View Full Version : Jena - "Intended for head to head play"
Just looking for clarification on what this means...is it that the scenario is only suitable for PBEM or hotseat play against another person?
Paul
Yes, the scenario is specifically designed to be played against another person, and not the AI.
Yes, the scenario is specifically designed to be played against another person, and not the AI.
That's what I was afraid of. I happened to be browsing scenario descriptions in HPS Jena and out of 43 scenarios, only 3 or 4 were not described as intended for head-to-head play. That really isn't good enough for a game that's supposed to have solo play capability. Couldn't anyone be bothered to program the AI? Or is it really so bad as to be beyond all hope?
Paul
I'll have to let the scenario designer answer that one, as that's a game-specific design. I imagine Bill will be floating through here before too long.
About 8-10 scenarios were added in the last update that were for Solo vs. AI gaming. Do you have the latest update?
Face it - the solo gaming aspect for this engine is nowhere near as exciting as playing a real person. As the games get produced we have seen more and more people abandon the solo gaming world.
Now while I understand that there are still many of our customers that like to play solo I highly recommend that you switch over to playing other human players. Its really more fun and the discussions lead to some long lasting relationships.
Some folks still insist on going Solo with this series and I understand that so about 20 percent of my scenarios that you will see in the main Scenario Dialog window (when you crank up the game) will be Solo style. NONE of the campaign scenarios will cater to this mode. The reason is because it would take me a HUGE amount of time to put AI scripts into each and every iteration of the campaign battles. As there are going to be at least 2 different scenarios for each branch matchup you get (A1 vs. F2 for instance will generate at least 2 different situations) I cant please everyone.
Rich does the same thing as do most of the HPS designers. Some of the engines dont have anywhere near the amount of scenarios (Panzer series for instance) thus they can easier cater to the AI crowd.
I fully understand your frustration. My solution is to keep adding in a few AI scenarios to future updates as I get time but I also keep on suggesting that folks play other human opponents. I cant believe that playing the AI will keep anyone's interest in the series for long. I know that only in some cases do I enjoy playing the AI. There are a few scenarios where you are completely overwhelmed on defense and every so often its fun to see if you can win as the defender.
So yes, we do our best to help you solo players out. And from what Rich has said you constitute the vast majority of our customers.
However, the scale will eventually swing over to HTH players. AI playing like I said for this series loses its appeal. John has no plans to FULLY enhance the AI for this series as far as I know and thus the really best way to get the MOST out of your product is to play another human.
Look in the last update for Jena. You will note that several of the new .scn files have the term _solo in the filename. These are the ones I was speaking of.
About 8-10 scenarios were added in the last update that were for Solo vs. AI gaming. Do you have the latest update?
No I don't, and thanks for pointing that out. I'll download it at once.
Face it - the solo gaming aspect for this engine is nowhere near as exciting as playing a real person.
...in your opinion. You may even be right, but I find solo play much more convenient. I like to play a scenario in as few sessions as possible. A single evening, even, for the smaller ones. This is impossible with PBEM play - instead of one or a few sessions the whole thing can drag on for weeks.
As the games get produced we have seen more and more people abandon the solo gaming world.
Of course they are, if there's effectively no AI. You haven't exactly given them much choice, have you? In fact, it's the solo game that's abandoning them...
Now while I understand that there are still many of our customers that like to play solo I highly recommend that you switch over to playing other human players. Its really more fun and the discussions lead to some long lasting relationships.
I have enough relationships in my life already, thanks. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not dismissing PBEM altogether, but it should be another way to play the game - not the only one. I note, by the way, that on the HPS website it is not mentioned that these games, and the campaigns in particular, as you have pointed out, cannot be played solo. If this game really is for "head-to-head" (which is really "e-mail address to e-mail address"), then the buyer should be clearly informed of this before he hands over his money.
Some folks still insist on going Solo with this series
How intransigent of them, expecting a comuter game to actually be able to provide a computer opponent...
and I understand that so about 20 percent of my scenarios that you will see in the main Scenario Dialog window (when you crank up the game) will be Solo style.
Well that's good news, except that the ones I checked came nowhere near even 20%. If the patch has brought them up to this number then that's something, but it's a pity that the customer has to wait for the ?th patch for this to happen.
NONE of the campaign scenarios will cater to this mode. The reason is because it would take me a HUGE amount of time to put AI scripts into each and every iteration of the campaign battles. As there are going to be at least 2 different scenarios for each branch matchup you get (A1 vs. F2 for instance will generate at least 2 different situations) I cant please everyone.
You could please both by perhaps reducing the scope of the campaigns or by getting more people involved in scenario design to take care of the AI. Either approach is better than selling a crippled game.
Rich does the same thing as do most of the HPS designers. Some of the engines dont have anywhere near the amount of scenarios (Panzer series for instance) thus they can easier cater to the AI crowd.
Great, so why not do that instead?
I fully understand your frustration. My solution is to keep adding in a few AI scenarios to future updates as I get time but I also keep on suggesting that folks play other human opponents. I cant believe that playing the AI will keep anyone's interest in the series for long.
Well it's certainly unlikely to at this rate. It's a pity that the customer doesn't have a genuine choice though.
I know that only in some cases do I enjoy playing the AI. There are a few scenarios where you are completely overwhelmed on defense and every so often its fun to see if you can win as the defender.
This may be true by it's also irrelevant to my point, and is certainly no reason to advocate a one-size-fits-all policy with regard to how your customers play the game.
So yes, we do our best to help you solo players out.
Good - here are some ways you can do it:
Provide more more (ideally all) AI-capable scenarios.
Make it clear to prospective purchasers that this game has efectively no AI.
Provide a stripped-down, less expensive, version of the game i.e. without the campaign, featuring just the AI-capable scenarios.
Get more people involved in AI scripting and give them a decent tool to do it with. Hell, I'd be prepared to help out with that - although a slightly more sophisticated tool would be nice.
And from what Rich has said you constitute the vast majority of our customers.
Aaaaaaarrgh!!!!! I've had to read that last line a number of times to make sure you really said it. So you have a policy of not catering for the wishes of the vast majority of your customers? Unbelievable. Where does this approach come from, the Basil Fawlty School of Customer Service?
However, the scale will eventually swing over to HTH players.
Of course it will, because those are the only players you're catering for. You don't exactly need to be Nostradamus to see that coming.
AI playing like I said for this series loses its appeal. John has no plans to FULLY enhance the AI for this series as far as I know and thus the really best way to get the MOST out of your product is to play another human.
So you keep saying. Answer me this, then, why does John have no plans to "FULLY enhance the AI" when as you have already said, the vast majority of his customers would like to see this? While you're at it, please ask him if it's possible to somehow script conditional orders.
Look in the last update for Jena. You will note that several of the new .scn files have the term _solo in the filename. These are the ones I was speaking of.
I will, thank you.
Paul
Paul et all,
I feel the need to say that the above comments are strictly those of Bill's...he is a sub-contractor of John Tiller and not an HPS employee and his comments should not be considered as an official response from HPS or John Tiller in any way shape or form, but rather his personal opinions.
Regards,
Rich
Andrew Bamford
23 Jun 08, 05:07
Just to offer some support here, I agree entirely with the comments made by Paul - I, for one, will not be buying any further Napoleonic games, however tempting the titles, unless I know I can enjoy them as a solo player: and to be sure of that, I would want proof from a non-HPS source as, frankly, the company's advertising verges on the dishonest, or, at least, deceptive. From the blurb for Waterloo, I quote: "Each game can be played versus the computer, or against a human opponent using Play-By-E-Mail and Network Play (over a Local Area Network or the Internet)."
Now, yes, each game can be played against the computer, inasmuch as you can load it up and move units around so that is not, strictky speaking, a lie. Does the result involve any enjoyment, or bear much resemblence to the battles being portrayed? No. Frankly, the old Talonsoft BGW and PTW games were better. In the HPS game, even the "historical" scenarios have no AI.
Perhaps time that the tagline became "The PBEM Wargamer's True Ally"?
Paul et all,
I feel the need to say that the above comments are strictly those of Bill's...he is a sub-contractor of John Tiller and not an HPS employee and his comments should not be considered as an official response from HPS or John Tiller in any way shape or form, but rather his personal opinions.
Regards,
Rich
Hello Rich,
I understand fully, and, by the way, my general grumpiness regarding the subject should not be taken as any kind of attack on Bill himself.
Nevertheless, Bill does seem to be in the know about John Tiller's intentions towards the Napoleonic battles series, so it is hardly surprising that Bill would be seen as a de facto spokesman for the series in the absense of a response from anyone else. Also, while the opinions Bill expresses may well be just his own, they seem fully in tune with where the HPS/John Tiller is taking the game, as evidenced by what comes with the CD, or to be more precise, what doesn't.
Paul
trauth116
24 Jun 08, 03:17
holidt:
Since the following post is on a public forum, I think this thread pretty much sheds some light on things -in terms of how things work at HPS.
http://www.hist-sdc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1624
Paul et all,
I feel the need to say that the above comments are strictly those of Bill's...he is a sub-contractor of John Tiller and not an HPS employee and his comments should not be considered as an official response from HPS or John Tiller in any way shape or form, but rather his personal opinions.
Regards,
Rich
Rich is correct. I am not an official mouthpiece of HPS nor do I pretend to be. Thus its up to Rich to answer the questions you raise which was: will the AI be impoved?
For your information: I wont go into details but what you have said has sparked me to change my design plan for the next two titles and I plan on catering MUCH more to solo play. HTH scenarios will be in the box but the vast majority of what is in the game will be for AI play. HTH versions of all of the scenarios will be offered on my website sometime after the game is out.
Dean Beecham
19 Jul 08, 05:53
Paul,
I must say one thing.. I dont know many game companys that give there customers a voice on what they want in games ,
Were HPS is always changing things to keep there customers happy. .. many changes over the years . Unlike you i am not an AI player .. i did when i first got one of these games.. but once i found out about the clubs i can join to get a game played by email. thers been now turning back..
But as we are all different and have our own likes , it must be hard to keep every one happy when making a game.. I think HPS do a great job and have agreat backup support team ,
I am of now to get a great Victory against a guy in the US at Jena..
HPS napoleonic are supperb when you play against another human not the AI but there are two things i dont like in the serie:
1-No mod support, there isnt a miserable oob editor like PzC and sorry but i dont see HPS doing a mod for Egipt campaign for example, is not a interesting game (few battles and the only good thing could be a campaign).
2-3D works are a little poor, for example infantry btl or cavalry regiments seems like units in Early america (i use MAW for comparision) thanks to Lee work there are a solution for 3 games and now in 3D vision you can see btl not companies.
PD: engine is great but some things can change as add assault column and leave column as a movement formation with heavy penalties in melee.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.