PDA

View Full Version : AI - Criticism?



Christine
21-01-2007, 17:08
So I played my first game - the introduction dogfighting one and my g/f and I weren't entirely convinced to say the least!

Our biggest qualm was that it was so blooming hard to actually get into a position where you could shoot! We found that the maneuver cards had vastly more effect on the game than the firing arcs of the aircraft could cope with - with players of comparable skill it appears that the only cards which lead to shooting are the half loop cards at which point who ever gets the initiative is probably going to shoot down the opposing aircraft so it leads to the game feeling like there's little skill involved.

I'd be very interested to hear what other people found.

Currently we are pretty dissapointed.

mageboltrat
21-01-2007, 17:38
actually no probs at all getting enemy in sights. One question you do know that you can use the cards anywhere in the move, I've noticed a few people have got this wrong and it leads to this kind of problem.

CENOBITE
21-01-2007, 17:45
Just played the first game and I actually it will become a favourite of mine.
We had no difficulty getting our guns to bear and also quite a few tailing situations.
Overall a fast moving and fun game that needs quite a bit of strategic thinking, whicg for me equals a high re-play value.

orangesm
21-01-2007, 18:13
The issue of being able to get lined up for to shoot down a target being hard - well it is hard in real life. It should not be an easy thing and I can see two very skillful players having a game with almost little firing and only when one of those players makes a small mistake does any shooting happen.

Christine
21-01-2007, 18:59
We played a second one, same scenario and tbh same problems even after checking the rules. I think unfortunately it's the last time my g/f's gonna play the game :(

Spacker
21-01-2007, 19:18
How many aircraft did you have each? What you want to do is use some aircraft to lead the enemy into the sights of your other aircraft. When I played I had no trouble getting lined up for shots - it was rolling 5+ I had trouble with :|

CENOBITE
21-01-2007, 19:21
When I played I had no trouble getting lined up for shots - it was rolling 5+ I had trouble with :|

Absolutely :)

lkchild
21-01-2007, 19:31
Hey folks,

Lauren here, - Christine's g/f.

Gotta say not really impressed with this game for an advanced gamer. The game really revolves around trying to line up on the other player. This is fine from far away where you can try an anticipate the other players moves, but by the time you get close enough to shoot, the speed and maneuvre cards are violent enough compared to your tight firing arc and limited ranges, that the other player normally ends up out of your sights.

This avoidance needs no skill at all, as the cards are chosen in advance, so it really comes down to chance whether the players have played cards that line up.

From far away you have a chance at planning this, so the first 2 turns of the game have some interest. Close up the game turns random as descibed above, unless one player makes a mistake, or heads away. If both players are fairly experienced at wargaming, then the game is simple enough that mistakes aren't likely to happen. Taking the other tactic, the first person to head away to take another sweep in, opens their tail up which gives the advantage immediately to the other side.

At the point where combat actually occurs, the guns are so powerful that whoever rolls first wins.

There are then only three secenarios for winning.
1) your plan for the first two turns (or the two turns since a mistake) works out, and you shoot the other player down.
2) both players happen to pick cards that converge instead of diverge. Given the number of cards this is unlikely.
3) both players end up on a line with each other, play one of the two "flip" cards, and whoever scored best on the initiative dice wins.

All in all not very satisfying.

Hope that helps those who are interested in buying this.

CENOBITE
21-01-2007, 19:37
Hey folks,
This avoidance needs no skill at all, as the cards are chosen in advance, so it really comes down to chance whether the players have played cards that line up..

I would argue that that's exactly where "skill" comes into play as it involves planning ahead, anticipating your opponent's move and devising a plan that puts you into a good position to fire.

lkchild
21-01-2007, 19:49
I would argue that that's exactly where "skill" comes into play as it involves planning ahead, anticipating your opponent's move and devising a plan that puts you into a good position to fire.

Thats how it should be, but as I said, close up the moves are so massive compared to the firing area ahead of your aircraft that theres no way to plan or tactise, as almost every maneuvre will cause the aircraft to diverge. If the maneuvre's and aircraft speed were significantly smaller, or the firing range were greater, this would be OK, but as is, up close it's almost random.

If you attempt to tactise, you have to get a sufficient distance away, which gives the opponent the advantage.

With a greater range, the aircraft wouldnt need to get as tight, and so it would be possible to use the physics of your aircraft and the opponents to your advantage, but in play this game suffers the same problems the early jet-fighters had - they moved so fast that they simply could get a target in the crosshairs.

There are other games that provide a better dogfighting experience. I saw one game using 1:72nd aircraft suspended on canes and wires that took over an entire casemate of a local fortress (where the club met). That was cool and had some physics to it. This unfortunately doesn't, unless people make mistakes and seperate.

orangesm
21-01-2007, 20:23
It sounds to me that the games mechanics are not the problem, but the style of air combat it portrays. You have said yourself that it suffers the same problems as early jet fighters. The Korean War, the era before missiles.

The complaints you have seem to stem from how high-speed missile lacking dogfights play out.

If you include more missiles that are accurate and very capable you would find it even less interesting. Eldar & Tau would become very powerful, having very powerful advanced air to air targeting and missiles and the game would be over in a turn.

Also if you play with a single aircraft and play as a single pilot you are not going to have as many shoot downs. Part of this game would be setting your opponent up and timing.

You are right that you may not be able to line up on your target, but if your target has a wing man who is trailing to the right or left may have an easy time sliding onto your tail. (I am talking in general you)

Christine
21-01-2007, 20:49
How many aircraft did you have each? What you want to do is use some aircraft to lead the enemy into the sights of your other aircraft. When I played I had no trouble getting lined up for shots - it was rolling 5+ I had trouble with :|

We where playing the introductory dogfight scenario - the problem with doing that in this one is that soon as the leading aircraft gets shot down that's it you disengage. I'm guessing from what you've said that you need a few aircraft a side to make for a fun game.

lkchild
21-01-2007, 21:09
It sounds to me that the games mechanics are not the problem, but the style of air combat it portrays. You have said yourself that it suffers the same problems as early jet fighters. The Korean War, the era before missiles.

The complaints you have seem to stem from how high-speed missile lacking dogfights play out.

You may be onto something there, but then maybe basing a wargame on aircraft that were famed for being useless and not hitting anything makes for a dull game. I imagine most people will be looking at the game with a view toward air to air combat, although I may be wrong as I've completely lost track of the 40k universe since I gave up.



If you include more missiles that are accurate and very capable you would find it even less interesting. Eldar & Tau would become very powerful, having very powerful advanced air to air targeting and missiles and the game would be over in a turn.

Also if you play with a single aircraft and play as a single pilot you are not going to have as many shoot downs. Part of this game would be setting your opponent up and timing.

You are right that you may not be able to line up on your target, but if your target has a wing man who is trailing to the right or left may have an easy time sliding onto your tail. (I am talking in general you)

There again you may be onto something - in both of our games we've played a basic break at first sight of the enemy, with both aircraft taking seperate tracks across either side of the battlefield, converging again at the point of combat. In a normal game this would be a good tactic, as the opponent can only get a bead on one plane at a time. This would allow a support role between planes as one plane can come behind any attacker on the tail of the other.

If we try again, I may have to take a formation approach with wingman in close and see how that works.

Tyra_Nid
22-01-2007, 00:47
So this introductory scenario only includes 2 planes per side?
I havent played AI, but I imagine that something of that size wouldnt include much tactics, rather just to learn the rules and game mechanics.

Its like complaining that an introductory game of 40k with a squad of SM versus a couple of broods of Nids lacks tactics- its really going to be a game of dicerolling (luck!), and learning the rules.

From what Ive determined about AI, you would want something closer to 4+ planes a side for more tactical maneuvering.

Gen.Steiner
22-01-2007, 00:50
It sounds to me as though it's best to use WWII style tactics - squadrons in flights, each flight split into two pairs of planes.

Be flexible and support each other, try and divide the enemy and pick on his seperated planes.

'course, I've neither played nor have the books, so I'm likely to be talking rubbish :D

grave digger
22-01-2007, 02:42
I call rubbish;)

From what I've been reading you really need to have more than two planes per side. That's why I'm looking at the mission where you escort the bomber home as an introductory mission. Perhaps I can get my wife to give it a go before I take it to a friends house.

Diggs

Gen.Steiner
22-01-2007, 02:52
Clearly I need to buy the book. :D

greenmtvince
22-01-2007, 04:17
I think one thing that's been neglected is the pilot skill 'Advanced Tailing'. This helps aircraft stay locked on despite the initiative based turns and the pre-planning of maneuver cards.

Emergency Maneuvers, Yo-yo-ing, and when aces are available, extreme maneuvers all seem like they'll have some tactical uses that will make things more interesting. Advanced Tailing though will remove a lot of fighters randomly careening all over the place.

CELS
22-01-2007, 05:14
Out of interest, Christine and Lauren, what GW games do you usually play? I mean, if you normally play 40k, I can understand the frustration of going fifteen minutes without getting out the old bucket 'o dice to resolve some shooting, but in games like BFG, it's been known to take over an hour before you actually get close enough to unleash some close range broadsides. Depending on the scenario, of course.

Also, how long did your games last, and did you finish them?

PS: Would you kill me if I pointed out the humour in the fact that the first people to complain about the importance of piloting were girls? :) *ducks for cover*

Voronwe[MQ]
22-01-2007, 08:53
One thing I had hoped for was a in-depth background section. Perhaps if the demand would rise such a section could be included in a future expansion?


PS: Would you kill me if I pointed out the humour in the fact that the first people to complain about the importance of piloting were girls? :) *ducks for cover*
Hah! :D *ducks for cover, too*

Voronwe

Spacker
22-01-2007, 10:33
We where playing the introductory dogfight scenario - the problem with doing that in this one is that soon as the leading aircraft gets shot down that's it you disengage. I'm guessing from what you've said that you need a few aircraft a side to make for a fun game.


I played that too - with 60pts per side. For an Imperial force this allows 3 aircraft easily (I had 2 Thunderbolts and 1 Lightning), the Eldar only get 2 (but at least have shields to stay alive longer), Chaos can squeeze in 5 fighters.

Even with 2 aircraft each side, there is no Disengagement until turn 11 - you have to lose more than half of your aircraft, so losing 1 doesn't kick in the Disengagement rule as that's half, not more than half. With 3 aircraft per side you need to lose 2, with 4 you're up to 3 before Disengagement - you don't need many aircraft on each to keep the game going the full 12 turns.

Christine
22-01-2007, 17:53
Out of interest, Christine and Lauren, what GW games do you usually play? I mean, if you normally play 40k, I can understand the frustration of going fifteen minutes without getting out the old bucket 'o dice to resolve some shooting, but in games like BFG, it's been known to take over an hour before you actually get close enough to unleash some close range broadsides. Depending on the scenario, of course.

Also, how long did your games last, and did you finish them?

PS: Would you kill me if I pointed out the humour in the fact that the first people to complain about the importance of piloting were girls? :) *ducks for cover*

Okay lets see - I haven't played any GW games for a while but the ones I'm most familiar with are 40k (having played every edition of it), Battlefleet Gothic and Epic. I also have been known to play a lot of Warmaster, Necromunda and Mordheim. Otherwise I'm a silent death player (I love that game).

Warmaster and BFG both have lots of maneuvering and I loved both of them - I especially like warmaster so I don't think that for me thats the issue so much. TBH I'm pondering that it's just not that great a scenario.

As to how long did the games finish if we are talking about the AI games that where played I'd say the first lasted about 8 turns and the second was over by turn 2 (thanks to us both managing to put ourselves opposite each other and then each shooting down an enemy plane). If it's other games them I've played games of epic that lasted 2 days and conversely I've played games of Necromunda that where over in 15 mins.


I played that too - with 60pts per side. For an Imperial force this allows 3 aircraft easily (I had 2 Thunderbolts and 1 Lightning), the Eldar only get 2 (but at least have shields to stay alive longer), Chaos can squeeze in 5 fighters.

Even with 2 aircraft each side, there is no Disengagement until turn 11 - you have to lose more than half of your aircraft, so losing 1 doesn't kick in the Disengagement rule as that's half, not more than half. With 3 aircraft per side you need to lose 2, with 4 you're up to 3 before Disengagement - you don't need many aircraft on each to keep the game going the full 12 turns.

Aaaah yes I see I thought it was disenage at halfway not once you'd got over half - that'd make a bit of a difference and playing with the 60pts sounds a lot better.

I'm not going to abandon the system yet - I just want the bugger to feel fun!

Mouldsta
22-01-2007, 19:54
A good starter scenario that we've been playing (and it's not because we've only got 5 AI bases - lies I tells you) is 2 thunderbolts with additional weapons load (usually no.4 - 2x skystrike missiles) vs 3 Ork Fighta's with additional rokkit each. The orks outnumber the imperials, and therefore have a better chance of covering all areas to keep them in sight of one plane, and are deadly at short range, while the thunderbolts are more manouverable, have more targets and pack a better punch.

Baaltharus
23-01-2007, 11:28
Thunderbolts aren't more manouverable than Ork fightas. By the sounds of it the bomber escort mission seems the best. It has lots of potential due to the number and different variety of aircraft.

Its best playing with a decent number of aircraft, its like aerial chess. You can't get a proper game with only half the pieces.

Al.

Arkhar
23-01-2007, 11:43
Its best playing with a decent number of aircraft, its like aerial chess. You can't get a proper game with only half the pieces.

Al.

So playing with Chaos its a lot of fun :D

Tyra_Nid
23-01-2007, 13:19
Its best playing with a decent number of aircraft, its like aerial chess. You can't get a proper game with only half the pieces.

How many would you say is a 'decent' amount?

Baaltharus
23-01-2007, 16:52
Personal preference really, I'd say 100pts a side minimal. More the better imo though (given the likes of time constraints, etc).

Al.

grave digger
23-01-2007, 19:11
[QUOTE=Baaltharus;1238234]Thunderbolts aren't more manouverable than Ork fightas.QUOTE]

I disagree. The Thunderbolt is more manourverable by virture that it has one extra thrust point. This allows it to be able to more finally manourve where it needs to be when it needs to be there.

Also, I think that Imperial pilots start off with a better rating on the special rules. As such the Thunderbolt has a better chance of using two Manourver cards, yo-yo, etc. I may be wrong for I'm at work with no book in front of me.

Diggs

Slekith
23-01-2007, 19:31
Well, we (me and my friend) recieved our copy of the manual a week ago BUT we haven't have the opportunity to play because my thunderbolts and his chaos aircrafts were out of stock. We just recieved a note from UPS confirming the delivery on 24th January. So tomorrow we'll have our first game and I'll be able to tell. Anyway I think that lkchild is not right:



There are then only three secenarios for winning.
1) your plan for the first two turns (or the two turns since a mistake) works out, and you shoot the other player down.

Not all scenarios are about to shot down enemy aircrafts, what's more those are the few. We have troops transportation, scorting, bombing runs etc...


2) both players happen to pick cards that converge instead of diverge. Given the number of cards this is unlikely.

Same manuever can have pretty different outcomes.


3) both players end up on a line with each other, play one of the two "flip" cards, and whoever scored best on the initiative dice wins.

Only very-high manouverable aircrafts can perform those and not all wings have access to them. (eg. TAU)


All in all not very satisfying.

Hope that helps those who are interested in buying this.

I Hope it to but I expect I'll be satisfied tomorrow! :D

Baaltharus
24-01-2007, 09:05
[/QUOTE]I disagree. The Thunderbolt is more manourverable by virture that it has one extra thrust point. This allows it to be able to more finally manourve where it needs to be when it needs to be there.

Also, I think that Imperial pilots start off with a better rating on the special rules. As such the Thunderbolt has a better chance of using two Manouver cards, yo-yo, etc. I may be wrong for I'm at work with no book in front of me.

Diggs[/QUOTE]


Ok, so a thunderbolt is a smidgen more manouverable due to its superior thrust capabilities. However, at a basic level they are the same.

The pilot ratings don't much count for manouverability as only an Ace can use two manouver cards in one turn and advancing tailing is more of an advanced warning rather than specific manouverability.

Al.

mageboltrat
24-01-2007, 09:45
They are able to Yo-yo more easily than Ork fightaz, and the extra thrust allows them to climb easier. So they are a bit more maneuverable.

Earlydawn
24-01-2007, 18:37
My biggest criticism is certain areas they could have done better.. for example, I know in the times that we actually still participated in dogfighting, You always wanted to attack from a downward angle - nail them in the top rear. There's no real advantage for swooping down on somebody. Remember, you want the biggest cross-section of aircraft to shoot at.

I'd also have liked to see some more in-depth missile rules. I always envision the missile - guns relationship to be like shooting versus assault in 40K. Both deadly, if done right, but with different functional dynamics.

As for manouvers, where the hell is the classic "spiral over and end up behind them" move? I don't recall the specific name for it, but it's restricted in some fashion, I'd definitely wanna see it.

Mouldsta
24-01-2007, 19:58
The reason they're more manouverable is not only because they have thrust 2, but also because they can drop down to speed 2 and have a higher maximum altitude. This lets them do things like start on speed 6, thrust down 2 speeds and pull up hard to end up on speed 2, something the ork fighta can't hope to recreate. If you do this so you end on altitude 9 then the ork definately can't follow.

mattjgilbert
28-01-2007, 20:07
Our group have played a couple of games now, each time taking a single fighter each and playing in teams (3 vs 2). We didn't find lining up people for shots difficult at all (hitting is another question as noted before). It's all about:

1. Anticipating where other aircraft will be (including altitude)
2. Adjusting your own speed at the start of the turn using thrust to increase or decrease the impact of manoeuvres
3. Have aircraft working in pairs or more

Two players with a single craft each sounds fine for learning the rules but not for much more.

Gensuke626
28-01-2007, 22:49
From what I can tell of the game (Without the rulebook) it sorta looks like an advanced version of the Crimson Skies Clix game (Which was an awesome game, by the way) I know that in close quarters you really have to pull some crazy manuevors or break off and re approach. I never saw this as a problem...but then again it wasn't usually ace dueling, but an ace and 1-2 wingmen.

jefritrout
01-02-2007, 04:37
Earlydawn -

The name of that manouver is the Immelman, named after the German pilot who created the move.