trying too hard....Joe's bridge (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> After Action Reports



Message


phoenix -> trying too hard....Joe's bridge (3/4/2012 9:08:15 PM)

So, I played Joe's bridge through 5 times. All on realistic delay standard options etc,. as Allies.

First 4 basically commanded at Bn level and tried all sorts of things. I used arty under direct control, gave staged objectives etc, thought hard about it, separated off towed units from attack formations, placed all the air strikes myself, tried all sorts of variations.... All 4 times I got a marginal Vic and could never take La Colonie. I got really pissed off with the AI because it all looked pathetic - couldn't imbue the relevant sense of urgency at all.

So, fifth time I gave only 5 orders the entire scenario.
1. Clicked on map boss (Guards HQ), clicked Attack, placed the marker on the far side of the bridge, touched nothing else, ran it. The AI put together a beautiful 3 pronged attack with elements providing suppressing fire from near the zinc factory and 2 other formations attacking from each road in. Took the bridge by morning Day 2. So, I gave order 2.
2. Clicked on on map boss again, again clicked attack, placed marker over La Colonie, touched nothing else. AI took La Colonie by morning Day 3. At this point I got slightly worried about my rear, so I gave order 3.
3. Gave A.2IR the command to go back over and Defend De Groote Barrier. Touched nothing else. It did this splendidly. I then got worried about losing the Joe's Bridge objective, as everything was fighting up in La Colonie, so I gave order 4.
4. Detached a mortar platoon to Defend Joe's Bridge. Since there were a lot of enemeny north of La Colonie and I had time to spare I then gave order 5, my final order.
5. I moved the attack objective from La Colonie to the middle of the bulk of the enemy nth of La Colonie. They were duly engaged and the scenario ended as below......

[image]local://upfiles/36260/6D6C79943E254DECA043047193A6B8D4.gif[/image]




sweeteye -> RE: trying too hard....Joe's bridge (3/4/2012 9:51:00 PM)

I know what your saying...I have had the same sort of experiences also.I have quite a number of war game titles from very old to the most recent and they all seem that way to me.Seems like it is better to not overdo it with giving orders..I suppose that the art of programming AI in war games is far from perfect..Have to take things with a "grain of salt" as the saying goes.[:)]




phoenix -> RE: trying too hard....Joe's bridge (3/4/2012 10:40:20 PM)

Not sure what it means. I have this experience often enough with this engine, to be honest. It's no fun, really, honestly, playing a 3 day scenario and only giving 5 orders. Or not immersive enough, anyway, though satisfying to see the AI handle it. Yet when I tried to get more involved I didn't fare so well. I wonder what the AI did that I didn't? Well, I could see a few things it did that were different, but it wasn't much different. I will try the big scenario now (FTMTTR) and give orders at a higher level, with less interference - see what happens.




phoenix -> RE: trying too hard....Joe's bridge (3/4/2012 10:42:40 PM)

I suppose I should add - or concede - that if I hadn't moved back A.2IR then the Grote Barrier objective would have fallen to the enemy (as it did, in fact, for a short time before the unit got back there) and it wouldn't have been a Dec Vic at all, just another marginal, I assume. So I did do something useful.....maybe even crucial...




sweeteye -> RE: trying too hard....Joe's bridge (3/4/2012 11:24:54 PM)

Being I like to design scenarios and games I always try to look at things from the programmers perspective.Has to be a challenge for them..I know what you mean... as a player it is nice to be really immersed in a scenario and kind of hangin' on the edge of your seat throughout the game.Wish I had HTTR so I could try it out...Just cannot afford it right now...car repairs again...




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.269531E-02