who only play AI are afraid to play real people because they are afraid to
    lose or they have found they aren't quite the napoleon they imagined they
    are. it is easy to find pbem buddies , i've found some here, all it takes is
    asking for opponents. no AI is ever going to beat a human. to me AI is just
    a tool to familiarize myself with game play before i really begin to play
    for real , that is against a human. pbem is to me much more important than
    any AI as almost all my place is against a human.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Frank E" <fakeaddress@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:XFLAQlfpjPhUl3XO3kSZDDQlzS4O@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 14:39:44 -0400, Giftzwerg
    > <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <ikXAQswvEku5tpHGSJ1SkFLJIfWO@4ax.com>,
    > >fakeaddress@hotmail.com says...
    > >
    > >> > no game playing friends? too bad.
    > >>
    > >> Congratulations, you just crossed the line between mere fanboy and
    > >> raving lunatic.
    > >
    > >"Just?"
    >
    > I stand corrected.

    i'm sure you stand corrected quite often, i guess you have no game playing
    friends either.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    > One 'improvement' stands out though:
    > " When an indirect fire unit fires on a Hard Target, either hard
    > vehicles or units deployed in a hard fortification, then the disruption
    > effect is twice that of normal."
    >
    > So indirect (artillery?) fire is more effective against hard vehicle
    > (than v soft targets) and hard fortification (than v soft or no fort?).

    I do not have the game, but maybe the disruption effect is doubled *instead*
    of causing losses.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <PaSdndlq3L3uP1zfRVn-rg@comcast.com>, roh@comcast.net says...
    >
    > "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:aIGdnYb30K9ysV3fRVn-iw@comcast.com...
    > >
    > > "David" <nospam@home.net> wrote in message
    > > news:V9idnZd30faWhF3fRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
    > > > From the review:
    > > >
    > > > " Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly
    > > meaningful
    > > > ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it plays
    > > > defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to be
    > > > allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
    > > > scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."
    > > >
    > > > That's all I need to know to give it a pass.
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > > no game playing friends? too bad.
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    > fanboy? i wouldn't buy a tedioustiller game for anything. but the constant
    > crying about AI here gets tiresome, find people to play with. i think many
    > who only play AI are afraid to play real people because they are afraid to
    > lose or they have found they aren't quite the napoleon they imagined they
    > are. it is easy to find pbem buddies , i've found some here, all it takes is
    > asking for opponents. no AI is ever going to beat a human. to me AI is just
    > a tool to familiarize myself with game play before i really begin to play
    > for real , that is against a human. pbem is to me much more important than
    > any AI as almost all my place is against a human.

    It may be easy to find someone for PBEM, but it's not nearly as easy to
    keep them.

    --

    Epi

    ------------
    It seems quite amazing to me that so many people
    wish to harm part of what a symbol stands for in
    order to protect the symbol.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Noted, EPi. Will send file tomorrow.

    Jim Cobb

    "Epi" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d2b927e5849fc27989731@news.east.earthlink.net...
    > In article <PaSdndlq3L3uP1zfRVn-rg@comcast.com>, roh@comcast.net says...
    >>
    >> "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >> news:aIGdnYb30K9ysV3fRVn-iw@comcast.com...
    >> >
    >> > "David" <nospam@home.net> wrote in message
    >> > news:V9idnZd30faWhF3fRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
    >> > > From the review:
    >> > >
    >> > > " Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly
    >> > meaningful
    >> > > ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it
    >> > > plays
    >> > > defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to
    >> > > be
    >> > > allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
    >> > > scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."
    >> > >
    >> > > That's all I need to know to give it a pass.
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> >
    >> > no game playing friends? too bad.
    >> >
    >> >
    >>
    >>
    >> fanboy? i wouldn't buy a tedioustiller game for anything. but the
    >> constant
    >> crying about AI here gets tiresome, find people to play with. i think
    >> many
    >> who only play AI are afraid to play real people because they are afraid
    >> to
    >> lose or they have found they aren't quite the napoleon they imagined they
    >> are. it is easy to find pbem buddies , i've found some here, all it takes
    >> is
    >> asking for opponents. no AI is ever going to beat a human. to me AI is
    >> just
    >> a tool to familiarize myself with game play before i really begin to play
    >> for real , that is against a human. pbem is to me much more important
    >> than
    >> any AI as almost all my place is against a human.
    >
    > It may be easy to find someone for PBEM, but it's not nearly as easy to
    > keep them.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Epi
    >
    > ------------
    > It seems quite amazing to me that so many people
    > wish to harm part of what a symbol stands for in
    > order to protect the symbol.
    > ------------
    > http://www.curlesneck.com
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <2Nlwe.704$Si3.352@fe06.lga>, bismarck71@charter.net says...
    > Noted, EPi. Will send file tomorrow.
    >
    > Jim Cobb
    >
    > "Epi" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1d2b927e5849fc27989731@news.east.earthlink.net...
    > > In article <PaSdndlq3L3uP1zfRVn-rg@comcast.com>, roh@comcast.net says...
    > >>
    > >> "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > >> news:aIGdnYb30K9ysV3fRVn-iw@comcast.com...
    > >> >
    > >> > "David" <nospam@home.net> wrote in message
    > >> > news:V9idnZd30faWhF3fRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
    > >> > > From the review:
    > >> > >
    > >> > > " Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly
    > >> > meaningful
    > >> > > ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it
    > >> > > plays
    > >> > > defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to
    > >> > > be
    > >> > > allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
    > >> > > scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."
    > >> > >
    > >> > > That's all I need to know to give it a pass.
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> >
    > >> > no game playing friends? too bad.
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> fanboy? i wouldn't buy a tedioustiller game for anything. but the
    > >> constant
    > >> crying about AI here gets tiresome, find people to play with. i think
    > >> many
    > >> who only play AI are afraid to play real people because they are afraid
    > >> to
    > >> lose or they have found they aren't quite the napoleon they imagined they
    > >> are. it is easy to find pbem buddies , i've found some here, all it takes
    > >> is
    > >> asking for opponents. no AI is ever going to beat a human. to me AI is
    > >> just
    > >> a tool to familiarize myself with game play before i really begin to play
    > >> for real , that is against a human. pbem is to me much more important
    > >> than
    > >> any AI as almost all my place is against a human.
    > >
    > > It may be easy to find someone for PBEM, but it's not nearly as easy to
    > > keep them.
    > >
    > > --
    > >
    > > Epi
    > >
    > > ------------
    > > It seems quite amazing to me that so many people
    > > wish to harm part of what a symbol stands for in
    > > order to protect the symbol.
    > > ------------
    > > http://www.curlesneck.com

    It's OK. I wasn't really thinking about you when I said it. My
    experience is why I asked you if we were still playing once.

    --

    Epi

    ------------
    It seems quite amazing to me that so many people
    wish to harm part of what a symbol stands for in
    order to protect the symbol.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    > Laudible that JT is adapting the engine based on player feedback.
    >

    Are you serious? The game series has been continually evolving ever since
    the first release. Most all of the optional rules came about due to player
    feedback as well as the myriad rules updates. But then he does listen to
    those who actually play the games and offer useful critisism rather than the
    rants that tend to accumulate here...

    Dirk
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Dirk Gross" <a@a.com> wrote in message
    news:wzowe.23015$7X1.11601@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
    >
    > > Laudible that JT is adapting the engine based on player feedback.
    > >
    >
    > Are you serious? The game series has been continually evolving ever since
    > the first release. Most all of the optional rules came about due to
    player
    > feedback as well as the myriad rules updates. But then he does listen to
    > those who actually play the games and offer useful critisism rather than
    the
    > rants that tend to accumulate here...
    >
    > Dirk
    >


    cough. Who's ranting ?
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Dirk Gross wrote:
    > > Laudible that JT is adapting the engine based on player feedback.
    > >
    >
    > Are you serious? The game series has been continually evolving ever since
    > the first release. Most all of the optional rules came about due to player
    > feedback as well as the myriad rules updates. But then he does listen to
    > those who actually play the games and offer useful critisism rather than the
    > rants that tend to accumulate here...
    >
    > Dirk

    Well, yes I am serious. No smiley, see?
    I think it is a Good Thing that a dev takes on board suggestions as
    long as they fit within the system and his overall vision of the game.
    And instead of listening to existing players, listening to potential
    customers might not be a bad idea to increase the sales figures...

    I would *really* like if some love was given to adding an AI to the
    series instead of adding even more rules which are nice for PvP but
    stump the AI even more.
    With some luck the series might 'evolve' from the intelligence of an
    amoeba to that of a monkey (I am not holding out for Human level AI).

    Let me try and offer some useful criticism then: the gamesystem is
    quite decent and offers a wide choice of battles. I like the graphics a
    lot since they are crisp and allow for easy overview of the strategic
    situation.
    However, in comp wargames it is the norm to have a functional computer
    opponent to allow enjoyment of the game and prepare for possible PvP.
    The PzB AI does not offer any challenge at all. No trolling intended,
    but I cannot remember a wargame in the last 5 years with a worse comp
    opponent.
    I cannot remember a scen I did not win at first go (apart from the
    stacked ones where the player is supposed to take a certain side).

    So: if, instead of adding even more rules and new battles, there is a
    mediocre AI added to the series and retrofitted I promise to purchase a
    minimum of 2 games from the series.
    There you go: feedback and a promise of reward.

    If not, I won't lose any sleep - but I do reserve the right to uphold
    PzC as a myopic series which keeps rolling off the assembly line and
    cannot hold a candle to the 'evolution' and AI of its competitors in
    the operational field: SSG's decisive battles and Panther's HTTR/COTA.

    All the best,

    von Schmidt
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    von Schmidt schreef:
    > PzC as a myopic series which keeps rolling off the assembly line and
    > cannot hold a candle to the 'evolution' and AI of its competitors in
    > the operational field: SSG's decisive battles and Panther's HTTR/COTA.

    The AI in COTA is pretty dumb though - it lets me pick the side and set
    the difficulty options - bad move ... :)

    Greetz,

    Eddy Sterckx
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <wzowe.23015$7X1.11601@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, a@a.com
    says...

    > > Laudible that JT is adapting the engine based on player feedback.

    > Are you serious? The game series has been continually evolving ever since
    > the first release. Most all of the optional rules came about due to player
    > feedback as well as the myriad rules updates. But then he does listen to
    > those who actually play the games and offer useful critisism rather than the
    > rants that tend to accumulate here...

    Hehehehehe.

    Niiiiiice try, but a pretty transparent one. Let's peel the onion, so
    to speak.

    First off, any game system that is in its ... what? Ninth incarnation?
    Something like that? ... is naturally going to "evolve." The problem is
    that there has been painfully small "evolution" in the area that's sure
    to be the Number One complaint; the AI programming, which is arguably
    the weakest in the industry. If this is what we're throwing up as our
    paragon of evolution, then the Jurassic period is going to last a long,
    long time.

    Additional "optional rules" and "rules updates" are mere chaff; people
    are interested in a little AI and other significant wheat.

    Next, it's brain-damaged to imply that Tiller's most vocal critics don't
    "actually play the games." Speaking for myself, I happen to own a dozen
    incarnations of Tiller's Only Engine, from BATTLEGROUND to PZC (several)
    to SQUAD BATTLES to TSUSHIMA ... even the lamentable WAR OVER VIETNAM.

    Coupling that statement with the following clause, "and offer useful
    criticism," completes the deadly trap you've fallen into.

    Your logical universe, as presented in this argument, allows only for
    the existence of The Good Guys (who "actually play the games and offer
    useful criticism") and The Bad Guys (who "rant"). *A priori*, you've
    denied the existence of exactly those people who would - should - be
    most useful to a designer; those who "actually play the games," but
    offer harsh and uncompromising and unflattering and painful-to-the-ears-
    of-fanboys criticism of the very core of the Tiller's Only Engine.

    I mean, how do you define "useful criticism?" Let me guess. Useful
    criticism is along the lines of, "Great game! I love the little panzer
    pics! But I think the explosions should be evolved to be a little
    louder!" And "ranting" is probably characterized by "unuseful"
    criticisms like, "The AI is the worst in the industry, the IGO-UGO
    system is painfully antiquated and becomes more so with ever iteration
    without change, the interface is a miserable hodgepodge of tacked-on
    cruft, and the developers put ten times as much effort into cranking out
    the next $50 sausage in the series as they do fixing any of these
    problems."

    It strikes me that really good designers don't call that "ranting," they
    use it as their definition of useful criticism.


    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "[Natan] Sharansky spent nine years in the Gulag - the real one - and
    over 400 of those days were in punishment cells. What he had to suffer
    was almost inconceivably depraved. To read Sharansky, while Amnesty
    International is squawking about Guantanamo, is enough to make you hate
    Amnesty for the rest of your life."
    - Jay Nordlinger
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1d2c5b0bf5f9994498a3e1@news-central.giganews.com>,
    giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
    > In article <wzowe.23015$7X1.11601@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, a@a.com
    > says...
    >
    > > > Laudible that JT is adapting the engine based on player feedback.
    >
    > > Are you serious? The game series has been continually evolving ever since
    > > the first release. Most all of the optional rules came about due to player
    > > feedback as well as the myriad rules updates. But then he does listen to
    > > those who actually play the games and offer useful critisism rather than the
    > > rants that tend to accumulate here...
    >
    > Hehehehehe.
    >
    > Niiiiiice try, but a pretty transparent one. Let's peel the onion, so
    > to speak.
    >
    > First off, any game system that is in its ... what? Ninth incarnation?
    > Something like that? ... is naturally going to "evolve." The problem is
    > that there has been painfully small "evolution" in the area that's sure
    > to be the Number One complaint; the AI programming, which is arguably
    > the weakest in the industry. If this is what we're throwing up as our
    > paragon of evolution, then the Jurassic period is going to last a long,
    > long time.
    >
    > Additional "optional rules" and "rules updates" are mere chaff; people
    > are interested in a little AI and other significant wheat.
    >
    > Next, it's brain-damaged to imply that Tiller's most vocal critics don't
    > "actually play the games." Speaking for myself, I happen to own a dozen
    > incarnations of Tiller's Only Engine, from BATTLEGROUND to PZC (several)
    > to SQUAD BATTLES to TSUSHIMA ... even the lamentable WAR OVER VIETNAM.
    >
    > Coupling that statement with the following clause, "and offer useful
    > criticism," completes the deadly trap you've fallen into.
    >
    > Your logical universe, as presented in this argument, allows only for
    > the existence of The Good Guys (who "actually play the games and offer
    > useful criticism") and The Bad Guys (who "rant"). *A priori*, you've
    > denied the existence of exactly those people who would - should - be
    > most useful to a designer; those who "actually play the games," but
    > offer harsh and uncompromising and unflattering and painful-to-the-ears-
    > of-fanboys criticism of the very core of the Tiller's Only Engine.
    >
    > I mean, how do you define "useful criticism?" Let me guess. Useful
    > criticism is along the lines of, "Great game! I love the little panzer
    > pics! But I think the explosions should be evolved to be a little
    > louder!" And "ranting" is probably characterized by "unuseful"
    > criticisms like, "The AI is the worst in the industry, the IGO-UGO
    > system is painfully antiquated and becomes more so with ever iteration
    > without change, the interface is a miserable hodgepodge of tacked-on
    > cruft, and the developers put ten times as much effort into cranking out
    > the next $50 sausage in the series as they do fixing any of these
    > problems."
    >
    > It strikes me that really good designers don't call that "ranting," they
    > use it as their definition of useful criticism.

    Once I was playing one of the Civil War games. This was the first
    scenario of a campaign. I only met up with the enemy once. They blew
    me away. Routed everything I had there. They never went after the
    objectives after that. They had the troops, and were near enough. They
    just never went after them. Because of this, I not only won the
    scenario, but the whole campaign. Maybe the AI could be improved a
    little bit.

    --

    Epi

    ------------
    It seems quite amazing to me that so many people
    wish to harm part of what a symbol stands for in
    order to protect the symbol.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Epi" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d2c5ee1a799edfe989734@news.east.earthlink.net...
    > In article <MPG.1d2c5b0bf5f9994498a3e1@news-central.giganews.com>,
    > giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
    > > In article <wzowe.23015$7X1.11601@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, a@a.com
    > > says...
    > >
    > > > > Laudible that JT is adapting the engine based on player feedback.
    > >
    > > > Are you serious? The game series has been continually evolving ever
    since
    > > > the first release. Most all of the optional rules came about due to
    player
    > > > feedback as well as the myriad rules updates. But then he does listen
    to
    > > > those who actually play the games and offer useful critisism rather
    than the
    > > > rants that tend to accumulate here...
    > >
    > > Hehehehehe.
    > >
    > > Niiiiiice try, but a pretty transparent one. Let's peel the onion, so
    > > to speak.
    > >
    > > First off, any game system that is in its ... what? Ninth incarnation?
    > > Something like that? ... is naturally going to "evolve." The problem is
    > > that there has been painfully small "evolution" in the area that's sure
    > > to be the Number One complaint; the AI programming, which is arguably
    > > the weakest in the industry. If this is what we're throwing up as our
    > > paragon of evolution, then the Jurassic period is going to last a long,
    > > long time.
    > >
    > > Additional "optional rules" and "rules updates" are mere chaff; people
    > > are interested in a little AI and other significant wheat.
    > >
    > > Next, it's brain-damaged to imply that Tiller's most vocal critics don't
    > > "actually play the games." Speaking for myself, I happen to own a dozen
    > > incarnations of Tiller's Only Engine, from BATTLEGROUND to PZC (several)
    > > to SQUAD BATTLES to TSUSHIMA ... even the lamentable WAR OVER VIETNAM.
    > >
    > > Coupling that statement with the following clause, "and offer useful
    > > criticism," completes the deadly trap you've fallen into.
    > >
    > > Your logical universe, as presented in this argument, allows only for
    > > the existence of The Good Guys (who "actually play the games and offer
    > > useful criticism") and The Bad Guys (who "rant"). *A priori*, you've
    > > denied the existence of exactly those people who would - should - be
    > > most useful to a designer; those who "actually play the games," but
    > > offer harsh and uncompromising and unflattering and painful-to-the-ears-
    > > of-fanboys criticism of the very core of the Tiller's Only Engine.
    > >
    > > I mean, how do you define "useful criticism?" Let me guess. Useful
    > > criticism is along the lines of, "Great game! I love the little panzer
    > > pics! But I think the explosions should be evolved to be a little
    > > louder!" And "ranting" is probably characterized by "unuseful"
    > > criticisms like, "The AI is the worst in the industry, the IGO-UGO
    > > system is painfully antiquated and becomes more so with ever iteration
    > > without change, the interface is a miserable hodgepodge of tacked-on
    > > cruft, and the developers put ten times as much effort into cranking out
    > > the next $50 sausage in the series as they do fixing any of these
    > > problems."
    > >
    > > It strikes me that really good designers don't call that "ranting," they
    > > use it as their definition of useful criticism.
    >
    > Once I was playing one of the Civil War games. This was the first
    > scenario of a campaign. I only met up with the enemy once. They blew
    > me away. Routed everything I had there. They never went after the
    > objectives after that. They had the troops, and were near enough. They
    > just never went after them. Because of this, I not only won the
    > scenario, but the whole campaign. Maybe the AI could be improved a
    > little bit.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Epi
    >
    > ------------
    > It seems quite amazing to me that so many people
    > wish to harm part of what a symbol stands for in
    > order to protect the symbol.
    > ------------
    > http://www.curlesneck.com


    Try an ai vs ai Tiller game for a real laugh.
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Wasn't Tiller hired by the military to work on wargame AI? How ironic is
    that?
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    I was simply surprised you were impressed by what is really just a minor
    tweak to the series. I promise if you didn't like it before you won't like
    it now. To be honest, the clubs that support his games don't focus much on
    AI issues. They focus on how to make the games simulate reality better.
    Same for me, as I've been involved in a Civil War club since '99 and PZC
    clubs since '02, and I've never had a problem getting people to play.
    There's no AI that can match playing another human, and I don't recall
    getting much satisfaction playing the AI in ANY wargame. So that's fine if
    poor AI prevents people buying them. Even if it did have what one might
    deem good AI the typical discussion here falls to - same old sausage - pay
    too much for scenario packs - no way to create new maps like COW - and on
    and on. If I only played AI I too would have given up on the series like I
    have in every other wargame that I don't play against other people. So I
    don't really care if you buy a game, that's your choice. I just wanted to
    point out that what you saw as being new and unique has been a part of the
    games since the beginning. Just a note, I did play the inital scenario in
    France '40 to get the feel of it, and I lost. And that's the side you're
    supposed to play. And no, it wasn't satisfying losing to the AI. Winning
    in the several tournaments I'm in...THAT'S satisfying ;-)

    Dirk

    "von Schmidt" <von_schmidt@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:1120043387.327543.134480@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >
    >
    > Dirk Gross wrote:
    >> > Laudible that JT is adapting the engine based on player feedback.
    >> >
    >>
    >> Are you serious? The game series has been continually evolving ever
    >> since
    >> the first release. Most all of the optional rules came about due to
    >> player
    >> feedback as well as the myriad rules updates. But then he does listen to
    >> those who actually play the games and offer useful critisism rather than
    >> the
    >> rants that tend to accumulate here...
    >>
    >> Dirk
    >
    > Well, yes I am serious. No smiley, see?
    > I think it is a Good Thing that a dev takes on board suggestions as
    > long as they fit within the system and his overall vision of the game.
    > And instead of listening to existing players, listening to potential
    > customers might not be a bad idea to increase the sales figures...
    >
    > I would *really* like if some love was given to adding an AI to the
    > series instead of adding even more rules which are nice for PvP but
    > stump the AI even more.
    > With some luck the series might 'evolve' from the intelligence of an
    > amoeba to that of a monkey (I am not holding out for Human level AI).
    >
    > Let me try and offer some useful criticism then: the gamesystem is
    > quite decent and offers a wide choice of battles. I like the graphics a
    > lot since they are crisp and allow for easy overview of the strategic
    > situation.
    > However, in comp wargames it is the norm to have a functional computer
    > opponent to allow enjoyment of the game and prepare for possible PvP.
    > The PzB AI does not offer any challenge at all. No trolling intended,
    > but I cannot remember a wargame in the last 5 years with a worse comp
    > opponent.
    > I cannot remember a scen I did not win at first go (apart from the
    > stacked ones where the player is supposed to take a certain side).
    >
    > So: if, instead of adding even more rules and new battles, there is a
    > mediocre AI added to the series and retrofitted I promise to purchase a
    > minimum of 2 games from the series.
    > There you go: feedback and a promise of reward.
    >
    > If not, I won't lose any sleep - but I do reserve the right to uphold
    > PzC as a myopic series which keeps rolling off the assembly line and
    > cannot hold a candle to the 'evolution' and AI of its competitors in
    > the operational field: SSG's decisive battles and Panther's HTTR/COTA.
    >
    > All the best,
    >
    > von Schmidt
    >
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d2c5b0bf5f9994498a3e1@news-central.giganews.com...
    > In article <wzowe.23015$7X1.11601@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, a@a.com
    > says...
    >
    >> > Laudible that JT is adapting the engine based on player feedback.
    >
    >> Are you serious? The game series has been continually evolving ever
    >> since
    >> the first release. Most all of the optional rules came about due to
    >> player
    >> feedback as well as the myriad rules updates. But then he does listen to
    >> those who actually play the games and offer useful critisism rather than
    >> the
    >> rants that tend to accumulate here...
    >
    > Hehehehehe.
    >
    > Niiiiiice try, but a pretty transparent one. Let's peel the onion, so
    > to speak.
    >
    > First off, any game system that is in its ... what? Ninth incarnation?
    > Something like that? ... is naturally going to "evolve." The problem is
    > that there has been painfully small "evolution" in the area that's sure
    > to be the Number One complaint; the AI programming, which is arguably
    > the weakest in the industry. If this is what we're throwing up as our
    > paragon of evolution, then the Jurassic period is going to last a long,
    > long time.
    >
    > Additional "optional rules" and "rules updates" are mere chaff; people
    > are interested in a little AI and other significant wheat.
    >
    > Next, it's brain-damaged to imply that Tiller's most vocal critics don't
    > "actually play the games." Speaking for myself, I happen to own a dozen
    > incarnations of Tiller's Only Engine, from BATTLEGROUND to PZC (several)
    > to SQUAD BATTLES to TSUSHIMA ... even the lamentable WAR OVER VIETNAM.
    >
    > Coupling that statement with the following clause, "and offer useful
    > criticism," completes the deadly trap you've fallen into.
    >

    Giftz, you have good points ubtil you get to the usual stereotyping
    accusations that followed at this point. But that's what makes you a
    special character that newsgroup readers expect. Face it, since the
    establishment of club and gaming-specific sites the newsgroups have little
    useful information to offer anyone besides the efforts of eddysterckx
    single-handed attempts. Typically newsgroups just deveolve into name
    calling or off-topic rants.

    I know you've bought pretty much every new series and ended up disliking
    them. Why? Even I don't do that. And I like most of his series. But I
    didn't think Tiller's style would work well for me in the naval campaigns or
    WOV. Why don't you realize you dislike his style and just give it up?

    Sure, the PzC sausages are coming out. And those that DO like them are
    demanding more. The latest call is for east front battles. I'd be
    disappointed if they stopped because there are lots of battles in WWII that
    have little or no games modeling them. I want'em all. And the Civil War
    too. I've played ACW games in the series I've never even HEARD of. That's
    cool to me.

    Optional rules and updates are chaff? Not to those who play and like the
    series. Sure it'd be nice to have competitive AI. Since I have rarely
    played it I can't really say if it stinks. There are adjustments to the
    strength of the AI that can be used, but I don't know what they do. Anyway,
    I'd hate to think that ANY programmer could write an algorithm that could
    fight an entire battle or scenario and win. If they did, we wouldn't need
    real world generals...

    Dirk
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <gTFwe.25389$7X1.21758@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, a@a.com
    says...

    > Face it, since the
    > establishment of club and gaming-specific sites the newsgroups have little
    > useful information to offer anyone besides the efforts of eddysterckx
    > single-handed attempts. Typically newsgroups just deveolve into name
    > calling or off-topic rants.

    TRANSLATION: "Game companies keep their web boards nice 'n' orderly,
    where Seldom Is Heard A Discouraging Word."

    [And isn't this perilously close to the 1,000,000th iteration of
    "Imminent Death Of The Net Predicted!"]

    > I know you've bought pretty much every new series and ended up disliking
    > them. Why? Even I don't do that.

    Hope springs eternal.

    > And I like most of his series. But I
    > didn't think Tiller's style would work well for me in the naval campaigns or
    > WOV. Why don't you realize you dislike his style and just give it up?

    The tragedy of HPS is that they're a significant part of the industry,
    and their titles cover a broad range of topics - some of them virtually
    unadressed by others. That makes it double-plus painful that they've
    only got the two engines; Tiller's BATTLEGROUND series, and POA2.

    For instance, where am I going to go if I want a game that takes in jet-
    era airstrike planning? There's the ancient FLIGHT COMMANDER 2, and WAR
    OVER VIETNAM. That's it.

    Asking me why I keep buying HPS titles when I find them so disappointing
    is a little like asking a soldier why he keeps eating MREs if he finds
    them disgusting.


    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "[Natan] Sharansky spent nine years in the Gulag - the real one - and
    over 400 of those days were in punishment cells. What he had to suffer
    was almost inconceivably depraved. To read Sharansky, while Amnesty
    International is squawking about Guantanamo, is enough to make you hate
    Amnesty for the rest of your life."
    - Jay Nordlinger
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message > Asking me
    why I keep buying HPS titles when I find them so disappointing
    > is a little like asking a soldier why he keeps eating MREs if he finds
    > them disgusting.

    This is true. <looks at hundreds of games in the room most never played
    because of their short comings>
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Now I'll prolly buy france 40.

    Which game is better. PZG series France 40
    or World War II series the First Blitzkrieg?


    "HR" <HR@horizon.net> wrote in message
    news:CMCdnU1lFuY8o17fRVn-pw@comcast.com...
    >
    > "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message > Asking
    > me why I keep buying HPS titles when I find them so disappointing
    >> is a little like asking a soldier why he keeps eating MREs if he finds
    >> them disgusting.
    >
    > This is true. <looks at hundreds of games in the room most never played
    > because of their short comings>
    >
    >
    >
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    "HR" <HR@horizon.net> wrote in message
    news:6NCdnQstZuZxol7fRVn-hg@comcast.com...
    > Now I'll prolly buy france 40.
    >
    > Which game is better. PZG series France 40
    > or World War II series the First Blitzkrieg?
    >
    >
    > "HR" <HR@horizon.net> wrote in message
    > news:CMCdnU1lFuY8o17fRVn-pw@comcast.com...
    >>
    >> "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message > Asking
    >> me why I keep buying HPS titles when I find them so disappointing
    >>> is a little like asking a soldier why he keeps eating MREs if he finds
    >>> them disgusting.
    >>
    >> This is true. <looks at hundreds of games in the room most never played
    >> because of their short comings>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >

    For solitaire play, I'd give The First Blitzkrieg the nod. France '440 has
    more detail but the AI is lacking.
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Dirk Gross wrote:
    > I was simply surprised you were impressed by what is really just a minor
    > tweak to the series. I promise if you didn't like it before you won't like
    > it now. To be honest, the clubs that support his games don't focus much on
    > AI issues.
    (snip comments on PvP play)

    I guess we have different expectations on what a compwargame should
    offer. If you are fully happy with the series offering excellent PvP
    play - more power to ya.

    Your previous statement that JT will (only?) listen to a select group
    of players and those players focus on the PvP aspects, stating that AI
    is unimportant, that means that any new game or series will have the
    aforementioned braindead AI.

    I wonder why HPS/JT don't bite the bullit and put a statement on the
    box of each new game: 'Multi-player recommended. AI for training
    purposes only'.

    > So that's fine if
    > poor AI prevents people buying them.

    That's a disappointing statement. If you like the series, surely you
    want to have more people buying and playing, if only to increase your
    opponent base and the financial reward for the devs?

    > Even if it did have what one might
    > deem good AI the typical discussion here falls to - same old sausage - pay
    > too much for scenario packs - no way to create new maps like COW - and on
    > and on. If I only played AI I too would have given up on the series like I
    > have in every other wargame that I don't play against other people. So I
    > don't really care if you buy a game, that's your choice. (SNIP)

    Just like I don't care that you and your posse like and buy the series.

    I'm just hoping that the consistent revenue leaves some cash for HPS to
    develop/fund new (non-Tiller) games instead of reinforcing their
    current assembly line attitude to publishing.

    von Scmidt
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Dirk Gross schreef:

    > Giftz, you have good points ubtil you get to the usual stereotyping
    > accusations that followed at this point.

    They're not accusations, he's just pointing out the obvious :)

    > But that's what makes you a
    > special character that newsgroup readers expect. Face it, since the
    > establishment of club and gaming-specific sites the newsgroups have little
    > useful information to offer anyone besides the efforts of eddysterckx
    > single-handed attempts. Typically newsgroups just deveolve into name
    > calling or off-topic rants.

    Really ? - apart from the fact that this ng is the only place where the
    France '40 game was even seriously discussed at length there's a few
    things Usenet has that no web-based board can match :

    - UseNet is an easily searchable archive (Google)
    - UseNet won't disappear overnight - a company or web-based board can
    and has.
    - No netcops, freedom of speach, about the only place where you can
    point out that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
    - Good OT-discussions (like the one on Patton right now) - the
    Wargamer's General forum is fine, but the level here is higher.

    > Sure it'd be nice to have competitive AI. Since I have rarely
    > played it I can't really say if it stinks. There are adjustments to the
    > strength of the AI that can be used, but I don't know what they do.

    The logical trap you've fallen into is that since you like the PzC
    games that more or less implies that you don't care about game AI
    because if you did, you wouldn't be playing these games.

    Since you don't seem to care much about game AI you've maybe failed to
    recognize that *every other* operational engine out there (SSG or
    Panther Games) has a *much* better AI so people will start to compare
    this feature which is important to them (but - granted - not to you).

    > Anyway,
    > I'd hate to think that ANY programmer could write an algorithm that could
    > fight an entire battle or scenario and win. If they did, we wouldn't need
    > real world generals...

    Somebody better warn Arjuna that he has to tone down the IQ of the COTA
    AI a bit then ...

    Seriously : wargame AI has come a long way in the past couple of years
    and has become a very decent sparring partner in about any game but
    those from HPS. And this hurts because we desperatly want the HPS games
    to be better in this department - I suspect this is why Mr. Giftzwerg
    keeps buying new HPS releases : he wants them to be good, but is
    disappointed every time.

    Greetz,

    Eddy Sterckx
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    Thanks:)
    "James Cobb" <bismarck71@charter.net> wrote in message
    news:CXHwe.2399$iv3.1677@fe02.lga...
    >
    > "HR" <HR@horizon.net> wrote in message
    > news:6NCdnQstZuZxol7fRVn-hg@comcast.com...
    >> Now I'll prolly buy france 40.
    >>
    >> Which game is better. PZG series France 40
    >> or World War II series the First Blitzkrieg?
    >>
    >>
    >> "HR" <HR@horizon.net> wrote in message
    >> news:CMCdnU1lFuY8o17fRVn-pw@comcast.com...
    >>>
    >>> "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message > Asking
    >>> me why I keep buying HPS titles when I find them so disappointing
    >>>> is a little like asking a soldier why he keeps eating MREs if he finds
    >>>> them disgusting.
    >>>
    >>> This is true. <looks at hundreds of games in the room most never played
    >>> because of their short comings>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    > For solitaire play, I'd give The First Blitzkrieg the nod. France '440
    > has more detail but the AI is lacking.
    >
  39. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1120125517.939068.55460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Dirk Gross schreef:
    > Seriously : wargame AI has come a long way in the past couple of years
    > and has become a very decent sparring partner in about any game but
    > those from HPS. And this hurts because we desperatly want the HPS games
    > to be better in this department - I suspect this is why Mr. Giftzwerg
    > keeps buying new HPS releases : he wants them to be good, but is
    > disappointed every time.
    >
    > Greetz,
    >
    > Eddy Sterckx
    >


    the reason i don't get excited by AI is that i feel it is next to
    impossible to make it competitive. AI is easily thr most formidable
    challenge and designer faces. to make it so it can launch diversions ,set up
    traps and to avoid traps in tough. if it is set to go after objectives or
    after strong units it can easily be ambushed. for it to play each game
    differently
    is out of the question it seems too. if a human tries a strategy and gets
    smoked by his friend he remembers and tries something new nnext time. the AI
    never remembers and never learns. it will do as its programed and die
    lemming like every time.
    my hat is off to anyone who can make it otherwise. look how long it took
    chess programs to get good and they can evaluate every possible move,
    wargames with their almost infinte permutations are beyond a mere
    mathimatical solution.


    i play several turns a night seveal nights a week trading files throgh AIM
    {much faster than e-mail} but i do realize some can't expend that time and
    that moving 1 turn a week pbem is too slow to play gameslike UV or pacwar
    with a zillion turns.
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <wNmdnQCxk64fcl7fRVn-tA@comcast.com>, roh@comcast.net says...
    >
    > <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1120125517.939068.55460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > > Dirk Gross schreef:
    > > Seriously : wargame AI has come a long way in the past couple of years
    > > and has become a very decent sparring partner in about any game but
    > > those from HPS. And this hurts because we desperatly want the HPS games
    > > to be better in this department - I suspect this is why Mr. Giftzwerg
    > > keeps buying new HPS releases : he wants them to be good, but is
    > > disappointed every time.
    > >
    > > Greetz,
    > >
    > > Eddy Sterckx
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > the reason i don't get excited by AI is that i feel it is next to
    > impossible to make it competitive. AI is easily thr most formidable
    > challenge and designer faces. to make it so it can launch diversions ,set up
    > traps and to avoid traps in tough. if it is set to go after objectives or
    > after strong units it can easily be ambushed. for it to play each game
    > differently
    > is out of the question it seems too. if a human tries a strategy and gets
    > smoked by his friend he remembers and tries something new nnext time. the AI
    > never remembers and never learns. it will do as its programed and die
    > lemming like every time.
    > my hat is off to anyone who can make it otherwise. look how long it took
    > chess programs to get good and they can evaluate every possible move,
    > wargames with their almost infinte permutations are beyond a mere
    > mathimatical solution.
    >
    >
    > i play several turns a night seveal nights a week trading files throgh AIM
    > {much faster than e-mail} but i do realize some can't expend that time and
    > that moving 1 turn a week pbem is too slow to play gameslike UV or pacwar
    > with a zillion turns.

    I think High Heat (the baseball game) use to learn from your actions
    some.

    --

    Epi

    ------------
    It seems quite amazing to me that so many people
    wish to harm part of what a symbol stands for in
    order to protect the symbol.
    ------------
    http://www.curlesneck.com
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Games IBM Video Games