Kemco Games Forum Index Kemco Games
Kemco Games Forums
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

ABSURD cheating!....or is my perspective wrong?
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Kemco Games Forum Index -> Dai Senryaku VII Modern Military Tactics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Blowed up REAL good!
Guest





PostPosted: Jul Fri 08, 2005 8:51 pm    Post subject: ABSURD cheating!....or is my perspective wrong? Reply with quote

I've been paying close attention to the results of unit vs unit individual battles....and I'm seeing the AI give itself a 66%->100% success rate!

Example = I have any given unit, at full strength (10 out of 10)....and it attacks an enemy (equal) unit of say, strength 3 out of 10. I attack first, and destroy 2 of 3, and it counter attacks with one unit...and destroys one of my units.
That is 100%!
I've done this dozens and dozens and dozens of times and the game seems tilted to well over 50% success at counter attacks.
My 10 attacks 4, kills 1, I lose 3.
My 8 attacks 5, kills 3, I lose 2.
Absolutely rediculous....and total BS.

I'm so sick of the AI imbalance that I've started manually adjusting all battles to reasonable results. This seemingly "rolling of the dice" battle result approach is totally unacceptable. I've decided (for good or bad) that any unit when attacked by three equal units, is dead meat.....or left at best with only 1 or 2 units. This has made the game MUCH more strategy, and much less "dice". Now when I attack 5 units with 20, I know I'll win, as I should, and not get wiped out by nothing to do with reality "chance".

I'll quickly clarify I've never been in actual war, so my presumptions are based on "common sense" (Hah!), not battle proven stats.
I know the best anything sometimes misses the target.
I know the most inexperienced anything sometimes gets lucky.
...but....
....I just can't accept that a 20 million dollar anything (say a long range high tech interceptor) can't single handedly destroy a 400,000 dollar something else(say an attack helicopter). I don't expect single attack total destruction, 'cause like I said, I set my standard at 3 to 1.

There would be NO point in having created the 20 million dollar whatever, if this rediculous AI result was in any way connected to reality.

I'm sure I'm missing some glaringly obvious point, so please enlighten me.
I still play and enjoy the game, but all this reloading and do-overs to get reasonableness.....is getting a bit old.
Back to top
JVGFanatic



Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 275
Location: Portland (the westardly one)

PostPosted: Jul Sat 09, 2005 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent question!

I'm not in front of the game to verify your findings however I think, after reading it a couple of times I might have an...um..."explanation?"

Anyway, I'll use your examples but will reword them to fit my model, hopefully the model will be apparent in the examples. I believe I've used this 'justification' to allow myself to overlook the seemingly stilted "return fire" results in many strategy games.

My 10 attacks 4, kills 1, I lose 3 to the 4.
My 8 attacks 5, kills 3, I lose 2 to the 5.

In other words, the counter attack factors in the original enemy force since actual combat is "simultaneous." The attack/counter-attack thing is actually several iterations of attack/counter-attack.

Does that make sense? Razz It's unfortunate that the battle animation doesn't make this clearer.


Here's your second example in an expanded version of a turn:

Attack Begin
My 8 attacks 5, takes out 1
Their 4 counter-attack my 8 and I lose 1
My 7 attacks 4, takes out 1
Their 3 counter-attacks my 7 and I lose 1
My 6 attacks 3, takes out 1
Their 2 counter-attack but are ineffective.
Attack End : Show Results...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
SemperFi2382



Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 775
Location: Chicago Suburbs, IL USA

PostPosted: Jul Sat 09, 2005 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, if you take into account many other factors of the attack/counterattack, the attacks are fairly realistic. For example, (while I don't know if any of this is hard coded, I'm speculating) take your 20 million dollar interceptor. Each fires 1 $500,000 missle. Given the factors of pilot error, mechanical failure (bad fuse, etc), evasion tactics (flares, etc) and terrain, it's very possible to have a low hit rate. This doesn't take into account a non-lethal hit.

As for the AI cheating, I haven't seen much proof of it when a standard test is done. (aka, make 2 human players, build identical units with identical countries and then attack with one, turn the AI on for the other and compare results).

Take the infantry units for example. Unless your using high explosives, they are a pain to kill off at times in certain terrain. Just like real life, bullets can only hit you if your in the path of the projectile. Given that I don't know the scale of each hex, the space to manuever and evade could be huge. (though since a city takes up one hex, the scale is got to be pretty large) After all, missles aren't all that smart relatively because a human isn't steering them. The missle has hard coded logic and detection that can be fooled, provided you know how.

Just my few cents. Cool
_________________

"The Object is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his." - General Patton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
DoubleTap



Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 76
Location: Manhattan

PostPosted: Jul Sat 09, 2005 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SemperFi2382 wrote:
Given that I don't know the scale of each hex, the space to manuever and evade could be huge. (though since a city takes up one hex, the scale is got to be pretty large)


On a side note, I've been meaning to ask this for a while- the hex size is variable, depending on the map, isn't it? Sometimes the whole map is the island of Okinawa, sometimes it's the continental U.S.. Additionally, if hex size is variable, is unit size also variable?
_________________
"If an evil is minor, resist it nonetheless. If a good deed is trifling, perform it all the same." -Liu Bei
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JVGFanatic



Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 275
Location: Portland (the westardly one)

PostPosted: Jul Sat 09, 2005 8:29 am    Post subject: If the hex size is variable Reply with quote

If the hex size is variable then so is the scale of time, because the movement rates are fixed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
SemperFi2382



Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 775
Location: Chicago Suburbs, IL USA

PostPosted: Jul Sat 09, 2005 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's an interesting question. However, I don't think that the scale changes at all. Because like JVG said, the movement points are set in stone and therefore on a smaller map, they would appear to move at a realistic (more so than not) speed.

However, on the map of the US, it would make the troops move faster than they should be. Infantry on foot could not walk the distance from Chicago to Springfield in one day (which is what time scale I believe the game is on).

I think that all you could really do is convince yourself that each "turn" is a certain length of time, depending on the maps perceived size. The thing is, I suppose one could figure the scale by placing a fleet of ships and determining the average spacing in between each ship.

NOTE: The means of all units either having 1, 2 or 10 subunits is a little strange unless I go figure out the scale. Then I can tell you for sure what each unit represents. (For example 1 ship = 1 ship)
_________________

"The Object is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his." - General Patton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Blowed up REAL good!
Guest





PostPosted: Jul Wed 13, 2005 9:45 pm    Post subject: topic continued..... Reply with quote

"since actual combat is "simultaneous""

Well, I don't see that, because never ever once, has the enemy destroyed more of my units than they had left after my initial attack.

If they have 3, they destroy 3 of mine, but never 4 or more (which would be assumed possible if truely simultaneous).
I've become a "reload/redo" fanatic, in trying to get reasonable results for any given battle.....any I've never had the resulting lot (as a result of my attack) ever kill more of my units than they have left.

I think the designed (programmed) idea is that no AI (with I guess the exception of the IBM "big blue" chess playing thing) can handle a human, so the AI is given an advantage to make it "fair'.

I've noticed routinely that 2 or 3 enemy anythings can destroy one of my equal units, but it seems to take 4 or 5 (or more) of my units to do the same to the enemy.

NOT fair.
NOT acceptable.
I'm no genious, so I need fair, or it just isn't any fun for me.

Reload, redo, reload, redo, reload, redo......yawns.....

Maybe they need to add another difficulty level called "having fun, likes the game, but not too good at this" Smile
Back to top
SemperFi2382



Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 775
Location: Chicago Suburbs, IL USA

PostPosted: Jul Thu 14, 2005 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I won't say that I've never had the same type of battles in a game that you seem to get Good. In fact, I'd say at least 3 turns in any given game, the AI gets some sweet "rolls" and deals a massive amount of carnage.

Although, I will say this. Flip a coin for instance. it's a 50/50 every flip right? But even if you get heads 5 times in a row, it's still a 50/50 chance. I'm thinking that the combat rolls for the AI have the same effect. Instead of removing the chance that you will get result A, you still get A or B. So, the AI attacks/get counterattacked, the roll for combat still has the same "possible" results.

Now the solution is to change the combat modifiers and set the rolls to where if outcome A, B, C, and D occurs, remove said outcome. For example, you roll a dice, get a 4. The next roll ignore a 4 and only use 1-3 and 5-6.

Otherwise, we get what we see here and the AI has a chance of continuously winning from how the game is coded. BUT! BUT, you have the same chance to get on that sort of streak as well because it's coded the same. I've had battles where I didn't have a chance of winning with my current force on one front. However, it seemed I was on a streak and steamrolled the AI when I clearly should have not performed so well.

Then there's the times where the rolls work as they were "intended" and every roll is truly appearing random when the situation is even.

So my conclusion, it's not cheating, it's the coded algorithms for combat resolution that perform a bit wonky. I'm not aware of many games that solve this problem. (They do exist, though the names escape me) Some games force x result per turn (-10 HP per attack for example in) while fun in games like Advance Wars, that isn't true to life. Most seem to use the random damage/result that we see here. (ever play an RPG where you should be able to hit something, but never can? same type of coding issue). What we need is a more sim type coding for damage. If this/this/andthis scenario occurs you get result A, if this/that/andthose scenario happens, you get result B. Though, then you get the problem of always winning once you figure out the correct pattern of this scenario is better than that scenario.

Lol, anyhow...
_________________

"The Object is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his." - General Patton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
tyrannical



Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 51

PostPosted: Jul Sat 16, 2005 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some of the interals of this game are tricky.

It does seem that 10 units hit less often then 10 times what one unit hits. (you may have to read that sentece a few times to make sense of it). Meaning the last unit you have is more accurate as an individual then when you had a full 10. I'm not sure if "the fewer the units you have, the more accuare each unit is" is always true.

I also seem to notice that a higher endurance unit takes less damage from a hit. So not only does it have more hit points, an attack seems to take less hit points from it. I seem to notice that a lot with those stupid german tanks. I think ratio between fire power / endurance helps determine how much damage a unit takes. But this only seems to apply to units that naturally have 10 sub units when at full strength. Units that have 1 or 2 subunits at full strength (ships, some planes) play by different rules.
_________________
Red army much agressor!!!! They make big war on you. You blue army commander. You stop red army. You make all bases belong to you! Go Blue Army, Go for great justice!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SemperFi2382



Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 775
Location: Chicago Suburbs, IL USA

PostPosted: Jul Sat 16, 2005 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tyrannical wrote:
Some of the interals of this game are tricky.

It does seem that 10 units hit less often then 10 times what one unit hits. (you may have to read that sentece a few times to make sense of it). Meaning the last unit you have is more accurate as an individual then when you had a full 10. I'm not sure if "the fewer the units you have, the more accuare each unit is" is always true.

I also seem to notice that a higher endurance unit takes less damage from a hit. So not only does it have more hit points, an attack seems to take less hit points from it. I seem to notice that a lot with those stupid german tanks. I think ratio between fire power / endurance helps determine how much damage a unit takes. But this only seems to apply to units that naturally have 10 sub units when at full strength. Units that have 1 or 2 subunits at full strength (ships, some planes) play by different rules.


Interesting theory, if not a little bizarre and not having any sort of reasoning behind it (coding wise it would be a bit absurd).
_________________

"The Object is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his." - General Patton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
tyrannical



Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 51

PostPosted: Jul Sat 16, 2005 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Use fire power 3 weapons against endurance 4 leopards. Compare the HP lost to the units.

Try the same thing against endurance 3 tanks.

I swear it seems the leopards take less HP damage
_________________
Red army much agressor!!!! They make big war on you. You blue army commander. You stop red army. You make all bases belong to you! Go Blue Army, Go for great justice!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SemperFi2382



Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 775
Location: Chicago Suburbs, IL USA

PostPosted: Jul Sat 16, 2005 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tyrannical wrote:
Use fire power 3 weapons against endurance 4 leopards. Compare the HP lost to the units.

Try the same thing against endurance 3 tanks.

I swear it seems the leopards take less HP damage


Lol, the leopards are just plain hard to kill. S Ranked bombers don't always hit as hard as you'd think. Shocked
_________________

"The Object is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his." - General Patton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Arpeegy
Guest





PostPosted: Jul Fri 22, 2005 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The scale of this game is not important and is highly unrealistic if you think of it being played in scale. Think board game...not real life battle. A howitzer could never shoot across the ocean from Korea to Alaska...but in this game, on certain maps, it can.

This game is really nothing more than a highly sophisticated game of chess played on a game board that can be altered. The goal is always the same: capture the enemy capitol. i.e. check-mate. This is why I love the game-piece style graphics. What the programmers have done is basically made a computer game, instead of a board game, which eliminates what could have been hours of tedious paperwork to complete a turn. Ever wonder why you were limited to 50 pieces? My guess is the programmers wanted to maintain a board game feel and have the game be more about strategy then resource collection. If I can maintain my pieces I can outlast you even if you grab more cities.

In a real battle the goal could be destroy all the enemy forces, capture all cities, etc. These things do not matter, except for additional resources, in this game (multiplayer). You could own every city on the map and I could still win with a well planned air-assault on your capitol city. If I get your capitol you are through. This too is not realistic since most nations have the capability to continue fighting even if their capitol falls.

So what is the point? The game is meant to test your intellectual abilities when it comes to strategy. If you make a rock, I will make some paper. Hopefully, you now have the common sense to make scissors...if not, you are toast. I can think of several games where my ability to out-think my opponent gave me a win and them a loss. Even though the game looked like it was going in their favor (all part of the plan).

If this game is making you think to win then it is a success. Scale and other realisms are not important to a board game where the objective is a "check-mate."
Back to top
SemperFi2382



Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 775
Location: Chicago Suburbs, IL USA

PostPosted: Jul Fri 22, 2005 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is very true. This isn't as much of a War Simulation like WinSPMBT and the older Avalon Hill games. Though it would be nice to think there was some sort of scale to it however.
_________________

"The Object is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor bastard die for his." - General Patton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Arpeegy
Guest





PostPosted: Jul Sat 23, 2005 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yea, it would be nice if they made a Dai to scale and added a little more realism to make it a true war simulator. But even as is this game is tops. If you use the right maps you can still make pretty realistic battle situations. The game pieces are fairly accurate to their real world counterparts as well.

If you play the one world map in the game the scale really becomes silly. Your artillery can shoot across oceans. Soldiers can walk across the ocean from Australia to China. And many more weird things. This doesn't bother me because I see the game as more of a souped up Axis and Allies game then an actual war simulator.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Kemco Games Forum Index -> Dai Senryaku VII Modern Military Tactics All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group