Multiplayer or bust

[Steeltrap]

3 hours ago, RAMJB said:

And I'm just waiting for alpha 3 before I begin making videos again ;). Was about to edit my first one when the announcement came and I decided it wasn't really worth making anything out of a soon-to-be-outdated version where so many things are about to change ;).

Don't worry, I can be as pedantic as almost any.

It's one of those irregular verbs Bernard would explain in "Yes, Prime Minister":

I have standards, You are picky, He/she/it is a raving pedant.

;-D

I've had work colleagues over the years in various places (I work as a consultant thus move around) who came to look forward to my reaction to the latest message inviting us to Christmas or some other corporate do as it usually involved me making fairly pungent observations about most Marketing Departments' crimes against the English language.

I wasn't taking it personally, as I expect you knew, more just deciding to make my own thoughts perhaps a little more clear.

Cheers

Edited December 8, 2019 by Steeltrap

[Steeltrap]

10 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Alright ladz lets calm it down.

If you mean RAMJB and me I can assure you we're having a friendly chat with plenty of goodwill on both sides. That's how I see it, and I expect he does, too.

If you meant some others, however, I'll put a sock in my mouth and try not to look silly, lol.

[Cptbarney]

5 minutes ago, Steeltrap said:

If you mean RAMJB and me I can assure you we're having a friendly chat with plenty of goodwill on both sides. That's how I see it, and I expect he does, too.

If you meant some others, however, I'll put a sock in my mouth and try not to look silly, lol.

I guess the latter then lol. Cheerio fam!

[Steeltrap]

55 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

I guess the latter then lol. Cheerio fam!

Sigh. Fortunately I washed some socks this morning, so at least it'll be clean.

[RAMJB]

2 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

If you mean RAMJB and me I can assure you we're having a friendly chat with plenty of goodwill on both sides. That's how I see it, and I expect he does, too.

 

 Expectation confirmed. In fact I had a really good chuckle reading your last answer to me...

I have standards, You are picky, He/she/it is a raving pedant.

 

It's a REALLY good thing I was drinking nothing while I was reading that part. Otherwise the inevitable result would've been a real mess to clean XD

Edited December 8, 2019 by RAMJB

[Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf]

On 12/7/2019 at 11:08 PM, fsp said:

I love UG: Civil War. I hate the concept of "scaling". While it gives me enjoyable battles, it also takes away the joy of annihilating an enemy army, knowing it will be back to full strength at the next battle, because otherwise of course the campaign would be over after two or three battles.

That's why I ultimately would like a MP campaign experience. Because all the advantages the AI needs kill immersion. For me. That is my subjective POV.

You do realize the sole reason for scaling etc. is because the AI can't retreat in UG:CW?

[fsp]

No I didn't realise this. Are you sure that's the sole reason?

Even if it was - this doesn't change my reasoning: No AI I know can stand up to a decent human player in any of the wargames I know. This is true even for rather simple games like Panzer General. Let's talk CIV for instance: On higher difficulties, the AI gets so many bonuses that it's absurd to try to compete for world wonders. You are left with waging wars to be able to compete, because that is the one area where you can easily outperform the AI.

 

 

 

[Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf]

Pretty much, it leads to the AI not being able to decide when to pull back...and of course that would make a lot of the battles far less engaging. In UG:CW (and the Total War games) you and your enemy suffer horrendous casualties that would have led to one or even both sides becoming combatineffective. As UG:CW is missionbased and doesn't have a true grand strategy part that would make it necessary for the AI the devs obviously made the battles as thrilling as possible instead of making the AI retreat when it noticed it didn't stand a chance. I guess in UA:D and UA:AoS we might see something new here and I am really looking forward to it, because I know Nick (the lead dev) managed to get the Total-War-AI to consider retreating as an option.

[Steeltrap]

On 12/9/2019 at 2:34 AM, RAMJB said:

 Expectation confirmed. In fact I had a really good chuckle reading your last answer to me...

I have standards, You are picky, He/she/it is a raving pedant.

 

It's a REALLY good thing I was drinking nothing while I was reading that part. Otherwise the inevitable result would've been a real mess to clean XD

I'm glad you enjoyed it. It gave me a laugh when I came up with it, which is usually a good sign. I'm also glad you didn't involuntarily 'wash' you keyboard and screen, LOL.

"Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" are widely regarded as some of the greatest English language television ever made, so any time I get to think of them is a bonus.

Like you, I enjoy the fact we have plenty of enthusiasts with all sorts of different yet related knowledge and sources and a willingness to throw them into a discussion with what is almost always good will and a genuine interest in seeing where the results might take us.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Steeltrap

[Steeltrap]

14 hours ago, fsp said:

No I didn't realise this. Are you sure that's the sole reason?

Even if it was - this doesn't change my reasoning: No AI I know can stand up to a decent human player in any of the wargames I know. This is true even for rather simple games like Panzer General. Let's talk CIV for instance: On higher difficulties, the AI gets so many bonuses that it's absurd to try to compete for world wonders. You are left with waging wars to be able to compete, because that is the one area where you can easily outperform the AI.

 

 

8 hours ago, Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf said:

Pretty much, it leads to the AI not being able to decide when to pull back...and of course that would make a lot of the battles far less engaging. In UG:CW (and the Total War games) you and your enemy suffer horrendous casualties that would have led to one or even both sides becoming combatineffective. As UG:CW is missionbased and doesn't have a true grand strategy part that would make it necessary for the AI the devs obviously made the battles as thrilling as possible instead of making the AI retreat when it noticed it didn't stand a chance. I guess in UA:D and UA:AoS we might see something new here and I am really looking forward to it, because I know Nick (the lead dev) managed to get the Total-War-AI to consider retreating as an option.

 

Yes, this is often the problem with game AI. While I know nothing about trying to program AI, I'd expect the difficulty increases at something like the square of the possible choices open to it. It's always been the bane of Naval Games that the AI seems unable to assess potential enemy fleets and thus send out appropriate fleets, or to assess relative strengths in the case of an encounter. 

I think Great Naval Battles of the North Atlantic: 1939-43 had the most remarkably effective and 'realistic' (in the sense of depicting the issues and challenges) damage and damage control systems ever put in a naval combat game (at least any I've played), and that was published in 1992 (remarkable). Yet it was terribly let down by the fact the AI would fight you no matter what, which meant you'd get KMS Graf Spee advancing on HMS Nelson, with predictable results. Atlantic Fleet, a far simpler game, suffers the same way.

TW games, too, as you mentioned, really started to suffer as they increased in complexity, culminating in the egregiously broken and indefensible at time of release TW: Empire. That was so bad I've refused to buy another 'historical' TW since. Even TW: Warhammer has the same strategic issues, even though its battlefield AI isn't terrible (it still sucks in sieges, however, being dreadfully vulnerable to cheese tactics despite CA limiting the battlefield in an attempt to make things easier for it).

So, yes, I agree MP of some sort would be fun, and certainly more likely to provide the best challenge. Friends and I played Star Wars Rebellion (1998) on dial up and we had great fun, given we're all strategy nerds so graphics and slow pace don't trouble us.

If the devs find a way to introduce it somewhere down the line I'd welcome it, but, as most have said, it's of secondary importance.