Hubu wrote:Since the only way to help the dev save the almost non-existing AI, here are a bunch of saves, close to the point where I win the game as CP and one as WE, the later ending with Hötzendorf and his 800-something strong corps attacking my 100 stack in Tunisia, while it has been 10 turns since I took Wien...
The front collapses in a systematic manner, allowing me to turn and pocket enemy divisions by the hundreds of thousand in a VERY predictable 3 turns-long movement to great predictable results almost unopposed.
I'm truely feeling like I'm playing against some really drunk/high child at the moment, and it truely is a shame.
I'm aware that it looks "gamey", but that is because, well, the AI started that...
krche wrote:Sounds good.. I will continue with the current version.
As for the AI, then if it is not possible to make it focus on the enemy troops, then maybe lower the VPs so that it is less focused on locations.
Kensai wrote:We have a v1.01 patch in RC1 right now, but is in beta test at the moment. Everyone is working for you guys. The game is not even a week out, you will be delighted by the future support. AGEOD has made a name in supporting and improving their games in the very long term. Hey, we even expect a PON patch!
As the manual says in page 9, future iterations of the game (patches) will provide other game scenarios as well, both isolated theaters and later dates. Stay tuned!
Kensai wrote:
Do you even hear yourself? "The AI started that (first)...". Let's tell the teacher.
Man, I am sorry, but that's the reason I had never seen (nor many other beta players) such things while testing. Most of us try to be coherent and at least try to play in a realistic way. Moving your troops around while abandoning entire theaters is a sure way to drive the AI crazy, what did you expect?
Hubu wrote:Are you part of the AGEOD team? Because I'm not, but I've been a full supporter of lots of your game (I payed for a lot of them, see?), and, if it's the case, when I give a customer review, I hope for some professional replies and not an attempt to bully/coerce me into thinking I "acted wrong" with the game. If your AI is so solid, it would have punished me, as you said, and not the other way around.
I would like for you to lower your tone and harsh judgement toward me as a fake wargamer, since I use those "gamey" "hacks". It sounds weak at best. If the AI of the game can't cope with my ridiculous deployments and moves, then it's not me that uses unrealistic tactics, but it is the AI that fails to understand basic frontline dynamics.
When I pay a game with my hard-earned money, I do not expect the developers to tell me I did a bad job at playing it, when I obviously won.
I would like for you to lower your tone and harsh judgement toward me as a fake wargamer, since I use those "gamey" "hacks". It sounds weak at best. If the AI of the game can't cope with my ridiculous deployments and moves, then it's not me that uses unrealistic tactics, but it is the AI that fails to understand basic frontline dynamics.
Since the only way to help the dev save the almost non-existing AI, here are a bunch of saves, close to the point where I win the game as CP and one as WE, the later ending with Hötzendorf and his 800-something strong corps attacking my 100 stack in Tunisia, while it has been 10 turns since I took Wien...
The front collapses in a systematic manner, allowing me to turn and pocket enemy divisions by the hundreds of thousand in a VERY predictable 3 turns-long movement to great predictable results almost unopposed.
I'm truely feeling like I'm playing against some really drunk/high child at the moment, and it truely is a shame.
Hubu wrote:Are you part of the AGEOD team? Because I'm not, but I've been a full supporter of lots of your game (I payed for a lot of them, see?), and, if it's the case, when I give a customer review, I hope for some professional replies and not an attempt to bully/coerce me into thinking I "acted wrong" with the game. If your AI is so solid, it would have punished me, as you said, and not the other way around.
Pocus wrote:If some people want a statement from the developers that their AI is on par with a human player, then that's not for now... The AI is a rather big piece of code, but that's only that. AI is by the way not the appropriate term, it should be 'programmed opponent' perhaps.
Pocus wrote:If some people want a statement from the developers that their AI is on par with a human player, then that's not for now... The AI is a rather big piece of code, but that's only that. AI is by the way not the appropriate term, it should be 'programmed opponent' perhaps.
fred zeppelin wrote:I had the same reaction. Kensai's knowledge of the code is impressive, and he has been a great supporter of PON and other AGEOD games, but his defensiveness in this instance is a bit much.
Hopefully, he'll chill a bit and recognize that the folks who are posting here want this game to be a success as much as he does.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests