Banks6060 wrote:What sort of options have you manipulated with Tiller's ACW games to make them more enjoyable? I'm interested to know, because I'm in the middle of one right now. The Shiloh campaign....the AI just seems idiotic....but perhaps I'm being too hard on her.
Do tell how you are able to improve this situation.
<long-winded pomposity=100% comment="you have been warned!">
First off, you maybe have to set aside your usual notions of "game", and how best to enjoy it.
Consider the "game" of chess. There are many ways of enjoying chess:
--As a serious competitive challenge (where you play in tournaments, strive to raise your international ranking, etc.).
--Playing at the club level.
--As a casual pastime (over the Internet, playing against your kids, etc.).
--Playing against a computer (at many different difficulty levels).
--Playing speed chess.
--Playing postal chess (or its modern equivalent, PBEM).
--Solving chess puzzles ("mate in three moves"; kind of like doing the crosswords, or Sudoku).
--Programming a computer to play it.
--Merely studying it for its intellectual stimulus (systematically analyzing opening moves, reading through thick chess tomes, etc.).
--As a way of socializing or meeting other people (think most card games).
--Being a chess game (board and pieces) collector.
--Reading about famous, historical, genius chess players and personalities.
--Other.
Think, too, of the many ways people enjoy baseball: aiming for a career as a professional ballplayer, being "big man on campus" and attracting girls, being a weekender, keeping fit, watching games in person, watching games on TV, coaching Little League, managing a fantasy baseball league team, collecting trading cards, playing catch with your son (or your daughter!), memorizing baseball trivia, obsessing on baseball statistics, etc., etc.
There are many different ways to enjoy "games", and on many different levels.
I mainly enjoy computer games as intellectual puzzles, as sort-of interactive history books, and as an enjoyable pastime. I don't play computer games as competitions. Winning or losing matters little to me. I also don't seek a social experience from computer gaming. It's one reason I don't get excited about PBEM. (Won't do that; don't ask; won't tell.) To me, "realism" and "plausibility" are paramount. Suspension of disbelief (ignoring that I'm playing on, or against, a computer), imagining I've traveled back in time and am participating in something "real" and "alive"--this is important, too.
Here are some of the many different ways you can enjoy the JT series of Civil War games (other computer war "games", too):
--As fierce, no-holds-barred, human-to-human competitions.
--As fierce, no-holds-barred, human-to-AI competitions.
--As interactive history "books".
--As historical simulations.
--As intellectual puzzles.
--As satisfying an inexplicable hunger (emotional, intellectual) for a particular topic, or era, in this case, the Civil War.
--As works of art. (Or consider Gray's obvious fascination with maps. I, too, love staring at and contemplating maps.)
I tend toward the latter items on the list. Competitiveness means much less to me.
So, what are the many ways you can "play" the JT/HPS ACW games:
--Campaign play.
--Playing full battles.
--One-day battle scenarios.
--Short situational scenarios.
--Human vs. human, hotseat.
--Human vs. computer.
--PBEM.
--LAN & Internet Play.
--Commander Control, all forces, high-level (e.g., just giving orders to corps commanders).
--Commander Control, all forces, low-level (e.g., giving orders for every commander, at every level).
--Commander Control, some forces (e.g., just giving orders as Longstreet at Gettysburg, letting the AI handle all the rest).
--Solitaire, direct control, with or without FOW.
--Solitaire, commander control, with or without FOW.
--Switching sides (maybe more than once) in mid-battle.
--Playing by house rules.
--Pretending ignorance (helps if you have total FOW).
--Programming AI scripts.
--Modding what-if scenarios, OOBs, and graphics. (Think of the enjoyment and fascination some AACW modders must feel.)
--Oohing and aahing over the maps.
For more about the many game play modes (astonishing in number), see
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1529549&mpage=1&key=�
My preference(s)? Playing solitaire (always); sometimes against the computer, sometimes myself-vs-myself; sometimes Commander Control, sometimes not; always the highest level of FOW; usually playing by "house rules"; sometimes feigning ignorance; learning about the battle history; trying different approaches, strategies and tactics; always taking my time to reflect; switching from 2D to 3D and back again, "oohing and aahing", enjoying the total experience; not really caring about winning or losing...
... It all depends on the given battle, or maybe just my mood or momentary fancy...
... In short, probably not the way most people "play" these games.
(Do you see why most PBEMers would be extremely frustrated "playing" with me?)
Ever since attempting to design a Vicksburg board game as an adolescent back in the 1960s, and being a Grant fanboy, I am particularly interested in HPS' (JT's) Campaign Vicksburg.
As an experiment, I tried playing the the Port Gibson scenario three different ways:
--Human (North) vs. computer (South), human direct control.
--Human (North) vs. computer (South), human Commander Control.
--Human (North) vs. human (me!) (South), direct control both sides.
(Not tried: human vs. human, Commander Control both sides.)
All with my usual, standard options (extreme FOW, "house rules", limiting my foreknowledge and exercising restraint, etc.).
What were my experiences?
The first game--human (direct control) vs. computer--was less than satisfying. I creamed the inept AI.
This is the mode probably most players play, or think to play.
The second game was frustrating, because playing Commander Control (see below), but fascinating, and still fun. The result was a draw.
The third game, an overwhelming Union win, was satisfying (maybe because that's how I played board war games for many, many years)...
... until I reread accounts of the battle and realized that the second game--human vs. computer, human Commander Control--resulted in the most historical, most "realistic" outcome.
I'm not sure where I read it, somewhere in the HPS Civil War game docs or READMEs IIRC, but someone wrote an essay about why playing strictly Commander Control is not only the fairest way to play against the AI but also the way to achieve the greatest realism. A very good read, if you can find it.
Is playing Commander Control frustrating, as you watch the AI carry out your orders, or maybe not, but in any case executing those orders sub-optimally (to say the least)? You bet!
But that's how it is in real life. Murphy's Law applies. Frustration. The unexpected. The Fortunes of War and all that.
Playing Commander Control is also somewhat less than satisfying because it removes me from the low-level details. I like looking about, inspecting things like troop numbers, morale and fatigue levels, and such before issuing my Commander Control orders, but the JT interface hinders that somewhat.
Returning for the moment to the AGEod games, and AACW in particular:
Excepting PBEM, the standard way to play AACW is, in effect, like JT's/HPS' Commander Control. We plan and give our orders, but the AI carries them out. Or not!
Can the experience be frustrating at times? Yes! But isn't it "realistic" and all part of the fun and appeal of AACW? Yes!
So play JT's Battleground Series and the HPS Civil War games (like AGEod's AACW and its other games) using Commander Control!!
People rave about how acceptably good the AACW AI can be, compared to most games. Well, let's make it an apple-to-apple comparison. Play the JT/HPS games full Commander Control! Then how really bad is the JT/HPS AI in comparison? Not so much.
There's still the issue of being too much removed from the low-level action. Undeniably, playing JT/HPS Commander Control is unsatisfying in this regard.
With AGEod AACW (and the other company games), we have the best of both worlds--unpredictable, and realistic, AI-controlled command execution (Commander Control) but still low-level micro-management (in spades!). The best of both worlds!
This is why, ultimately, the AGEod games might eventually overtake the JT/HPS games in my esteem and affection, why the AGEod games might finally become my Numero Uno desert island game(s). (AGEod still needs to iron out some kinks, obviously, but leave that for another discussion--please!)
When playing these games, open your mind, think outside the box, experiment!
Sorry for droning on and on like this, but you were warned!
Is this maybe the record for the longest gaming forum post ever?
</long-winded>
.
