No Navy for AA Games

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
37 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

No Navy for AA Games

Penguins
This post was updated on .
I have tried to make a map balanced and have come to the conclusion that if all Navy is removed from the game(s) then the Allies can have less IPC's and the game would be more balanced. The Allies get more IPC's because they have to build up a Navy to transport troops and armour/artillery across the seas.

I suggest making AA Maps without Navy, reducing the Allies IPC's and make the maps just like Risk and this other WW II Map seen attatched.

This would also limit the places of troop transport and make it more historical. For instance, before invading Italy troops would have to go through Sicily first.

"In everything, and especially in warfare, great is the power of fortune."      Julius Caesar

Gallic War Book VI

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: No Navy for AA Games

Penguins
Here is the Risk version. These are only suggestions of where sea travel could be done just give give an example.






"In everything, and especially in warfare, great is the power of fortune."      Julius Caesar

Gallic War Book VI

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: No Navy for AA Games

Veqryn
Administrator
In reply to this post by Penguins
that risk map sure looks fun

where did you get the risk map for europe only?  can you upload it here plz?
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: No Navy for AA Games

Penguins
Here it is Veq. Looks interseting to say the least.

"In everything, and especially in warfare, great is the power of fortune."      Julius Caesar

Gallic War Book VI

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: No Navy for AA Games

Penguins
"In everything, and especially in warfare, great is the power of fortune."      Julius Caesar

Gallic War Book VI

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: No Navy for AA Games

Penguins
Here's an example of 1940 Europe with a few changes to it. I can't be the only person here who thinks having a Navy free game would be different, Historical, and add balance not to mention always being able to travel across continents without having to worry about buying ships to do so. Use the IPC's to build air and land units, makes for a better game in my opinion.



 



"In everything, and especially in warfare, great is the power of fortune."      Julius Caesar

Gallic War Book VI

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: No Navy for AA Games

captaincrunch
In my opinion, I would either add a "4th" easiest option called "No Navy AI" listed before the "EZ Fodder AI" or I would have in the same Choose Difficulty list a checkmark box to choose "Use Navy AI" and the person can choose to use your idea or not. The more the options the better for gamers so your idea is interesting and I would run some games with it. Personally, I'm more for using a Navy AI since I love the look of transporters and battleships and aircraft carriers etc. I know this is very hard to integrate into a land based AI which the devs started with and are hopefuly trying to work their way into a Navy AI, but I feel it is possible. I have an idea for the Navy AI and I will post it into this thread since the Navy AI has been discussed in many threads and not just by me. I haven't read most of this forum's threads but I swear the people discussing the Navy AI were discussing the same issue I had with it (very weak) and so it must be an important issue obviously and please know it was not me making another profile to discuss the Navy AI even more but it was actual other people saying the exact same things about the Navy AI that I was. The response was always that no one is currently developing a Navy AI and I understand since its complex and perhaps daunting but I would like to throw out my 2 ideas:

1:  tweaking the current game AI setting (fortunately there are many values to change) and I have in the past suggested we need more submitted scores and threads about AI settings and "AI challenges" to test and see who has tweaked the games AI settings the best and improved the default AI the most. All it requires is a screenshot of your settings or a post giving what # values in each box you used for the AI in your game. This is the easiest option since then you do not need to make another Navy AI over the old one and the possibility is there that some player out there may find the best AI settings to improve all 3 of the levels of AI and make the AI a respectable and challenging opponent (of which on default settings and hardest AI I am literally perhaps 70 wins and 1 loss against). Some people require a more tweaked/intelligent AI in these complex games.

2: I feel, generally, players learn as they play these games and become better opponents through experience. If that notion is correct then an "AI Record" file needs to record the final "Captured Territories per Country" value of the winning side at the end of the game and then save it and have it scanned before every newly started game and have that file set the game AI "aggressiveness" towards capturing the same "Captured Territories per Country" that the "AI Record" recorded from past games. I'm not sure if that's possible but I think it is. *NOTE this is an "AI Record" per a single map! Each map would naturally and generally be played with different objectives since thats dependent on the map and how many territories there are etc.  Also *NOTE that the "AI Record" is only a file that reads the GAME WINNER statistics. That is the point really, that the winning countries captured territories are recorded and the loser countries are not and thus a "Learning AI" now exists. Basically, the more times a map is played and a winning country occurs, the more the "AI Record" can record and note what territories/objectives the winning country captured  and therefore, philosophically, the AI can be set to make the AI more aggressively pursue those same territories/objectives it read from the file called "Captured Territories per Country". It is my opinion that this way every map, after being played over and over, can develop its own historical "strategy" for the computer AI. It would make the AI truly dynamic and malleable. No two games should run the same and, interestingly, there is no "Final AI" file one could say is the best since no map or player can ever have the "best/winning" strategy over another since all strategies are relative. My point is that a "Learning AI" or "AI Record" could be used before every game to set the Game AI defaults and perhaps the computer becomes more challenging the more times you play it? Also, it bears mentioning that the very first run of any map must use some sort of default values for the "AI Record" file or maybe the computer won't do anything hehe.

Just my thoughts on that subject and, as always, I look forward to hearing about what's planned for this game next!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: No Navy for AA Games

Zim Xero
You're not a programmer are you, Captain Crunch?  sorry, valid points, just not well said imo.

reguarding "no-navy games": What is driving this idea? is it that the AI sucks at naval strategy?  Land only games are better when playing competitively against an unassisted AI?  It is true.  One day the AI will be better, however... so I hope you are not suggesting that all games should be converted to land only games.  I believe someone will dive into producing an improved AI once TripleA features and capabilities begin to stabalize.  New features are currently being added too fast to make the investment in a making a good AI.  I programmed in BASIC as a child "a lot" but am not very familiar with Java.  Using an old language like BASIC, I could write a better AI.. not one that could beat anyone... but one that most people would choose to make more stupid so that they could beat it.  The challenge isn't in the idea though, its in the doing... making an AI thats decent on most maps and superior to humans in some ways to compensate for its lack of ingenuity and understanding, and patterns of predictability.  
'thats the way it is' makes it neither desireable nor inevitable
Cap
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: No Navy for AA Games

Cap
Without the navy the games can be played out. How many times have you seen japan lose it's navy and the game is basically over because they cannot leave Japan to fight? or even italy or even the United Kingdom. I think this makes sense. In other words make a hybrid map that includes Axis & Allies and Risk. Take the concepts of Risk to move from land to land and use A&A for everything else.


Nothing about Ai needed then. period.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: No Navy for AA Games

hepster
It's a nice quasi-Rick/A&A Hybrid idea.

It'll be a fun quick game.

Should be interesting.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: No Navy for AA Games

Penguins
Not if both sides have the same of everything, including IPC's
and Units. Risk starts out with the same amount of pieces and
the game lasts long. It is virtually impossible to have a quick
game if both Axis & Allies start out with the same thing.
I have tried this and it does work. Test it yourself if you have
doubts. Or continue to play a game in which Italy doesn't get
to transposrt troops across to Africa or Japan gets in trouble and can't go anywhere. Or even worse, the UK can't leave the UK Island because all it's ships and trannys are lost.

That's a fun game, isn't it? More like, the game's over and

Good Game it.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: No Navy for AA Games

hepster
Depends entirely on the game you choose to play and the strategy you choose to adopt.  Some games are and can be very predictable and one dimensional.  No argument here.

However there is something enjoyable about having destroyed your enemies navy and restricted his ability to move freely.  There is also a real enjoyment to being able to choose your landing zones.

On the flip side of that coin, it can also be said that simply having enormous stacks of units on either side of a body of water could be quite boring since under this system no you only have 1 option to move (where ever your little red line leads you).  And if every team starts with the same units then it is just a matter of having a lucky round to ever have the game move at all.  

At the end of the day it all really depends on what you like to play. Neither is better or worse, it's just about personal preference.

Personally I think its an interesting concept.  No t necessarily a game I would play, but a neat idea none-the-less.

The other thing is I don't understand how you can give everyone the exact same thing if the map is set up 3 v 2.   Doesn't seem fair to the Axis powers.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: No Navy for AA Games

captaincrunch
I programmed when I was a kid but my post was really my first ever attempt at elaborating the "Learning AI" concept and I'm sure many got the gist of it. Basically, in a game where territories are captured, you could have a file (I called "AI Record") which records at the end of the game the winners side captured territories and those territories increase in popularity for the next potential matches dependent on how many times they are captured and how many times that map is played.

Its just a general basic tallying of the winners captured territories file that helps set the AI before every match - rankings of importance for the territories that the computer AI seeks to capture ... basically, the more a territory on the winning side is captured, the more important it is deemed by the computer AI and thus, philosophically, the computer is learning and becoming a better opponent through more experience and games played.

I'll bet many programmers reading this now could even theorize the programming for this basic simple file I'm suggesting to help improve the computer AI before every match.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: No Navy for AA Games

Rolf Larsson
Well that reminds me of the concept for older chess engines, and chess is simple compared to a map like classic. People tend to forget that our ais are very good (sounds silly cause they suck nearly all the time, but they can handle a lot already, given the amount of different factors and variables they have to calc).
A database system can help to improve the play for standard maps, which are played often and do not change, but learning means imo that the ai records its own moves and evaluates their results, while modifiying them etc. on each map. Such an approach would require a lot of input, with a system to handle and a function to upload those records, while sorted and integrated with the current database...way too much work currently, while there is no one working on ai improvement as far as I know.

No seazones may achieve good resutls with ai, maybe interesting for a beginner- or ai map. All in all it takes away about 1/3 to 1/2 of what nearly all current maps are about, a step backwards I think, as a solution for ai problems for all maps.
We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: No Navy for AA Games

Penguins
In reply to this post by hepster
If the Axis started out with the same amount of units and IPC's then the game would be fair because in order to win the game you would have to deafeat the enemy. That said, the game would have to be balanced in every sense of the word. For example:

USA IPC's 35 starts with 20 units (All the same)
UK IPC's 28 starts with 20 units (All the same)
Russia IPC's 26  starts with 20 units (All the same)


They all add up to 89 IPC's and 60 units Total

Germany would have to be a powerhouse and eat up most of the Axis IPC's. As it was dururing the war. It took all 3 nations to defeat Germany.

So Italy would get 15 IPC's Italy would get 20 units (All the same as the UK)

Germany would get 74 IPC's Germany would get 40 Units (All the sameas the USA and Russia)


They all add up to 89 IPC's and 60 units Total



No matter how you slice and dice this up, you will still have to deafet an opponent that has the same thing as you do.

Each side has 60 Units to start with and 89 IPC's

The units can transport across the seas only in the areas permitted. So no Russians moving across the seas to Africa., or Italy cannot transport across the seas to attack Canada or the USA, they must go through Africa first before going to those places. So when it's all said and done there are only lands which are most vunerable to one another for being attacked. Germany would have 3 fronts like it was. Italy would have to worry about defending Sicily before they are invaded by the Allies. So in other words they would have to defend there and try to land in Africa.

The game would work because in order to conquor a Capital the other side would have to mass up units and just go all out to attack it. Would take longer but in time dice would have something to say about the outcome as well as decision making. But with dice, it usually all evens out in the long run.

Just take a Risk Map and play with A&A units and see what I mean. Or take an AA Map and use sea zones that connect and see for yourself. Taking Russia or Germany isn't as easy as it seems. And their are no restritions to movement because the only thing that will stop you from moving across the seas is having a mass pile up of units blocking the movement.
It does make for an interesting game since all land can be reached in any point of game play unless it is stopped by your opponent.
No more being stuck on an island with nowhere to move or spening IPC's on sea units that get destroyed and takes away from game play and land usage.
"In everything, and especially in warfare, great is the power of fortune."      Julius Caesar

Gallic War Book VI

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: No Navy for AA Games

Penguins
I forgot to add that the rules would have to contain something like this:

Axis cannot cross the Atlantic to attack the USA or cross the English Channel until Russia was conquored first. This would make the game more historical in nature. So in other words, the Allies would be able to land in France, Africa, Dunkirk, and Norway and Axis would be allowed to land in Norway, Africa only at first. Same goes for the Axis going to India by sea. They would have to control S. Africa first or India to travel to S. Africa or vice versa.

Also, the time it would take to cross each sea zone would be about the same as if there were ships in the game. Two sea zones per turn to cross over. The units would be in limbo in the sea on ships drawn on the map but could or could not be attacked. It's up to the rule setter.

This would elimiante the AI being poor in the sea and construction of ships and make the game better in my opinion.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: No Navy for AA Games

Dave
In reply to this post by Penguins
Nice map, but what are the name of the territories and how many IPCs is each one worth?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: No Navy for AA Games

Penguins
Hey Dave,

Thanks for asking about this map. It is basically the 1940 Europe Map 2nd Edition, just tweaked it up a bit.

The concepts I present here are valid in response to the A&A Games being unbalanced.  The ideas are good but don't make sense in the long run.

Reason(s)

Allies usually ask for a Bid and they start out with more IPC's, Units, TUV than Axis and they still want more. Why? You see this more so in 1941 & 1942.

The reason why these games are unbalanced is because the 2 sides DO NOT start out with the same thing like in other games. Instead the sides are determined by a method in which the sides are determined by scenarios which can change once the original scenario is found out to be terrible, hence the 1st, 2nd, and Alpha Editions made for 1940 Global and 1940 Europe. If things were equal from the start there wouldn't have to be all these extra editions added because of imbalance or better yet lopsided, non-historical nonsense.

I suggest making a game in which there is an OBJECTIVE, CONSISTENT means of determining the victor that would remain superior to one made by the ego-driven subjectivity of any individual, such as with scenarios. Please read the above about making connecting sea zones. This would make game play better as well as make it historical. Would allow for troop transport any time during the game unless your opponent stops or prevents it from happening. IE, a pile up of units in the landing zone(s). Also, would make both sides fair without having to give much of a bid because both sides would have the same thing starting out. So a bid would be given based on experience. Not because the game is lopsided.

Also, the AI in game play doesn't do well with sea battles, or strategy and that's fine. I am not blaming the AI or it's creators. I am just suggesting making a game in which all can play, for a long time and still have it played out kind of like Risk but with the units in A&A without the sea units. I hope this makes sense, I am sick of playing these games because they are a waste of time getting used to one strategy and months later the game is tweaked and given another set of rules, or set-up because the first one and 2nd one or possibly the third one isn't balanced. Just start out balanced and see you won't have to add any kind of revisions to the game.

Thanks.............
"In everything, and especially in warfare, great is the power of fortune."      Julius Caesar

Gallic War Book VI

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: No Navy for AA Games

Penguins
A friend of mine suggested this to Larry Harris and he didn't seem too interested in making his game balanced and fair. I think my friend suggested that he give both sides the same thing like in every other game on the planet and then make connecting sea zones where any units can travel across the seas to other lands. What a concept huh, make the Axis & Allies games fair for both sides, not just the Allies or should I say the USA who gets more IPC's to "save the day" all the time. It's a complete joke! I guess we'll have to wait for 3rd, 4th or 5th Editions to see what he decides to do next. Maybe he will keep changing the "SUBMARINE RULES" like he has throughout the yrs. again because he can't get that right among other things.

Or maybe he will bring back the failed Marine Units which have special abilites when traveling on ships. Another joke.

For now on I will not play another Axis & Allies based game against another human being unless the game is equal with both sides having the same amount of units, IPC's and have connecting sea zones. if there is anyone intelligent enough to understand these concepts and doesn't want to waste their time or mine playing scenerios which are made up from ego seeking individuals please let me know. If anyone wants to make a game that is balanced and among other things worth my time please let me know as well. I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to play a game in which the Axis always seem to get beat because they just don't have enough resources and can't travel across the seas like the Allies do. Lets bring a gun to a gun fight, not anything less. Fair is fair.

Equal =
Same IPC's, Same Units, Same Ability to Travel at the start of the game anf throughout if permitted.



Thanks!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: No Navy for AA Games

hepster
Well you have your perspective, and you are entitled to it.

While I understand your frustration with your perceptions that the games are unbalanced (and in some cases I agree with you),  but what you are suggesting misses so many other variables to game design that its baffling to me when your statements are said with such conviction.  I'd elaborate, but since I have read several versions of your diatribe or mantra all over this forum I know that it would be wasted "Breath".

All the best to you finding some one to work on a map with you with such open-mindedness.

“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
12