When Does the AI Give Up???

[RERomine]

Originally Posted by DRG

`

Also keep in mind there are newbie's who play this game that get flayed alive by the AI and there are veteran players who consider the AI a waste of time to play.

I suspect that's pretty much the same with all games. Until you get a handle on things, the AI usually will lunch on players. I played one game, a bowling game, that I figured out after about an hour of play. After I got 80+ strikes in a row, I stopped playing and haven't played again, but games like that are exceptions. It usually take time to figure out how to a game effectively.

The various ways to set difficulty with the SP games is another nice aspect. There are countless combinations a player can set them at. Other games, difficulty is usually handled two ways: AI forces are numerically increased (or decreased) or the AI gets unspecified advantages (or disadvantages). The ability to play people, either hot seat or PBEM is another aspect that enhances the game's desirability.

How do we keep both types of players happy ? Preferences for one but we have seen players adjust their preferences then scream there is a "bug" in the game because they jacked up the preference for one side and down for the other switched sides and didn't understand why things were screwed up and we have advised players to adjust the preferences if they don't think the stock settings suit their game play then they argue that what they think is right should be the correct settings totally ignoring the point I made in the first paragraph.

The simple fact is you can't keep everyone happy, so I wouldn't bother trying. I don't think I'm wrong when I say the vast majority of people who play the WinSP games are satisfied. Preferring something be a certain way isn't the same thing as a bug and not all bugs are worth fixing. We deal with that at work and we also deal with users thinking there are bugs when they just don't understand the application. Comes with the territory.

I used to have a copy of an excellent essay on the problems of making a game both realistic AND playable and how, in the end, there was really no way of making the realism crowd and the playability crowd totally happy with the same game. Unfortunately I lost it years ago in a HD crash. No matter how much you back up something is always overlooked

Don

As long as the final product does what you intended, you are good. You might run into situations you wish you had handled differently or functionality you wish you had included the first time around, but that's normal. With SP, it's a great game if it is accepted for what it is instead of what someone else wants it to be.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by RERomine

With SP, it's a great game if it is accepted for what it is instead of what someone else wants it to be.

And that, in a nutshell, is where we stand after 10 years of development.

Don

[PanzerBob]

Just my quick two cents worth, I've always looked at the smoke locations as a representation of a combination of all the spotting devices and factors at work. CB in WWII while getting more scientific was still an art to some degree. If the enemy or indeed yourself unmasks the guns, so to speak, as a Commander you still must decide whether to utilize your artillery resources to CB those positions. Again a bunch of considerations must go into this decision.

Oh one more thing, the artillery piece sometimes showing up under the smoke, only shows that the reports going up the chain would at least ID the type and size of fire. Veterans would for the most part be able to know what is hitting them sometimes even before the first round hits in their location.

IMHO the way things are is great.

Bob out