PBEM vs Solo Play

[Desert Dave]

As orginally posted by sogard:

I appreciate what you are saying; but, my experience is that solo games against the AI are not really good indicator for a game where both sides are played by a human. Quite simply, the AI is predictable and locked into a predetermined pattern.

Excellent point sogard -- so good in fact, I am thinking it needs a separate thread.

Imagine how difficult it is for Hubert to sort through all the anecdotal evidence (... when he has his own, and the Beta Boys' experience firm in mind) and try to solve the apparent imbalance in the game. :eek:

It is never clear what the comparative strengths and weaknesses are of the two PBEM opponents, just as it is never clear what levels of difficulty & experience the various solo players are confronting.

Here, we can provide more exacting evidence, with care taken to state the specific game being played... some already do this, but it would be helpful to Hubert I would guess, if we all would try to be more precise... assuming he is taking notes, of course .

After all, which are you mostly coding to? The solo players (which is likely over 80% of the games played) OR -- the head-to-head competition. Huge difference, yes?

I would say that the AI makes too much use of the Air Fleets -- in Britain this to prepare for the immenent invasion, but in Russia, since they are so very inexperienced and accordingly, can do so little damage to the attacking craft, that perhaps the AI should buy land troops first?

That way they wouldn't have to pay such exorbitant costs to replace the great damange done when there is an interception against those experienced (and probably L2-4) attackers.

Any other ideas?

[pzgndr]

After all, which are you mostly coding to? The solo players (which is likely over 80% of the games played) OR -- the head-to-head competition. Huge difference, yes?

There is a huge difference now and some differences will always exist, but as the game gets tweaked for more realism and play balance and as the AI improves, there should be some convergence. We probably won't see an AI cunning enough to set traps several turns in advance for an unsuspecting player, nor see a human optimize MPP spending and combat sequences with the cold calculating efficiency of the computer. But both should improve over time. So coding should proceed with both in mind and players should learn to appreciate both forms of play.

With due respect to Sogard, I've encountered other players on other game forums who also take the "Damn the worthless AI" approach. At the other end of the spectrum are players who never take up a PBEM or hotseat game against another living breathing opponent. There are pros and cons both ways and players are certainly free to have their preferences, but balance is encouraged. And the wise game designer recognizes that both types of players are important.

[sogard]

My view with regard to most computer games is that I want an AI capable of making the experience of learning the game enjoyable. With that as my criteria, I think that STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) is an unqualified success. I enjoyed learning how to play the game.

Once you have learned the nuances of the game, then I want the game to teach me something and that has always come from playing another human via hotseat, pbem or tcp/ip.

I am having a fairly good time playing SC pbem now even though I think the game has a significant pro-Axis bias.

[hEad]

The pro axis bias is indeed prevelent.. however, my little fix has proved to be quite successful - simply go into the editor and take away 1 german airfleet so they have instead 2 to begin with..

the time it takes to gain that extra fleet, then buy the fourth, which is normally high on the shopping list, seems to nobble jerry quite well..

give it a try.. i havent tried it pbem yet, but as me against the allied ai, it makes deciding point spending a little more thoughful.

[Aloid]

As Immer and Titan are too painfully aware (but generous enough not to scold me for it), PBEM games take forever for me. It's hard for me to get multiple turns in, as I have family (small kids) and work to attend to.

In this regard, I have to rely on a game's AI to really get my fix (those few times I can, which has been rare as well). I'll also say that SC has been a success in this regard!

Since I don't get through a lot of games, I don't see the patterns the AI may take, so I'm lucky in this respect.

Over time, however, if I find a game becoming predictable, I find ways to play a little more with-in it's boundries. Perhaps not play the game so much as play the "history", and not try out-landish tactics.

In the end, a hard fought, close victory is more fun than a romp against a known weakness in the AI. IMHO

Aloid (hey I'm actually posting something)

[pzgndr]

Over time, however, if I find a game becoming predictable, I find ways to play a little more with-in it's boundries. Perhaps not play the game so much as play the "history", and not try out-landish tactics.

Same here. I've been playing with various settings and options and finally found an enjoyable niche. So mix these up and get a different game experience each time. The other scenarios also offer different challenges.

And then there's strategy itself. In my last game as Allies I tried an Iraq->Libya->Greece strategy as Brits which delayed US entry, but worked OK. Next time I'll try taking out Libya first and wait for US entry before attacking any neutrals and see if that works better. There are so many options and so much to try that you can't possibly get yourself into a rut with this game unless you work at it. And when the updates come out and change things, you get to start all over trying to figure out what works and what doesn't!

[Desert Dave]

Insofar as solo games, there are definitely ways (though limited) to use the editor to reach a fairly competitive equilibrium.

I have fashioned a Campaign '39, where I give Russia and USA level-5 industrial tech, and 3 chits each in the unused research box, along with a bonus of 500 MPPs for USA at start (true to form, AI usually buys an air fleet). Also, Britain gets 2 IT, and 2 chits.

As for units, France gets an extra armor, and Britain another Cruiser in the med (so that the RN can withstand an Italian onslaught -- that, along with +1 experience makes for a genuine Med naval war challenge).

For play balance, Britain loses one Carrier in the Atlantic, and Germany gets Graf Spee cruiser, which allows for a better U-boat campaign. Also, Germany loses a Corps, and gains a Strat Bomber (representing the great effect of the Stukas early in the war).

Then, I play at Expert +1 (since IMO, the +2 experience level makes for a very unrealistic game).

Also Russia gets +1 on Anti-Tank, and that along with IT level 5 gives them a tremendous ability to withstand the early blitz.

All in all, this allows a solo game that approaches the actual events, though, once Moscow is surrounded, the outcome is assured (... assuming no Allied success with the invasion of Fortress Europa, which, given the premature landings, and knowing preparation possible, is usually the case).

In this regard, I would prefer to see a tweak made where the Allies will wait (on a random timetable) for LATER landings in France, and some possibility of an amphib invasion of North Afrika, or even Sicily. In that regard, perhaps the AI for Britain could eventually reinforce Egypt. :cool:

The solo game CAN be edited, but this would surely be easier if we might be able to edit those countries not yet involved, so that each of us could bolster those areas -- especially Russia and Finland, that aren't quite up to the German onslaught.

Certainly, the proposed changes in an upcoming patch will help, but I still would like to see a better, more comprehensive editor. That way, each could "balance" the game according to their own liking, no matter what changes are enacted, or not enacted.

[sogard]

My basic objection to playing an AI versus pbem or tcp/ip play is that the AI must cheat to be even be remotely competitive. I use the term cheat to mean that the rules that apply to one player are different when they apply to the other. I think this distorts the game and makes it difficult to draw any real conclusions from a particular game other than the enjoyment in the particular game at hand.

What I do find particularily curious are those who only play solo and demand that a particular game design provide them with the maximum freedom of play to pursue alternate strategies when they know full well that the AI is virtually brain dead when it comes to alternate approaches. But then, some folks like to win. So, if it satisifies this need, then there is some beneficial aspect that comes out of this.

[pzgndr]

My basic objection to playing an AI versus pbem or tcp/ip play is that the AI must cheat to be even be remotely competitive. I use the term cheat to mean that the rules that apply to one player are different when they apply to the other. I think this distorts the game and makes it difficult to draw any real conclusions from a particular game other than the enjoyment in the particular game at hand.

The last sentence is true for either solo or PBEM games. The goal is enjoyment of the particular game - be it for historical simulation or pure fantasy or something in between. Even in PBEM games you can select player handicaps by turning Free French on/off, Partisans on/off, etc. so each particular game is different and any conclusions you draw from it are only as real as you want them to be.

I'll disagree about the AI "cheating." True, you may have to provide game settings which are either fair or unfair as you see them, but you know this up front since you get to set them. The rest of the game is played by the same rules at the level you have selected and then won or lost based on what happens. That may or may not be as historically accurate or as interesting as you may want it, but should be a fair and enjoyable challenge if you make it so.

I'm guessing, but I suspect the main objection is playing a default game without making the AI tougher and expecting it to play as well as a human. Even playing a human, we further expect the default game to be balanced, realistic and historically accurate. And that's not happening yet. The AI still needs improvements, like a Med strategy programmed in and other tweaks, and will never be perfect. The game itself still needs some tweaks for play balance, and future revisions for more realism and accuracy, and it will never be perfect. For now, we can simply adjust game settings and/or edit scenarios to enjoy our particular games, for both solo and PBEM.

Certainly not trying to change anyone's preference for how to play, but we all have different ways of getting satisfaction from our gaming experiences and one's not necessarily better or worse than another. Heck, if you're not having fun then you're doing something wrong.