vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:38 pm

This .ini isn't in the Alias folder. Now the question I have, can an AI_Interest.ini be placed into the Alias directory, affinities added to leaders (which I can do via program quite quickly) and it will auto-magically work, or do I need to regenerate the scenario?

User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7578
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Tue Apr 26, 2016 10:00 pm

vicberg wrote:This .ini isn't in the Alias folder. Now the question I have, can an AI_Interest.ini be placed into the Alias directory, affinities added to leaders (which I can do via program quite quickly) and it will auto-magically work, or do I need to regenerate the scenario?


I'm embarrassed to see we left it out of the Alias folder. :bonk:
By all means, add it to Aliases and leaders.
Remember to delete model and unit caches after your changes, then your changes should be effective. when you relad the game.....
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]

User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7578
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Tue Apr 26, 2016 10:12 pm

vaalen wrote:I was wondering if some of the AJE team might be able to help on the AI issues, as they have demonstrated great talent in this area.

In Hannibal, Terror of Rome, I saw massive improvements in the AI by the time the patching was finished. I had some great games in the scenario covering the entire second Punic War, solitaire.

The AI created strong, well balanced forces, inflicted numerous defeats on me, and was very good at forcing me into difficult supply situations. It was able to respond very well to my offensive actions, and was able to use different, appropriate strategies In Spain, Italy, and Africa, at the same time. It also was very formidable at sea, breaking naval blockades of besieged cities, defending the coast of Africa against naval invasions, and maintaining powerful stacks of ships that were a real challenge to deal with. I was able to win both as Rome and as Carthage, but it was a real challenge, and luck helped me a great deal, as I has to take some huge risks that payed off, but could have easily failed.

On release, the AI did not do many of these things, and was very easy to defeat. But now, it is a much better general, and admiral.

My point is that whatever they did to the AI worked, and I am wondering if they could help with this game.


It would be interesting to see what could be done...

...but let me be a devils advocate again, with a specific example.

Playing the Long Campaign, and it's now 1810:

What direction should we give to Prussia? What is the situation? What possible situations do we need to script for????
Multiply by 7 for scripting all player nations.
Add a few critical non-player nations that might need tweaking.....

AJE is not a diplomatic campaign game, different beast...

...but I hope they will pitch in! :coeurs:
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]

[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]

RebelYell
General of the Army
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:40 pm

Tue Apr 26, 2016 10:19 pm

lodilefty wrote:I'm embarrassed to see we left it out of the Alias folder. :bonk:
By all means, add it to Aliases and leaders.
Remember to delete model and unit caches after your changes, then your changes should be effective. when you relad the game.....


Does this mean we should be dancing from joy? :w00t:

User avatar
Kev_uk
Colonel
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:43 pm
Location: South Wales, UK.

Tue Apr 26, 2016 10:48 pm

vaalen wrote:I was wondering if some of the AJE team might be able to help on the AI issues, as they have demonstrated great talent in this area.

In Hannibal, Terror of Rome, I saw massive improvements in the AI by the time the patching was finished. I had some great games in the scenario covering the entire second Punic War, solitaire.

The AI created strong, well balanced forces, inflicted numerous defeats on me, and was very good at forcing me into difficult supply situations. It was able to respond very well to my offensive actions, and was able to use different, appropriate strategies In Spain, Italy, and Africa, at the same time. It also was very formidable at sea, breaking naval blockades of besieged cities, defending the coast of Africa against naval invasions, and maintaining powerful stacks of ships that were a real challenge to deal with. I was able to win both as Rome and as Carthage, but it was a real challenge, and luck helped me a great deal, as I has to take some huge risks that payed off, but could have easily failed.

On release, the AI did not do many of these things, and was very easy to defeat. But now, it is a much better general, and admiral.

My point is that whatever they did to the AI worked, and I am wondering if they could help with this game.


I remember similar was done with Revolution under Siege, when that was first released it had quite a poor campaign AI, but a modder, I think it was Clovis, really altered the AI files to make it much more playable afterwards. As I have stated, there is potential to make WoN a bit more challenging than really it currently is for the single player campaign game. I am not a coder and I respect the debugging and work it must take to program this - so good luck.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:09 am

lodilefty wrote:It would be interesting to see what could be done...

...but let me be a devils advocate again, with a specific example.

Playing the Long Campaign, and it's now 1810:

What direction should we give to Prussia? What is the situation? What possible situations do we need to script for????
Multiply by 7 for scripting all player nations.
Add a few critical non-player nations that might need tweaking.....

AJE is not a diplomatic campaign game, different beast...

...but I hope they will pitch in! :coeurs:


Actually, if playing single player, it's relatively easy. By 1810/1812, everyone against France.

Offworlder
Brigadier General
Posts: 463
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Malta

Wed Apr 27, 2016 5:14 am

Yes but if the human is France, its no problem... :w00t:

BruceASinger@gmail.com
Captain
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 7:10 am

Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:03 am

Pocus wrote:The AI is far from perfect, but is not utter crap. You can definitively play it SP. Some scripts might do weird things, like the Caucasus focus. Without scripts on the other hand, France will try to capture Gibraltar. Indeed, a human would probably not do that. As for the British, the AI will always keep a huge force in the homeland.


I am playing the French in the GC. In the previous games, Spain surrendered to England within 6 months. Then the French Spainish would form. Then they would ally with England on the next turn. Then declare war on France the next turn. I guess Joseph has no love for his brother. Then England would march small Corp into France from Spain.

In this game, after a year, Spain still had not surrendered to England. Spain actually survived long enough that France was able to ally with it. Spain had two large armies in Cadiz that were trading off attacking Gilbalter with little results. England had an Army in Northern Portugal that was attacking a Spanish City. They were slowly reducing the forces in the city. Since I Massena to the South of France waiting for the English armies to come through Spain, I sent Massena into Spain. Massena caught the Britsh army a couple of times as it jumped across the Portugal border to attack the Spanish Cities. In the second battle, the British army was nearly destroyed. As Massena was close to Gibalter, I sent him to attack it and Massena managed to captured it. I left one division and the Portaguesse Unit that joined the French after taking Gibalter in Gibalter as a garrison. At this point, I would love to give Gibalter to the Spanish but that is not possible with the current diplomacy system.


I assume at some point England will send an army to recapture Gibalter. My hope is the Spanish Armies in Cadiz will attack the British and do better than they were against the "ROCK". Currently I have moved Massena out of Spain for the Winter. For now, I have stopped the British from attacking Spain from Portugal and stopped Spain from throwing its armies against the "ROCK." It cost the French very little. One unit lost all but 1 or 2 hits for most of its elements. The rest of the units took mostly Cohesion losses. The unit that took the heavy losses had its elements replaced when it re-entered France for the winter. I am hoping that if France can keep Spain from losing badly to the British, Spain won't surrender to the British and French Spain will never form. Besides, you got to help your ally right.

If I can delay the Spainish from surrendering to England for a year, it will be well worth the cost.

Omnius
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:15 pm
Location: Salinas, CA

Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:18 pm

bdtj1815,
You are absolutely correct that the Athena Ignorance is perhaps the most pathetic Artificial Ignorance of all time. I gave up on AGEOD games after Napoleon's Campaigns because of many flaws in the game engine, one of which was the ignorant AI and AGEOD's insistence that it somehow is always active. If you watch closely you'll see how the Athena Ignorance does recon with artillery and HQ units. I was watching the Portugese AI stupidly march around southern Spain accomplishing nothing while AI-controlled Spain held most of northern Portugal. I was playing Britain at the time. I just wish we didn't have to put up with AI-controlled minor nations, wish they'd be inactive until a major nation allies with it through diplomacy or a declaration of war and then we humans could control them. It's also sad to watch the AI break down good corps into garbage farces that are way over command limits. It looks like whomever is programming the AI is absolutely clueless as regards actual military planning or strategic considerations. Why Russia would waste it's time sending Kutusov and a large force into Azerbaijan and waste resources on building fortifications there is beyond me.

I just play with the Athena Ignorance controlling other major nations as I learn the game system and see the changes since NC. Makes me so glad I never wasted my time or money on other AGEOD titles. I'm going to play the game solo PBEM or hotseat, controlling all major nations. That way I'll have a better game even if I lose the element of surprise. I just wish we had some way to control the minor nations, a serious flaw that AGEOD will never fix unfortunately. I'm going to do a video series detailing just how ignorant Athena is.

Aurelin
Colonel
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:15 pm

Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:25 pm

So you're going to play what you claim is a phony hot seat, hot seat?

User avatar
Kev_uk
Colonel
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:43 pm
Location: South Wales, UK.

Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:37 pm

Omnius, have you seen any improvements with yesterdays major patch? I have seen small things happen which I have not seen before. It is never going to be perfect I know, but your tone is not really warranted against it. And BTW, out of the Ageod titles I have played, this is the not the best AI. AACW put up a respectable fight, RUS, using Clovis' mods was really very competent. I liked Wars in America too - that was a tough game due to the supply issue - planning was very important before the winter months hit. Likewise planning is important here in WoN too. I have seen much much worse AI's in other wargames, and much less support for the community too.

Aurelin
Colonel
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:15 pm

Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:53 pm

SSI's Gettysburg game comes to mind.

As the Union, it would always move and attack North.

As the Confederate, send a cavalry unit behind it's line and pick off all the artillery units. It would waste time chasing that one unit with infantry.

Play a John Tiller Napoleon/American Civil War title and play a large scenario/campaign.

Omnius
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:15 pm
Location: Salinas, CA

Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:07 pm

lodilefty,
The problem is that with a game that lasts about 480 turns it's really Mission Impossible to script each country. However from what I see whomever is programming the AI is just clueless about what to do. All I see is really stupid things from the Athena Ignorance. I see lone artillery and HQ units doing recon beyond the frontlines, and perfectly good corps or forces being broken down and reformed under poor commanders way over command limit while better leaders end up alone. Why do I see Ferdinand leave Italy with his whole army leaving southern Austria wide open? Just stupid! What possible purpose is there to Kutusov going to Azerbaijan with a huge force in 1805-1806 and then building fortifications there? He should always be heading into central Europe helping Austria and Prussia against France. Why do I see AI-French coastal batteries hanging out around Gibraltar instead of staying put? Your AI strategies are totally Mickey Mouse!

Plus why can't we control minor nation forces? Why are we stuck with the Athena Ignorance controlling them oh so poorly. They are pathetic at defending their home turf, always off going somewhere they shouldn't be. As Britain I watched my clueless AI ally Portugal running around southern Spain by Gibraltar accomplishing nothing while AI controlled Spain had most of northern Portugal? It would be smarter for it to be trying to take back captured regions in Portugal, not marching around in Ronda. I had Gibraltar protected and had no need of help from the AI. The AI minors should stick around their home turf. Why can't we ask for expeditionary units from the minors the way it was done historically? Napoleon could get his minor nation allies to lend him units to fight under Napoleon's command, a trick we can't replicate in WoN.

I just wish we could have the minor nations controlled by the AI for diplomacy purposes only. Once a minor nation becomes allied to a major nation then that major nation should control them if played by a human. It would make the game so much more enjoyable if you put the Athena Ignorance out of our misery!

I also see the random retreat routine is as clueless as ever. I complained about it in Birth of a Nation and Napoleons Campaigns and see it's really not been improved. While it's nice that we can control retreat direction as a human, it only works if we're playing the AI. If we play solo hotseat or PBEM we're stuck with the absolutely ignorant retreat routine that chooses the most ignorant region to retreat to most of the time. Why can't you make it smarter, having units retreat towards the capital or a supply depot as the first choice, not the last. You place too much emphasis on retreating back the way a force came, even when that force has been in the region for at least a turn and should have the choice of retreat path as long as it's under military control. Just stupid to watch an Austrian force retreat into the mountains away from Linz or Wien from Salzburg. Especially when Innsbruck is French controlled for more than a turn. Especially when that force was in Salzburg for more than a turn before the battle.

I'm going to do a short video series on beginning the 1/1805 campaign as France. I'm going to show how easy it will be to trash the Austrian and Prussian AI's in 1805 around Bavaria because someone thought having Prussia attack Bavaria and Wurtemberg was a bright idea when it's the most clueless strategy of all time. I call the AI plan the Concentration of Farce because it'll allow me to concentrate Le Grande Armee in Bavaria with Napoleon running most of the battles. A broad front strategy would be far smarter for Prussia, working on taking Hannover and forcing the French to split forces and have someone other than Napoleon controlling battles. Just like the Allies smartly did in 1813. I'll give you a heads up when I've got a few episodes done on YouTube. Then I'm going to do a much longer YouTube series playing all 7 of the major nations, then you'll be able to see smart strategies for each major nation.

Instead of Mickey Mouse strategies that have the Athena Ignorance spreading forces all over the place or attacking in the wrong places, try dumbing it down and keeping it simple. Plus a busy AI is a pathetic AI! Considering the defensive bonus of staying put over time it would be smarter to have nations play on the defensive and stay put, especially on their capital with a large force. A country like Austria should be on the strategic defensive in 1805, not attacking the Ottomans endlessly for years along with Russia instead of focusing on defending against France.

Omnius
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:15 pm
Location: Salinas, CA

Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:09 pm

I gave up on Tiller decades ago, his AI's were totally clueless about moving along roads. Plus he did nothing but regurgitate the same old battles endlessly.

Omnius
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:15 pm
Location: Salinas, CA

Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:15 pm

Kev_uk,
I was playing with the 24 March and then April 11 patches so am familiar with some recent improvements. However a smarter AI wasn't one of those improvements. You may think the Athena Ignorance is worth playing against but I want more of a real strategic challenge that it can't provide. Perhaps you just don't see the lone artillery recon units, especially the coastal battery ones. After so many games one would like to think the AI is getting better, not worse. Thanks for confirming that AGEOD's AI programming is getting worse instead of better. The best thing AGEOD can do for us grognards is to get the AI completely out of the game, let us control the minor nations once allied with them.

vaalen
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:48 pm

Thu Apr 28, 2016 5:21 pm

vicberg wrote:Actually, if playing single player, it's relatively easy. By 1810/1812, everyone against France.


That makes sense. The political situation was not that complicated. Everyone but the satellite nations hated France, but the ones who had been defeated also feared France.

I have no idea of how the AI is programmed, but it is clear that in history, the objective of the major powers was to destroy France. However, Nations that had been defeated by France were reluctant to fight her, though Austria took another try at it in 1809. After that, No one but England was willing to fight France until Napoleon invaded Russia, and was defeated there. After that, all the major nations united against France, and even napoleon could not beat such numbers, facing him all at once.

I do not know if you can recreate this situation, but perhaps a major defeat of France could serve as a trigger for some of the defeated nations being willing to fight her again, providing they do not violate a peace treaty that is still in effect.

As for the new nations created by France, they should follow France in their policy and objectives, as they almost always did that in real life.

It seems that France tried to keep Europe divided, so they would not have to fight everyone at once, while England tried to unite everyone against France. France was able to keep Europe divided by winning wars, but they could not put down the Spanish revolt, which may have given Russia the courage to opt out of the continental system, which led to the invasion of Russia, which led to almost all of Europe uniting against France.

I do not know if it is possible to make events that would recreate this dynamic, but perhaps someone could do it.

Taillebois
General
Posts: 572
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:09 pm

Thu Apr 28, 2016 5:22 pm

Is a grumbling grognard a tautology?


Anyway, I had a very pleasant game last night with 1.02.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:00 pm

Omnius wrote:Kev_uk,
I was playing with the 24 March and then April 11 patches so am familiar with some recent improvements. However a smarter AI wasn't one of those improvements. You may think the Athena Ignorance is worth playing against but I want more of a real strategic challenge that it can't provide. Perhaps you just don't see the lone artillery recon units, especially the coastal battery ones. After so many games one would like to think the AI is getting better, not worse. Thanks for confirming that AGEOD's AI programming is getting worse instead of better. The best thing AGEOD can do for us grognards is to get the AI completely out of the game, let us control the minor nations once allied with them.


That's exactly what my mod does.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:12 pm

Ok, I have AI Affinity in place and from the AI.LOG, it looks like its working.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:16 pm

So now, I'll bring down the 1.02 patch and integrate and then post a new mod.

RebelYell
General of the Army
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:40 pm

Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:32 pm

vicberg wrote:So now, I'll bring down the 1.02 patch and integrate and then post a new mod.


:w00t:

RebelYell
General of the Army
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:40 pm

Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:32 pm

vicberg wrote:Ok, I have AI Affinity in place and from the AI.LOG, it looks like its working.


How does it work and how does it change the game?

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:39 pm

Not sure. I just saw Affinity in the AI.LOG, so it's doing *something*. I'll need to play test a bit, when I have time, in order to know the full affects.

11:59:40 AM (Reporting) _CLD_ Leader Affinity 1002651 Francis de Rottenburg Raw Affinity for 1010091 Valetta Garrison 30 Family Affinity: 112 Final Affinity: 34
11:59:40 AM (Reporting) _CLD_ Leader Affinity 1002651 Francis de Rottenburg Raw Affinity for 1002645 Stuart' Force 42 Family Affinity: 96 Final Affinity: 40

RebelYell
General of the Army
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:40 pm

Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:18 pm

vicberg wrote:Not sure. I just saw Affinity in the AI.LOG, so it's doing *something*. I'll need to play test a bit, when I have time, in order to know the full affects.

11:59:40 AM (Reporting) _CLD_ Leader Affinity 1002651 Francis de Rottenburg Raw Affinity for 1010091 Valetta Garrison 30 Family Affinity: 112 Final Affinity: 34
11:59:40 AM (Reporting) _CLD_ Leader Affinity 1002651 Francis de Rottenburg Raw Affinity for 1002645 Stuart' Force 42 Family Affinity: 96 Final Affinity: 40


Can you make one that only puts this in the vanilla game? Would like to try it with that first.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:49 pm

I'm not sure I want to support two things. I'm considering it.

RebelYell
General of the Army
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:40 pm

Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:57 pm

vicberg wrote:I'm not sure I want to support two things. I'm considering it.


I understand, what about a lite version for the mod?

MarshalJean
Lieutenant
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:49 pm

Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:07 pm

Omnius wrote:lodilefty,
The problem is that with a game that lasts about 480 turns it's really Mission Impossible to script each country. However from what I see whomever is programming the AI is just clueless about what to do. All I see is really stupid things from the Athena Ignorance. I see lone artillery and HQ units doing recon beyond the frontlines, and perfectly good corps or forces being broken down and reformed under poor commanders way over command limit while better leaders end up alone. Why do I see Ferdinand leave Italy with his whole army leaving southern Austria wide open? Just stupid! What possible purpose is there to Kutusov going to Azerbaijan with a huge force in 1805-1806 and then building fortifications there? He should always be heading into central Europe helping Austria and Prussia against France. Why do I see AI-French coastal batteries hanging out around Gibraltar instead of staying put? Your AI strategies are totally Mickey Mouse!

Plus why can't we control minor nation forces? Why are we stuck with the Athena Ignorance controlling them oh so poorly. They are pathetic at defending their home turf, always off going somewhere they shouldn't be. As Britain I watched my clueless AI ally Portugal running around southern Spain by Gibraltar accomplishing nothing while AI controlled Spain had most of northern Portugal? It would be smarter for it to be trying to take back captured regions in Portugal, not marching around in Ronda. I had Gibraltar protected and had no need of help from the AI. The AI minors should stick around their home turf. Why can't we ask for expeditionary units from the minors the way it was done historically? Napoleon could get his minor nation allies to lend him units to fight under Napoleon's command, a trick we can't replicate in WoN.

I just wish we could have the minor nations controlled by the AI for diplomacy purposes only. Once a minor nation becomes allied to a major nation then that major nation should control them if played by a human. It would make the game so much more enjoyable if you put the Athena Ignorance out of our misery!

I also see the random retreat routine is as clueless as ever. I complained about it in Birth of a Nation and Napoleons Campaigns and see it's really not been improved. While it's nice that we can control retreat direction as a human, it only works if we're playing the AI. If we play solo hotseat or PBEM we're stuck with the absolutely ignorant retreat routine that chooses the most ignorant region to retreat to most of the time. Why can't you make it smarter, having units retreat towards the capital or a supply depot as the first choice, not the last. You place too much emphasis on retreating back the way a force came, even when that force has been in the region for at least a turn and should have the choice of retreat path as long as it's under military control. Just stupid to watch an Austrian force retreat into the mountains away from Linz or Wien from Salzburg. Especially when Innsbruck is French controlled for more than a turn. Especially when that force was in Salzburg for more than a turn before the battle.

I'm going to do a short video series on beginning the 1/1805 campaign as France. I'm going to show how easy it will be to trash the Austrian and Prussian AI's in 1805 around Bavaria because someone thought having Prussia attack Bavaria and Wurtemberg was a bright idea when it's the most clueless strategy of all time. I call the AI plan the Concentration of Farce because it'll allow me to concentrate Le Grande Armee in Bavaria with Napoleon running most of the battles. A broad front strategy would be far smarter for Prussia, working on taking Hannover and forcing the French to split forces and have someone other than Napoleon controlling battles. Just like the Allies smartly did in 1813. I'll give you a heads up when I've got a few episodes done on YouTube. Then I'm going to do a much longer YouTube series playing all 7 of the major nations, then you'll be able to see smart strategies for each major nation.

Instead of Mickey Mouse strategies that have the Athena Ignorance spreading forces all over the place or attacking in the wrong places, try dumbing it down and keeping it simple. Plus a busy AI is a pathetic AI! Considering the defensive bonus of staying put over time it would be smarter to have nations play on the defensive and stay put, especially on their capital with a large force. A country like Austria should be on the strategic defensive in 1805, not attacking the Ottomans endlessly for years along with Russia instead of focusing on defending against France.


Wow...You sure give a lot of time to a series of games that you repeatedly claim to have given up on and repudiated. And, apparently, plan to give even more time to recording yourself playing them and then posting it on YouTube. I think that if I truly hated something with as much vitriol as you have expressed here, I wouldn't still be coming to this forum to proclaim said vitriol. Interesting.

Aurelin
Colonel
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:15 pm

Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:37 pm

MarshalJean wrote:Wow...You sure give a lot of time to a series of games that you repeatedly claim to have given up on and repudiated. And, apparently, plan to give even more time to recording yourself playing them and then posting it on YouTube. I think that if I truly hated something with as much vitriol as you have expressed here, I wouldn't still be coming to this forum to proclaim said vitriol. Interesting.


Which is why I put him on the ignore list. The whole thing is a hatchet job.

This too. (Since it's all under the same company umbrella, why not.) http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4058960

vaalen
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:48 pm

Fri Apr 29, 2016 5:20 am

vicberg wrote:So now, I'll bring down the 1.02 patch and integrate and then post a new mod.


Vicberg, you have done so much for this game that the words "thank you" seem inadequate. Your efforts are very much appreciated, and I look forward to your integrated mod.

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25437
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Fri Apr 29, 2016 9:37 am

People like Vicberg are indeed doing great in promoting the game, improving it and providing alternate way to play it. So cheers to him!
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

Return to “Wars of Napoleon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests