Quote:
Originally Posted by TorpX
Well, I can understand Ducimus (and others') desire to make the game more challanging. It is to be expected that some people will play the game more, and in doing so will discover the AI's weak points. There are also aspects of the game that give the player the advantage (depending on how one plays), so there is a choice of either accepting the game more or less as is, or goosing up the AI capabilities some to compensate for the deficency. I kind of like what you said about having the AI so there is a high level of uncertainty for the player, though.
If I had my own computer game company (developing SH 6), I would handle this by having an optional dynamic campaign, of a fictional nature. This would negate the advantage of history buffs knowing what is going to happen, where battles will be fought, where the most traffic will go, and how well the weapons (yours or theirs) will perform. This I would do with random functions, so every such campaign would be unique. Otherwise, it is hard to put the player in the shoes of their historical counterparts, who had to react to events, day by day, with no historical precognition.
|
I like the dynamic campaign idea. It presents something completely different. There can be AI scripts based on a standardized difficulty, rather than an attempt to re-create a historical mean level of performance, which is much harder to do. As far as the "unknown" factor in judging an individual platform's competence, I think this would add an element of suspense and the need for good judgment on the part of the player to deal with upon each encounter.
The biggest "enemy" in sims is predictability. It doesn't matter how hard or easy an AI is if it is predictable. Worrying sick about a destroyer, only to find out that Bernard is the skipper can rob one of convoy kills due to excess caution. Likewise, running into too many Bernard destroyers sets one up for an HMS
Walker the hard way. Keep a player guessing and everything flows.