12-06-2010, 10:12 AM
12-06-2010, 12:12 PM
I'm thinking that's the best way to go IMO:smoke:.
12-06-2010, 02:13 PM
(12-06-2010, 12:12 PM)Gila Wrote: [ -> ]I'm thinking that's the best way to go IMO:smoke:.
Hi Ron. What is IMO? :conf:
12-06-2010, 05:38 PM
I am not Ron, but... IMO stands for "In My Opinion" :)
12-06-2010, 10:14 PM
(12-06-2010, 05:38 PM)gabeeg Wrote: [ -> ]I am not Ron, but... IMO stands for "In My Opinion" :)
Thanks gabeeg.
It may be interesting to make a tournament with random battles. Purchase by the IA, air points xxx, xxx point of purchase.
To make such battles I think you should configure a third party. The person who set up the battle alone should set the password for player 1 and sends the files. Player 1 then sends the files to the player 2 and continue the game alone.
This is a transparent way.
Who wants to play a battle with this form? Need a contender and a person who sets up the game.
12-07-2010, 06:52 AM
Greybeard used to do this. He did it pretty well but that was back before the two machine cheat fix. I wonder if the Tournament option would do for this sort of game. I played one against Iwo Jim and liked it a lot. Having to dance with the one what brung you is interesting. You have to have the CD to use the tournament option. I don't know if that applies to the players or just the 3rd party that does the set-up.
12-07-2010, 06:56 AM
Can't you just set security to basic anymore?
12-07-2010, 07:47 AM
(12-07-2010, 06:56 AM)keepitloki Wrote: [ -> ]Can't you just set security to basic anymore?
Yep, you can do that. Greybeard and I are playing JadPanther and Von Bismark, so two of us share the same password on two separate computers (4 comuters playing same game in all).
Just set security to BASIC and you can play (or open) game in any number of computers. I travel a good bit and often need to play on two computers to keep up my turn rate. If an opponent wants me to play in FULL security, I can do it...just can't promise a good turn rate.
So a third party could set up and monitor a game, he'd just need both sides password.
12-07-2010, 12:39 PM
I say to all random battles. Even the purchase of units in charge of the IA. This requires a third person who set the battle but then not play. This is to prevent cheating. If the configuration makes the player 1 is possible to give a fit of dishonesty and purchase of units set for human, and played 2 can set the purchase by the IA.
Means?
Means?
12-09-2010, 05:51 AM
Roman,
I hope you didn't get the impression I was discrediting your idea of AI purchase/deploy in the other thread.
I think this is a very good idea, particularly for newer players. Probably the toughest thing about this game is learning about the units and how to effectively use them to your style of play (and your opponents).
By having the AI choose the units, it would help newer players to learn the various types of units and their capabilities. As they would have to play with units provided by the AI, and not just blindly selecting units that look like a good idea - but turn out to be less than effective.
In addition it would level the field a bit if they play a more experienced player, as he would be unable to use his experience to purchase the units he knows work best for him. Everybody would have to make do with what they were given.
I'm not completely sure, but I also believe the AI would be set-up to purchase units in more historical parameters than what you generally see with player purchase. That may not exactly "balance" the game, but gives it a more realistic flavor.
Along those lines, the "third party" set-up can also be good in that the set up guy could be more apt to purchase forces that are more historically accurate for the specific nation without bias (as he wouldn't have a dog in the fight).
The third option would be senarios. It seems that guys put a lot of time, research, and expertise into designing many of these - that often makes them unbalanced, but so is real life.
The only problem I would have would be the AI/computer deployment of my forces...particularly for a meeting engagement. I often groan at how my forces are deployed in senarios, but that is often based on historical data. In a typical "meeting engagement" or as the attacker in a "advance/defend" game, I would like to able to deploy my guys myself as I have found the AI is often very quirky about how it does it. But if the design is to truly have a "play the cards you're dealt", then maybe the AI should deploy as well.
Overall, it's not a bad way to go at all...IMO :)
I hope you didn't get the impression I was discrediting your idea of AI purchase/deploy in the other thread.
I think this is a very good idea, particularly for newer players. Probably the toughest thing about this game is learning about the units and how to effectively use them to your style of play (and your opponents).
By having the AI choose the units, it would help newer players to learn the various types of units and their capabilities. As they would have to play with units provided by the AI, and not just blindly selecting units that look like a good idea - but turn out to be less than effective.
In addition it would level the field a bit if they play a more experienced player, as he would be unable to use his experience to purchase the units he knows work best for him. Everybody would have to make do with what they were given.
I'm not completely sure, but I also believe the AI would be set-up to purchase units in more historical parameters than what you generally see with player purchase. That may not exactly "balance" the game, but gives it a more realistic flavor.
Along those lines, the "third party" set-up can also be good in that the set up guy could be more apt to purchase forces that are more historically accurate for the specific nation without bias (as he wouldn't have a dog in the fight).
The third option would be senarios. It seems that guys put a lot of time, research, and expertise into designing many of these - that often makes them unbalanced, but so is real life.
The only problem I would have would be the AI/computer deployment of my forces...particularly for a meeting engagement. I often groan at how my forces are deployed in senarios, but that is often based on historical data. In a typical "meeting engagement" or as the attacker in a "advance/defend" game, I would like to able to deploy my guys myself as I have found the AI is often very quirky about how it does it. But if the design is to truly have a "play the cards you're dealt", then maybe the AI should deploy as well.
Overall, it's not a bad way to go at all...IMO :)