Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough

[squatter]

I have bought every single Close Combat game since CC2, including all the recent remakes.

I realised that the AI was broken and unplayable by CC4 and havent tried to play against the AI since. I buy these games exclusively for multiplayer. Clearly, I understand that it is the best/only tactical real-time simulator out there.

This edition is no different: the AI is practically non-existent. In fact, on the strategic level it is completely Kaput.(see earlier threads)

On defence, the AI places rifle teams in the middle of roads when there are buildings on either side. Its units get up and run around rather than defending. On attack, it moves blindly towards any given victory location, hardly stopping to engage the defender. I think its about time you stopped claiming this game has a viable AI. It does not. Anyone who doubts this - try playing a few battles with 'always see enemy' selected, and watch what the AI does.

All the other problems that have bedevilled this game are present - vehicle pathing, unit deployent zones on top of each other, only 15 teams per side max, etc. Essentially, you, the developers are tweaking the data for each release, but are unbable to change the hard code beneath. You are releasing mods - very good mods, I'll give you - as full price games.

I understand the need to support developers in niche markets, but it's getting ridiculous to rely on the same old customers like me to shell out full price to download massively flawed tweakings of 12-year old software.
I just paid nearly £40 to download this, like I paid to download The Longest Day, Wacht Am Rein, and Cross of Iron before it. Each is utterly unplayable as a single player game, only valid as a multiplayer game with significant house rules and scenario modification.

My point is, I am feeling a little exploited right now, like my loyalty has been tested to the end. You shouldnt be offering discounts on previous games to people who havent bought a CC game before as you are, but discounts on the new editions for those that have invested 100s of dollars already on the previous releases, each one as flawed as the last!!

And my secondary point, trying to salvage as much multiplayer value as possible, can we have more information on how purchase points are assigned to battlegroups in battlemaker? And how, exactly, does stacking affect how many teams can be selected from each battle group? Is it better to have a larger unit as the frontline supported by a smaller one? Or vice versa? The manual says that having stacked battlegroups 'MAY' mean you get extra team slots. What are the parameters affecting 'MAY' in this case?

Third point: why continue with the absurd divisional level strategic map, and squad level tactical map, as if the fate of divisions is decided by a skirmish between two platoons?

Surely the sensible way to take the game is to simulate something like a battalion vs battalion battle on the strategic map, with companies or platoons as units of maneuvre. Then the tactical battles are actually fought between the units represented on the strategic map, rather than absurd, minute abstractions of themselves.

[Andrew Williams]

Isn't it funny how some people really struggle against the AI... good counterpoint post you have made.

[koontz]

ORIGINAL: squatter

I have bought every single Close Combat game since CC2, including all the recent remakes.

I realised that the AI was broken and unplayable by CC4 and havent tried to play against the AI since. I buy these games exclusively for multiplayer. Clearly, I understand that it is the best/only tactical real-time simulator out there.

This edition is no different: the AI is practically non-existent. In fact, on the strategic level it is completely Kaput.(see earlier threads)

On defence, the AI places rifle teams in the middle of roads when there are buildings on either side. Its units get up and run around rather than defending. On attack, it moves blindly towards any given victory location, hardly stopping to engage the defender. I think its about time you stopped claiming this game has a viable AI. It does not. Anyone who doubts this - try playing a few battles with 'always see enemy' selected, and watch what the AI does.

All the other problems that have bedevilled this game are present - vehicle pathing, unit deployent zones on top of each other, only 15 teams per side max, etc. Essentially, you, the developers are tweaking the data for each release, but are unbable to change the hard code beneath. You are releasing mods - very good mods, I'll give you - as full price games.

I understand the need to support developers in niche markets, but it's getting ridiculous to rely on the same old customers like me to shell out full price to download massively flawed tweakings of 12-year old software.
I just paid nearly £40 to download this, like I paid to download The Longest Day, Wacht Am Rein, and Cross of Iron before it. Each is utterly unplayable as a single player game, only valid as a multiplayer game with significant house rules and scenario modification.

My point is, I am feeling a little exploited right now, like my loyalty has been tested to the end. You shouldnt be offering discounts on previous games to people who havent bought a CC game before as you are, but discounts on the new editions for those that have invested 100s of dollars already on the previous releases, each one as flawed as the last!!

And my secondary point, trying to salvage as much multiplayer value as possible, can we have more information on how purchase points are assigned to battlegroups in battlemaker? And how, exactly, does stacking affect how many teams can be selected from each battle group? Is it better to have a larger unit as the frontline supported by a smaller one? Or vice versa? The manual says that having stacked battlegroups 'MAY' mean you get extra team slots. What are the parameters affecting 'MAY' in this case?

Third point: why continue with the absurd divisional level strategic map, and squad level tactical map, as if the fate of divisions is decided by a skirmish between two platoons?

Surely the sensible way to take the game is to simulate something like a battalion vs battalion battle on the strategic map, with companies or platoons as units of maneuvre. Then the tactical battles are actually fought between the units represented on the strategic map, rather than absurd, minute abstractions of themselves.

I hear you!

Wanna do an GC ?

[vonRocko]

ORIGINAL: squatter

I have bought every single Close Combat game since CC2, including all the recent remakes.

I realised that the AI was broken and unplayable by CC4 and havent tried to play against the AI since. I buy these games exclusively for multiplayer. Clearly, I understand that it is the best/only tactical real-time simulator out there.

This edition is no different: the AI is practically non-existent. In fact, on the strategic level it is completely Kaput.(see earlier threads)

On defence, the AI places rifle teams in the middle of roads when there are buildings on either side. Its units get up and run around rather than defending. On attack, it moves blindly towards any given victory location, hardly stopping to engage the defender. I think its about time you stopped claiming this game has a viable AI. It does not. Anyone who doubts this - try playing a few battles with 'always see enemy' selected, and watch what the AI does.

All the other problems that have bedevilled this game are present - vehicle pathing, unit deployent zones on top of each other, only 15 teams per side max, etc. Essentially, you, the developers are tweaking the data for each release, but are unbable to change the hard code beneath. You are releasing mods - very good mods, I'll give you - as full price games.

I understand the need to support developers in niche markets, but it's getting ridiculous to rely on the same old customers like me to shell out full price to download massively flawed tweakings of 12-year old software.
I just paid nearly £40 to download this, like I paid to download The Longest Day, Wacht Am Rein, and Cross of Iron before it. Each is utterly unplayable as a single player game, only valid as a multiplayer game with significant house rules and scenario modification.

My point is, I am feeling a little exploited right now, like my loyalty has been tested to the end. You shouldnt be offering discounts on previous games to people who havent bought a CC game before as you are, but discounts on the new editions for those that have invested 100s of dollars already on the previous releases, each one as flawed as the last!!

And my secondary point, trying to salvage as much multiplayer value as possible, can we have more information on how purchase points are assigned to battlegroups in battlemaker? And how, exactly, does stacking affect how many teams can be selected from each battle group? Is it better to have a larger unit as the frontline supported by a smaller one? Or vice versa? The manual says that having stacked battlegroups 'MAY' mean you get extra team slots. What are the parameters affecting 'MAY' in this case?

Third point: why continue with the absurd divisional level strategic map, and squad level tactical map, as if the fate of divisions is decided by a skirmish between two platoons?

Surely the sensible way to take the game is to simulate something like a battalion vs battalion battle on the strategic map, with companies or platoons as units of maneuvre. Then the tactical battles are actually fought between the units represented on the strategic map, rather than absurd, minute abstractions of themselves.

Good post! Very true.

[philjat]

ORIGINAL: squatter

I have bought every single Close Combat game since CC2, including all the recent remakes.

I realised that the AI was broken and unplayable by CC4 and havent tried to play against the AI since. I buy these games exclusively for multiplayer. Clearly, I understand that it is the best/only tactical real-time simulator out there.

This edition is no different: the AI is practically non-existent. In fact, on the strategic level it is completely Kaput.(see earlier threads)

On defence, the AI places rifle teams in the middle of roads when there are buildings on either side. Its units get up and run around rather than defending. On attack, it moves blindly towards any given victory location, hardly stopping to engage the defender. I think its about time you stopped claiming this game has a viable AI. It does not. Anyone who doubts this - try playing a few battles with 'always see enemy' selected, and watch what the AI does.

All the other problems that have bedevilled this game are present - vehicle pathing, unit deployent zones on top of each other, only 15 teams per side max, etc. Essentially, you, the developers are tweaking the data for each release, but are unbable to change the hard code beneath. You are releasing mods - very good mods, I'll give you - as full price games.

I understand the need to support developers in niche markets, but it's getting ridiculous to rely on the same old customers like me to shell out full price to download massively flawed tweakings of 12-year old software.
I just paid nearly £40 to download this, like I paid to download The Longest Day, Wacht Am Rein, and Cross of Iron before it. Each is utterly unplayable as a single player game, only valid as a multiplayer game with significant house rules and scenario modification.

My point is, I am feeling a little exploited right now, like my loyalty has been tested to the end. You shouldnt be offering discounts on previous games to people who havent bought a CC game before as you are, but discounts on the new editions for those that have invested 100s of dollars already on the previous releases, each one as flawed as the last!!

And my secondary point, trying to salvage as much multiplayer value as possible, can we have more information on how purchase points are assigned to battlegroups in battlemaker? And how, exactly, does stacking affect how many teams can be selected from each battle group? Is it better to have a larger unit as the frontline supported by a smaller one? Or vice versa? The manual says that having stacked battlegroups 'MAY' mean you get extra team slots. What are the parameters affecting 'MAY' in this case?

Third point: why continue with the absurd divisional level strategic map, and squad level tactical map, as if the fate of divisions is decided by a skirmish between two platoons?

Surely the sensible way to take the game is to simulate something like a battalion vs battalion battle on the strategic map, with companies or platoons as units of maneuvre. Then the tactical battles are actually fought between the units represented on the strategic map, rather than absurd, minute abstractions of themselves.

+1

[Redmarkus5]

As another owner of every previous CC release who also stopped playing a while back, I just re-installed CCWaR and patched it up to see how the AI was doing. It's truly terrible. Once I take the first VP, US 'defenders' just keep charging (or crawling) at my Panzers and MG infantry (I tried 4 battles) until the last unit dies and I win by default.

This must be a question of the devs not being able to change the code. The game would hugely improved even if the defensive AI was programmed just to stay in its trenches on Ambush mode. Take a look at CM Shock Force which is reasonably challenging against an AI that does very little except hide behind cover, as well as being a much more graphically appealing game. I just wish CMSF was a representation of WW2 and not merely a massacre of the poor Syrian army by the world's most powerful military forces.

My other issue is that I have a 21 inch wide screen and the WaR game looks pretty lousy even though I selected the highest resolution.

No way will I be spending money on a remake the Arnhem battle unless a new AI is added.

ORIGINAL: squatter

I have bought every single Close Combat game since CC2, including all the recent remakes.

I realised that the AI was broken and unplayable by CC4 and havent tried to play against the AI since. I buy these games exclusively for multiplayer. Clearly, I understand that it is the best/only tactical real-time simulator out there.

This edition is no different: the AI is practically non-existent. In fact, on the strategic level it is completely Kaput.(see earlier threads)

On defence, the AI places rifle teams in the middle of roads when there are buildings on either side. Its units get up and run around rather than defending. On attack, it moves blindly towards any given victory location, hardly stopping to engage the defender. I think its about time you stopped claiming this game has a viable AI. It does not. Anyone who doubts this - try playing a few battles with 'always see enemy' selected, and watch what the AI does.

All the other problems that have bedevilled this game are present - vehicle pathing, unit deployent zones on top of each other, only 15 teams per side max, etc. Essentially, you, the developers are tweaking the data for each release, but are unbable to change the hard code beneath. You are releasing mods - very good mods, I'll give you - as full price games.

I understand the need to support developers in niche markets, but it's getting ridiculous to rely on the same old customers like me to shell out full price to download massively flawed tweakings of 12-year old software.
I just paid nearly £40 to download this, like I paid to download The Longest Day, Wacht Am Rein, and Cross of Iron before it. Each is utterly unplayable as a single player game, only valid as a multiplayer game with significant house rules and scenario modification.

My point is, I am feeling a little exploited right now, like my loyalty has been tested to the end. You shouldnt be offering discounts on previous games to people who havent bought a CC game before as you are, but discounts on the new editions for those that have invested 100s of dollars already on the previous releases, each one as flawed as the last!!

And my secondary point, trying to salvage as much multiplayer value as possible, can we have more information on how purchase points are assigned to battlegroups in battlemaker? And how, exactly, does stacking affect how many teams can be selected from each battle group? Is it better to have a larger unit as the frontline supported by a smaller one? Or vice versa? The manual says that having stacked battlegroups 'MAY' mean you get extra team slots. What are the parameters affecting 'MAY' in this case?

Third point: why continue with the absurd divisional level strategic map, and squad level tactical map, as if the fate of divisions is decided by a skirmish between two platoons?

Surely the sensible way to take the game is to simulate something like a battalion vs battalion battle on the strategic map, with companies or platoons as units of maneuvre. Then the tactical battles are actually fought between the units represented on the strategic map, rather than absurd, minute abstractions of themselves.

[Dundradal]

Now there are a few valid complaints in here, however I'm not going to fully support your statements.

"The AI is broken." I think the problem is you are expecting an AI similar in caliber to a human. With all the variables present in this game, it would be extremely difficult to produce an AI that I'm guessing would meet your standards.

Look at the AI in Command & Conquer...are you going to tell me it's the greatest? Or Age of Empires? Don't act like it's just CC that has an AI issue. AI is hard to code.

Now of all the issues you've mentioned, have you ever written this bugs down and posted them here so the devs can take a look at them?

Because I know that works. I just spent quite a bit of time talking to people to get the COI MMCC3 servers back to stability and now they have been running great for a while now.

While I agree there is definite need of some source code changes in the engine, you also have to remember that Matrix is not EA. They don't have millions upon millions of dollars and they don't have thousands of programmers and testers to review every product.

Matrix and the devs rely, to a certain degree, on their customers to help find mistakes so they can fix them. You act like they don't care and only want to make money. While certainly everyone wants to make money, I have a feeling (and have seen it in communicating with them) that they have a real passion for these games and enjoy them themselves. Why would they want to release a piece of crap?

And for your last points...you are complaining about something CC never tried to be. CC is a fun way to play small engagements that have an affect on a larger map. It sounds like you want a full war simulator, CC never pretends to be that. Sure it might be more realistic to have battalion vs battalion, but CC has always been about the smaller things. I for one, love the model they have going, granted I'm more of a COI guy, I still enjoy the level that the strategic map provides.

So Thank You Matrix for continuing to release these games. Yes, I do agree with squatter on some points, but I don't see it as callous disregard by Matrix. I would hope that buy now they've got a good understanding of the new CC engine source code so I'd hope they'd be able to track and fix bugs better.

So while I understand and to a different degree share you sentiments, I'd rather support the hand that feeds me in the hopes of causing positive change.

[Reboot]

ORIGINAL: Dundradal

Now there are a few valid complaints in here, however I'm not going to fully support your statements.

"The AI is broken." I think the problem is you are expecting an AI similar in caliber to a human. With all the variables present in this game, it would be extremely difficult to produce an AI that I'm guessing would meet your standards.

Look at the AI in Command & Conquer...are you going to tell me it's the greatest? Or Age of Empires? Don't act like it's just CC that has an AI issue. AI is hard to code.

Now of all the issues you've mentioned, have you ever written this bugs down and posted them here so the devs can take a look at them?

Because I know that works. I just spent quite a bit of time talking to people to get the COI MMCC3 servers back to stability and now they have been running great for a while now.

While I agree there is definite need of some source code changes in the engine, you also have to remember that Matrix is not EA. They don't have millions upon millions of dollars and they don't have thousands of programmers and testers to review every product.

Matrix and the devs rely, to a certain degree, on their customers to help find mistakes so they can fix them. You act like they don't care and only want to make money. While certainly everyone wants to make money, I have a feeling (and have seen it in communicating with them) that they have a real passion for these games and enjoy them themselves. Why would they want to release a piece of crap?

And for your last points...you are complaining about something CC never tried to be. CC is a fun way to play small engagements that have an affect on a larger map. It sounds like you want a full war simulator, CC never pretends to be that. Sure it might be more realistic to have battalion vs battalion, but CC has always been about the smaller things. I for one, love the model they have going, granted I'm more of a COI guy, I still enjoy the level that the strategic map provides.

So Thank You Matrix for continuing to release these games. Yes, I do agree with squatter on some points, but I don't see it as callous disregard by Matrix. I would hope that buy now they've got a good understanding of the new CC engine source code so I'd hope they'd be able to track and fix bugs better.

So while I understand and to a different degree share you sentiments, I'd rather support the hand that feeds me in the hopes of causing positive change.

superb post

[Adam Parker]

One of the best game reviews I've read.

Many times I've visited the Matrix shop and came so close to buying WaR, TLD and this but held off for fear of the very reasons clearly outlined above.

Thanks Squatter.

[Dundradal]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

One of the best game reviews I've read.

It's not a game review though. It's someone who's angry about a perceived slight to them from Matrix. He complains about something (AI) that has always been an issue. Will the AI ever be as good as a human? Of course not. It will always have faults.

This unfortunately is the state of "game reviews" on the internet today. It's "what can I bitch about next?" Nothing is ever good enough, they could have done it better, blah blah blah, if that was the case they'd be in front of a computer programming not complain about people who are working hard to entertain you for hours on end.

So please, don't call someone's "rant" a game review. They are not one in the same.

[LitFuel]

Oh please ...love how guys sit back in the cheap seats and let one guy basically bash the game and then pile on like it's some great revelation or something..lol. Most of what he said is how CC has always been so you make like it's some big shocker. A couple valid points but mostly it's just a bashing session from a hater who also posts the same crap in a AAR above. Just a hater who acts like someone put a gun to his head and said buy the CC games or else. He could read just like the rest of us and read everyones comments from each game but then acts like "oh my God I'm being robbed here, I can't beleive you forced me to buy this game system again". LOL...

CC is CC and is one of the longest lasting game systems ever and for many has brought and is bringing fun game play and seemingly enough challenge to enjoy it or it never would have made it this far. No AI is perfect and if it is it cheats... there is no AI that doesn't cheat so deal with it. Go ahead and have valid points but don't sit there and cry like a baby that you have been taken or something...thats just lame.

[squatter]

"I think the problem is you are expecting an AI similar in caliber to a human. With all the variables present in this game, it would be extremely difficult to produce an AI that I'm guessing would meet your standards."

Seriously, that is not what I expect - I know as well as you do there is no game anywhere with anything like a human caliber AI. But the AI is so catastrophically screwed in Close Combat that you would literally have a better experience if there was no AI whatsoever. If in single player the enemy units were deployed in houses, trenches, hedges and other defensive terrain, and literally didnt move, this game would not only be harder to beat, it would be more realistic than the current lunatic behavior of the 'AI'.

"Matrix and the devs rely, to a certain degree, on their customers to help find mistakes so they can fix them. You act like they don't care and only want to make money. While certainly everyone wants to make money, I have a feeling (and have seen it in communicating with them) that they have a real passion for these games and enjoy them themselves. Why would they want to release a piece of crap?"

Please don't lecture me on sending in bug reports. We are not talking about bugs. We are talking about the fundamental AI coding. The dead AI in this game is not for want of me or others moaning in forums for the last 10 years. The AI was screwed in CC1, it is still screwed here, some 10 games later. This is because no-one has re-written the AI code. If I'm wrong about that, please inform me.

"And for your last points...you are complaining about something CC never tried to be. CC is a fun way to play small engagements that have an affect on a larger map. It sounds like you want a full war simulator, CC never pretends to be that. Sure it might be more realistic to have battalion vs battalion, but CC has always been about the smaller things. I for one, love the model they have going, granted I'm more of a COI guy, I still enjoy the level that the strategic map provides."

I must not be making myself clear enough. What I am arguing for is a strategic level as there exists now, only one where you are moving platoon/company units around rather that divisions/regiments so that when you zoom in for a battle on the tactical map, the forces engaged are exactly those committed on the strategic map, rather than having 3 tanks, a mortar and 30 men in effect representing an entire armoured division.

If this game was sold at $20, clearly labeled as a game that functions properly in multiplayer only, I wouldnt be posting here.

[Tejszd]

The AI definitely could do better in deployment, attacking and or defending. No doubt, I'm sure a long list of examples can be given...

So while I agree there could be improvements, I do not agree/support your statements though for the following reasons;

- there must be random factor so that the same thing doesn't happen every time and sometimes the random factor probably results in some stupid stuff. Example of random;
tm.asp?m=2518097

- there are posts by people who are getting there butt kicked by the AI, so is it so bad??? Maybe the problem is it doesn't scale well as difficulty seems to impact the number of squads and support available instead of the AI quality.
tm.asp?m=2517055&mpage=1&key=crap%2Cplayer&#2517284

- the marines use CC (Close Combat Marines) for training so it must do somethings right at times:
http://www.dodgamecommunity.com/modules ... cle&sid=30

[Bamilus]

If it took you 11 years you to realize CC has bad AI then I feel very sorry for you

[Dundradal]

ORIGINAL: squatter

Please don't lecture me on sending in bug reports. We are not talking about bugs. We are talking about the fundamental AI coding. The dead AI in this game is not for want of me or others moaning in forums for the last 10 years. The AI was screwed in CC1, it is still screwed here, some 10 games later. This is because no-one has re-written the AI code. If I'm wrong about that, please inform me.

I guess a lecture is in order because what you are describing is what the rest of us would call a "bug" that needs to be looked at further. A "fundamental AI coding" issue is still a bug. What's funny is I said I agreed with you that the AI is poor, however I disagree with the notion that Matrix is just trying to get rich off of the back of little old you.

"And for your last points...you are complaining about something CC never tried to be. CC is a fun way to play small engagements that have an affect on a larger map. It sounds like you want a full war simulator, CC never pretends to be that. Sure it might be more realistic to have battalion vs battalion, but CC has always been about the smaller things. I for one, love the model they have going, granted I'm more of a COI guy, I still enjoy the level that the strategic map provides."

I must not be making myself clear enough. What I am arguing for is a strategic level as there exists now, only one where you are moving platoon/company units around rather that divisions/regiments so that when you zoom in for a battle on the tactical map, the forces engaged are exactly those committed on the strategic map, rather than having 3 tanks, a mortar and 30 men in effect representing an entire armoured division.

If this game was sold at $20, clearly labeled as a game that functions properly in multiplayer only, I wouldnt be posting here.

Certainly an interesting idea.

As for your second point, these games do function properly in single player mode. I've played countless hours of the originals and remakes. Is it perfect? No. Is it completely broken, no.

$20? Do you realize the number of manhours required to produce a game? Then do you understand how many copies it takes to turn a profit on a niche market like this?

I'll state it again, Matrix is not EA. They don't have millions of capital to just throw at everything. I like to think they do the best they can. As I said, I lodged a complaint about the MMCC3 servers and after some discussions I got them to do something about them...and you know what? They fixed them! I wasn't an asshole about it. I just pointed out I had recently purchased the game with the purpose of playing MMCC3 and was not pleased the servers were always down. They worked on the problem and now they are fine.

As a final note, don't take someone discussing something with you as a lecture. Above I did lecture you because of the smartassness of your reply.

Wanna try to get something positive done? Then cut the "wooooest me!" attitude and see what you can do. Matrix isn't some evil empire out to rob YOU of your money. I like to think they are doing their best and sometimes might come up short. But that's why they have a loyal customer base (like myself) that is willing to help support them and their products.

I think we can at least agree though that Matrix (or the dev for CC) needs to hire another programmer to look at some of the more egregious errors in CC (AI, pathfinding, etc) as they clearly are source code level bugs that should be looked at closely. But I'm not going to shit on them for their efforts.

Thanks Matrix for continuing to release games in this series. While they may have some flaws, at least you are releasing games we want to play.

[squatter]

To reiterate my main points:

1. The AI is intrinsically screwed in the Close Combat series - it needs a full re-write.
2. The game is only worth playing in multiplayer.
3. Last Stand at Arnhem, like Cross of Iron, like Wach Am Rhine, are modded versions of an old game, not a new game. I welcome these new versions, and I have bought all of them. But a price of nearly $60 to download this is far too much. It should be half the price.

I hear nothing to persuade me otherwise. In fact, even those giving me flak seem to basically agree with me (save the price).

Let's keep the discussion to these points, less of the 'hater' and 'rant' crap please.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: squatter

To reiterate my main points:

1. The AI is intrinsically screwed in the Close Combat series - it needs a full re-write.
2. The game is only worth playing in multiplayer.
3. Last Stand at Arnhem, like Cross of Iron, like Wach Am Rhine, are modded versions of an old game, not a new game. I welcome these new versions, and I have bought all of them. But a price of nearly $60 to download this is far too much. It should be half the price.

I hear nothing to persuade me otherwise. In fact, even those giving me flak seem to basically agree with me (save the price).

Let's keep the discussion to these points, less of the 'hater' and 'rant' crap please.

1. Disagree. I definitely think the AI needs to be improved but I don't think it is completely kaput.
2. Disagree. I still enjoy playing solo even though I usually always win. However, again I welcome any and all improvements to the AI. But I won't go as far to say that the game is worthless as a solo player game. Most games on the market that have good AI are either HEAVILY scripted (can't be done with CC) or else the AI MASSIVELY cheats (I can't stand a cheating AI).
3. Disagree. I wish I could get all the CC series in the 9.99 bargain bin but realistically I know Matrix's market is a relatively small niche and it probably isn't cheap to produce these games and market them AND make a healthy profit from them. So they are going to be a bit more expensive than something mass produced from EA for instance.

[Knavery]

Where's Judge when you need him? I get my ass handed to me in single player games and I've heard him say the same thing. I don't play much MP, so if the game AI is completely broken, it'd be a complete waste of money for me. But I really don't think it is, because I've played the CC games going back a good ten years, and still recieve a thrashing by the AI. And I'm not aware of having been lobotomized at any point during that time. So either I'm really frickin' stupid and the AI is in fact broken, or there are folks out there that are exaggerating a wee bit.

[Andrew Williams]

maybe a support group needs forming

1. judgeDredd
2. Knavery
3. ????

[JudgeDredd]

Right here and totally agree.

I wouldn't necessarily say you or I are completely crap...nor would I say that people exaggerate about how easy they find the game. I'm sure some people do. But I am most definitely not one of them.

I have not played the series (any of the ones I own) to any degree where I understand how to comprehensively beat the AI. If I win, I'm elated because it seems to seldom happen.

I find these games incredibly tough. Perhaps if I played them as long as others then I would be in the same boat and see how easy they are. Perhaps it's not game time which makes the difference - perhaps it's just being able to quickly analyse and store what you see.

Whichever it is, I'm not there yet. I find the AI very difficult to beat.

I have some issues with the game. At least on LoS/LoF issue and some pathing problems - but overall I'm happy with the game and find it a challenge. So much so that I just bought Wacht aAm Rhein also and I have declared (I'm putting it right out here in black and white) that I will be buying nothing more this year. I have a large collection of great games and I intend to get some gaming time from them.