Slitherine

But as I understood, it makes the combat results values so, as predicted. That is something else.

fenglicao wrote:well now there is the cheat "chess" which removes all the randomness, which is good to try.

Please post a link to substantiate the cheat "chess"

That's official ? Where was this documented

TiA

huertgenwald wrote:Please post a link to substantiate the cheat "chess"

That's official ? Where was this documented

TiA

Turn to the previous page:

Rudankort wrote:In 1.05 there is a new cheat code "chess" which makes all combats play exactly as they were predicted (unless rugged defense happens - that is still a random factor). This is by no means a solution to RNG problems some people complain about, but players who like to plan everything from beginning to end and have everything under control might want to try this mode.

To those of you clamoring back to the days of the seed being saved in the savegame, aren't you exaggerating your case a little bit?
The only way to get the "strategic facts" mode you're describing is to play out the turn EXACTLY as before, moving the units in the same order.
As soon as you shuffle the order around, what remains is the "hardcoded" streak of five unfavorable results, three favorable, one unfavorable and so on.
Almost no game I know of works that way. These results are supposed to be random...

I could've lived with a cheat like the chess one for randomizing the seed (thanks again Rudankort!), but prefer this solution. Just makes more sense - at least to me.

That said, so far I've reloaded ONCE to let the enemy turn play out again - in five scenarios of the 41 DLC ...
_____
rezaf

rezaf wrote:To those of you clamoring back to the days of the seed being saved in the savegame, aren't you exaggerating your case a little bit?

_____
rezaf

I'm with you. Anyone trying to "perfect" thier turn only need run thru it once and see what outcome landed where. Then move the pieces in order. Cheat modes are already available if you just want postive combat outcomes.

I prefer it the way it is now. Anyone that demands strict adherence to the estimates can use the "chess" cheat.

rezaf wrote:
The only way to get the "strategic facts" mode you're describing is to play out the turn EXACTLY as before, moving the units in the same order.

That's not my experience with the preserved seed. An unfavourable result with the ATs or Stukas didn't necessarily mean an equally bad one with a tank or the infantry – which, actually, added an interesting twist:

Like everyone else, I start a turn by softening up a target with suppressing fire and/or air attacks, then hit them hard. When I know there will be no softening-up at the start of the turn due to unfavourable results but I could at the very least hurt another less fortified unit with infantry, I might decide to break up the formation, hit the other target and weaken the original one when the tide turns. Or with no "luck" at all in the first moves and no other option available, I'd only use units at first that couldn't be hurt back or support troops as canon fodder.

It's really simple: A successful turn always addresses the factual game mechanics and has nothing to do with the way things might work elsewhere. I don't care at all about proper military tactics – this is not the reality and it's not a War College where professors evaluate a student's decision-making with regard to their real life consequences. It's a game. Nothing else. [And thankfully so, or I wouldn't have any fun at all playing a despicable, genocidal side]

Of course, the random seed is simply another kind of game mechanics. And in principle, I don't mind it at all .. if it wasn't for two facts: 1. It takes away the fun from replaying a turn (and this game is turn-based, not real-time) and 2. it makes scenarios too easy.

I've now played through the 39' DLC again with the random seed and even though I resisted the temptation to go back to change an unfortunate outcome, every scenario was easier than before. Sure, I took considerably more hits overall due to this artificially self-imposed limit and used up more prestige to counter that but, otoh, there is plenty prestige to spare after the first two scenarios and the advancement was ridiculously quick in every single one. A streak of imbalacing luck made sure that the last objective in Lillehammer, for example, was open after 8 turns (from 18, IIRC). Of course, I didn't go in so soon but rather created a kill zone for the incoming troops from the north and later from the south to bolster up my units' stats and add more engagements to improve the chances for more heroes.

Random seed + set enemy positions + set events + predictable AI behaviour = easy win.

Sure, the preserved seed meant that I had even more prestige to spare because the troops were rarely hurt hard at all but it slowed me down – which is the reason why I'd have preferred an added difficulty level with even less turns: that would have been the perfect counter point to a carefully laid out preserved-seed-strategy.

The counter-point in the rule set to a more forceful random-seed strategy should be a combination of far less prestige + a limited number of saves: The first one takes away the ability to pay up for the losses that are invariably higher with the random seed, the second one takes away the temptation to use the obvious and sound(!) strategy to not accept a streak of bad luck when you don't have to.

Basically, I don't have a problem per se with the random seed, just with the loss of difficulty and the lessened replayability that it creates under the current rule set.

DrkCon wrote:
Cheat modes are already available if you just want postive combat outcomes.

No, a preserved seed makes sure that you don't have only positive outcomes – a random seed gives you that opportunity .. if you wish to do so.

And that wouldn't even be a cheat because you simply use the existing rules to your full advantage! If you want to play the game as if it were an irreversibly advancing simulation of real events, that's fine, but then you decide to deliberately ignore the nature of the game to play it like you want it to be, not the way it is.

It is not cheating but sound strategy if you use the entirety of the rules, including the meta ones, to your advantage – and it's rather the task of the developers, not the gamers to make sure that the existing rules and settings can be applied without making the game, well any game, a cakewalk.

Regin wrote:
...

Random seed + set enemy positions + set events + predictable AI behaviour = easy win.
...

The only change to the seed which has been done is to not save it in the save file. So every time you reload the dice starts new, regardless if you make the same moves or not. That the outcome of the dice rolls should lead to an easier win is something I don't understand. Computers aren't doing things random so now the only difference is how the starting value is determined. From a preset in the past where I had saved the game or in the moment I open the saved game. Both have his advantages and disadvantages but none will make the game easier. Of course, IMHO.

Regin wrote:That's not my experience with the preserved seed. An unfavourable result with the ATs or Stukas didn't necessarily mean an equally bad one with a tank or the infantry

Well, but that's exactly how it worked. The random seed stored in the savegame meant future random numbers were completely predictable.
The sequence would always stay the same.
Like, on a 100 sided dice, 12, 47, 56, 11, 11, 38, 98, 1, 72, ... and so on and so forth.
This sequence was FIXED with the seed stored.
So, when you attacked with your tank instead of your INF, you might get a less favorable or unfavorable result, but that's only because, all things said and done, the impact of the diceroll was more dramatic for one of the units.

When I read/understand the rest of the paragraph correctly, you actually hangled back "wasting" attacks of units which would be less impacted by negative results - to me, that's less "tactical gameplay" and more "gaming the system". It's just as much of a cheat than reloading a savegame for a RNG reseed is.

Regin wrote:Of course, the random seed is simply another kind of game mechanics. And in principle, I don't mind it at all .. if it wasn't for two facts: 1. It takes away the fun from replaying a turn (and this game is turn-based, not real-time) and 2. it makes scenarios too easy.

Why does it take away from the fun of replaying a turn? I don't get this at all.
And why does it makes scenarios too easy? I don't get this, either.

Regin wrote:I've now played through the 39' DLC again with the random seed and even though I resisted the temptation to go back to change an unfortunate outcome, every scenario was easier than before.

If you "resisted the temptation" to reload, the change to the reseed mechanic has had no impact whatsoever on your game. So I don't see how it could have been easier or harder than before.

Regin wrote:Random seed + set enemy positions + set events + predictable AI behaviour = easy win.

Huh? Unless you exploit like crazy, I don't see what the problem should be...
_____
rezaf

The seed worked so, that one combat action was worser than expected (for example Ju88 again a destroyer), while an another was better than expected (for example PzIV again a T-34). Now, when you played the scenario again, from the deployment phase, than another seed was created. The results of the combat actions were this time others (for example better outcome in Ju88 vs. destroyer) - but the overall results were fair! (That means, staying at this example, that the PzIV vs. T-34 outcome was worser.). So, when you "made" a new seed, you couldn't create yourself an easier enviroment.

Now, with the random generator, it can happen, that every combat results will be good - you must only reload enough times...

Uhu wrote:Now, with the random generator, it can happen, that every combat results will be good - you must only reload enough times...

That's true, of course. But you'd have to save (and possibly reload) on every single battle. Who does that?
And IF he does, what right does he have to complain about it?
_____
rezaf

Sometimes you have to reload:
- You couldn' finish the scenario, because the computer had to be used for another tasks/you had other tasks.
- You were not sure, how works something, so you had to try and then reload it
- Game crashed (was two times happened, since I bought it)
- etc.

OK, I know, these things happens not so often, but sometimes happens, and when happens, then this brings an uncomfortable feeling - that something is not so good (at least for me), as I got used to it.

rezaf wrote:

Uhu wrote:Now, with the random generator, it can happen, that every combat results will be good - you must only reload enough times...

That's true, of course. But you'd have to save (and possibly reload) on every single battle. Who does that?
And IF he does, what right does he have to complain about it?
_____
rezaf

Just ordinary save/reload can just as well reseed to a BAD chain of rolls - as long as you don't exploit it by reloading until you get good results, you can save/reload as often as you like - especially when it's only occasionally.
_____
rezaf

Thanks VPaulus for your hint !

rezaf wrote: When I read/understand the rest of the paragraph correctly, you actually hangled back "wasting" attacks of units which would be less impacted by negative results - to me, that's less "tactical gameplay" and more "gaming the system". It's just as much of a cheat than reloading a savegame for a RNG reseed is.

You do realize you are playing a turn-based, endless-saves game, not a continuous real-world simulation, right? Why is a combination of strategies that includes the game mechanics not tactical gameplay?

When you play a scenario a second time, do you act in the deployment phase as if you didn't know where and what the enemy forces are? Really? Well, then you play not the game present but rather an imagined one, or rather: one with your own set of rules – which is perfectly fine, mind you, but isn't it weird to act as if those personal rules are in some way the correct ones?

And anyhow, it's not cheating, when you use the existing rules and settings to your advantage but when you circumvent or break them.

rezaf wrote: Why does it take away from the fun of replaying a turn? I don't get this at all.

Let's take a look at the gold standard of all turn-based strategy-games for comparison: chess.

Replayability of games and even single turns against an AI is perfect: you improve your game with every repetition and yet, the opponent is so superior (as long as you let him have the full computational power at his disposal) that you struggle to achieve a tie. It's not even embarrassing because Grand Masters and World Champions don't fare (much) better.

In comparison, the AI in PzC is an idiot and you can neither learn anything from nor struggle against it. That aspect of value in replay is simply non-existent. So, what's the appeal? To make the perfect turn, of course.
Preserved dice rolls add an upper limit to perfection: You can optimize the overall outcome within the turn but not maximize the result of every encounter!

Which is quite nice and it would even be more interesting to replay a turn, if the dice rolls were, overall, far less favourable, so that the upper limit was lower still. It'd even be better for replayability if there was a difficulty level where close to perfectly played but severely luck-limited turns were necessary for a decisive victory.

But what's the appeal with a random roll every single move? Well, there's close to none. Optimizing in that case means maximizing which makes every scenario a ridiculous affair because there is no difficulty level available to counter perfect maximized outcomes.

Heh, Regin, I really don't get what you're talking about. It's like you were using a language I don't understand.

You seem to play a PzC turn by writing down the "quality" of each single dice roll and then try to perfect a given turn by distributing those dice rolls in a way that allows you to make the best of the circumstances. That's so foreign to how I play PzC that I can't even begin to describe it.

In that part of the game, PzC is more comparable to a dice game (i.e. a game of chance) than to chess. Say, Risk. You move your troops someplace, roll the dice, and thus win or lose. Risk with hindsight about the quality of each single dice roll probably wouldn't be much fun, imo.
Like in ANY game with dice rolls, you are NOT supposed to know the quality of the diceroll beforehand. Playing the game like that seems really, really odd to me.

Strange.
_____
rezaf

Regin wrote: ...the AI in PzC is an idiot...

I wouldn't say that...
He makes sometimes many great, suprising actions (and makes also idiotic ones).
Sure, it could be developed more - I hope, the patches will improve it sometime later.

When we will live in a perfect world, with perfect developers and perfect players, I'm sure all of us will then get the perfect game.
More than ever, I understand why developers sometimes don't want to intervene much in the forums.
There's so much noise and distortion.
Rudankort! Please make it optional, create a cheat code.

@ Rezaf, I see your point, I really do. The basic problem here is insufficient difficulty, of course. You see, without any "precognition", I simply ignore the occasional unlucky hard hit (which I avoid when I know about it beforehand) and roll forth. And since the AI falls for even the most simple trap, like placing a Stuka as bait for the fighters within the enemies' visual range while adding a fighter or two behind the bomber to receive them .. gah!) and does nothing clever on its own, a more forceful approach unveils the shortcomings of the AI simply more. I concur that they are there regardless, but it's not as painfully obvious from my point of view.

Like I said in the beginning, I don't mind the rolls one way or the other if the overall difficulty is sufficient to deal with the somewhat different strategies that each premise favours.

@ Uhu, it might have changed by now but the last time I played the regular campaign, I was, for example, disappointed that I could take an airfield deep into enemy territory with a paratrooper and a close by concentration of forces didn't take any interest to retake the spot. (I was a bit surprised to find those forces when I approached the vicinity, went back to the save when I had taken the airfield and used the "fog of war"-cheat to verify that they had already been there and were not created later when my other forces came closer.)

VPaulus wrote:When we will live in a perfect world, with perfect developers and perfect players, I'm sure all of us will then get the perfect game.
More than ever, I understand why developers sometimes don't want to intervene much in the forums.
There's so much noise and distortion.

Well, I work in the development of interfaces for HRIs (Human-Robot Interaction) and while I therefore know the frustration you point at (nothing we ever do, is good enough), we actually invite people to interact with those interfaces to produce exactly the noise and distortion you dismiss.

Those people generally come up with ways to fool our systems that no developer could ever conceive and they often show a behaviour that circumvents the checks we have already put in place. And you know, that's always a desirable outcome because those systems have to actually work in their respective environments as flawlessly as possible or it costs a lot of money afterwards (well, they still don't do so, but that's another story.. ).

Anyway, that might explain to you, why I take into account the meta-rules (respectively, the degree of freedom to act by looking at it from a meta-point of view) as much as the in-game rules.

@Regin
I understand your point. But in this case we're talking about a game, and it seems, everybody has its personal agenda, how the game should be. To fulfil everybody expectations it isn't real.

deducter wrote:About the random seed thing, my main concern is MP. There have been occasions where I lost Internet connection between downloading and uploading a MP game. In that case, I have to redownload the MP game and play my turn again. On the rare occasion that has happened, I have tried to play my moves the same.

There needs to be the "no undo" and some sort of stronger game-fidelity protection for MP.

There is no random seed in MP.

Rudankort wrote:Guys, just to clarify this. Indeed, with 1.05 the game reseeds the random generator upon each reload. However, this applies to single player mode only. So, in MP it should behave the same way as before.

In the previous page.