battle of Carpiquet

[fuselex]

Thanks Rico

[fuselex]

Not just for a scenario I had fun with.
But for the details


From turn 1, I felt I needed to take certain points , your scenario description left no doubt about the
objectives.
Open the map and they are labelled clearly .
These are the points I need to take .
It really sucked me in , every victory point had a reason to be there .
Great job Rico .

[rico21]

Thanks Fuselex

[rico21]

This scenario is interesting because it can be played in several ways:
- like the others.
- taking of objective by the required units and maintaining the captured position.
- goal taking by the required units with support to the other units for taking their respective objectives.

Anyway, it's nice to talk about a scenario, without referring to the AI or what it would be if it was a commercial scenario.[:D]

My only regret is the lack of possibility to name or identify the units so as not to mix and confuse them during the scenario.

[UP844]

Appalling.

[rico21]

ORIGINAL: rico21

This scenario is interesting because it can be played in several ways:
- like the others.
- taking of objective by the required units and maintaining the captured position.
- goal taking by the required units with support to the other units for taking their respective objectives.

Anyway, it's nice to talk about a scenario, without referring to the AI or what it would be if it was a commercial scenario.[:D]

My only regret is the lack of possibility to name or identify the units so as not to mix and confuse them during the scenario.

Errata
Anyway, it's nice to talk about a scenario, without referring to the AI, the artillery or what it would be if it was a commercial scenario.[:D]

[UP844]

I see the Party (or Church) line is becoming tighter and tighter. [:'(]

Have your fun, o Supreme Ayatollah [&o]

[rico21]

I'm just one of those people who are fed up with the constant improvements in the game that eventually lead to other problems that make people complain again about new problems.
We must break this infernal spiral.
New DLCs are needed
And one day a new game that will take the best of the old and erase the worst.
Amen.

[Big Ivan]

ORIGINAL: rico21

I'm just one of those people who are fed up with the constant improvements in the game that eventually lead to other problems that make people complain again about new problems.
We must break this infernal spiral.
New DLCs are needed
And one day a new game that will take the best of the old and erase the worst.
Amen.

+1 have to agree with you![:)]

[Peter Fisla]

Well, I'm the type of developer/designer that believes in delivering feature complete game to the customers. I don't believe in DLCs as a way to deliver new features. Example: say I don't include light machine guns in the base game but I will deliver them as DLC1 package - that's NOT what I do. If I can bring in some new features with bug fixed then I will do it as part of an game UPDATE. If it's a major feature like adding new nationalities to the game then I will do it as a game expansion. I will continue to update the game with new features and bug fixes. I'm already thinking of Tigers on the Hunt II, moving the game into unreal engine as this will let me more focus on game features and I let the unreal engine experts handle the game engine stuff.

[UP844]

Could you please point out which are "the constant improvements in the game that eventually lead to other problems that make people complain again about new problems."?

Maybe I am missing something, but as far as I know ALL the improvements Peter implemented really improved the game without adding new issues.

Unfortunately, the two major issues with the game (AI infantry reluctance to fire and incapability to fire at long range and drone-directed, GPS-guided AI artillery) are here since Day 1, and have never been dealt with. In my opinion, this is like being worried about fixing a broken windowpane while your house is on fire.

The first issue turns most infantry scenarios I am authorised to speak about (AI AFVs behave far better) into an accurate depiction of the Malmedy massacre.

The second one turns scenarios into very random affairs, where the human player becomes an impotent bystander as destruction randomly (but incredibly accurately) falls down on his forces, regardless of any tactical planning he has done. Maybe it is a great representation of a Greek tragedy, but it does not look very realistic to me.

[Peter Fisla]

Please note that AI does not get any bonuses with OBA, the only difference is that AI does not need radio support weapon to call for OBA...that's it.

[UP844]

AI OBA also does not need a LOS to enemy units to fire and, because it does not need a radio contact, does not have to wait when it shift its target.

I also have the impression - but I might be wrong - the AI does not need to check for Battery Access. Before I left Rico's Battle for Carpiquet at the end of turn 4 I have been subject to seven player turns of constant bombardment by two OBA modules. I count myself extremely lucky when I get a couple fire missions per game (even though 80% of the time they scatter way out of the intended target to be harmless), and I ceased to consider OBA as an asset I can rely on.

[Big Ivan]

All in all TotH is a stand alone great game. IMO it is as close to the ASL board game as you can get. Granted, it is not ASL
nor do I ever want it to be. I want it to continue to be TotH. For me, it does deliver on my nostalgia and my memory of those ASL days long long ago.

It is a moderately complex game engine to understand but once I was comfortable with my learning and understanding, TotH brought many hours of enjoyment.

Sure like any true war gamer I am always hungry for something new. A new game? A new update? Downloadable Content? I'll pay the price just to find new peace
at my computer screen. Sure I want new terrain, new weapons and vehicles and new nationalities. I think everyone does. But I willing to wait just to see the bugs fixed
and see the game evolve into something even better.

Will TotH ever be my #1 go to game? That's tough to answer right now. I can say it is a solid #2 behind Campaign Series today. But I'm biased. Campaign Series had a 16 year
head start on Tigers on the Hunt to grab my fascination. But what really holds my attention for TotH is my imagination and to a lesser extend determination to see this
wonderful game TotH preform its magic. When I play any scenario, regardless of which one I do enjoy myself

I often say when I'm playing TotH, "imagine John, where Tigers on the Hunt will be 16 years from now!!"

Keep doing what your doing Peter, I am in your camp for the long haul!![:)]

[rico21]

+1[&o]

[rico21]

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

Please note that AI does not get any bonuses with OBA, the only difference is that AI does not need radio support weapon to call for OBA...that's it.

True but in the original version, the target acquisition system was less accurate.
Then a certain UP844 complained of this lack of precision and now he complains of the opposite.[:D]

[UP844]

Rico, are you serious or are you arguing just for the fun of it?

I complained about an aspect of OBA, i.e. artillery scatter, and Peter graciously fixed it. Fine, thanks, but there are still other aspects I found annoying.

I complained - and still complain - about other aspects of AI OBA (i.e. OBA fired by the AI) that are not related to accuracy, namely:
the AI being able to place its OBA even though none of its units has a LOS to any human player unit and its uncanny ability to call OBA on enemy units even though it should not have the faintest idea about their location.
the apparently endless availability of fire missions for AI OBA: it is not unusual to see the AI fire its OBA(s) on every player turn.

In my opinion, OBA in ToTH lacks the essential part about fire correction: instead of having the sequence where you call OBA, place a spotting round, correct it if it scattered too much away and then, finally, place a FFE.
Currently, the human player has a "Russian Roulette" OBA. If you are lucky, you will hit the enemy, if you are especially unlucky you will hit your troops; otherwise you will perform some explosive landscaping. Most often than not, I will move a leader and use it for more meaningful tasks (directing fire, providing movement bonuses) rather than wasting time asking for OBA.

[Peter Fisla]

AI units must have LOS to a player unit in order to call for OBA

[UP844]

I forgot: please continue to disregard any remarks about the AI infantry not firing.

Some suggestion for new scenarios could include "Katyn Forest", "Kampfgruppe Peiper at Malmedy Crossroads" or "Babi Jar Gorge" [:(][:(][:(]

[UP844]

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

AI units must have LOS to a player unit in order to call for OBA

Perhaps I have been extremely unlucky and I have been hit by fire that scattered and found my units even tough they were out of LOS. Unfortunately, I was so fed up by losing half my infantry without apparent reason I deleted all the many screenshot I took to prepare the AAR.