MORTAR HELP!!! Plus Target priorities

[Phoenix100]

Don't agree about the AI, Wodin - CM friendly AI is deplorable, truly, I think. You play wego and a squad gets attacked in that minute when you can't do anything and it can do zip to save itself. Basically it cowers until killed. I think APOS slightly better than that. But the friendly AI aspect is still neglected full stop, I thnk, across many games (only Command Ops excepted, and that's what I would call an 'operational' game) - as if they were all built with multiplayer in mind, which they're not. Seems to me the graphics don't matter so much as the AI and I wish always more money and development went into the AI.

I meant that they should develop the friendly AI for the tactical game, Dane, not the operational game. If they had the Command Ops AI for the tactical phase, that would be fantastic. Different things though. Just a dream.

[budd]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

One reason I can see for making more use of QB is that the Real Time format means you can't keep pace with everything that's going on in bigger battles.

This is the reason i keep my battle radius setting at limited, i don't want to miss anything. I still do, but not as much[;)]

[Phoenix100]

How do you mean, Budd? Is that an option I haven't discovered?

[budd]

[/quote]
I understand that wodin.I've played a few of the initial campaigns in the beginning and had a few 1 sided battles where I had no AT assets and spent 2 hours during a battle just trying to hide my units from roving enemy tanks
[/quote]

I defiantly have had this happen to me alot when i first played the campaigns. It's adds to the experience for me now, you for sure have to use your AT assets wisely.I like to counter attack, so i usually give ground in one area and try to counter attack in another if i have enough troops to form a reserve. I like the fact that when you replay ops the AI never seems to come at you the same way twice so i can try different things. when the counter attacks works it a beautiful thing, of course it's a disaster when it doesn't but its all in good fun. i'm on turn 8 of my current op, at turn 5 i had a minor victory, now i'm at a minor defeat with very little in the way of AT assets left. I get your drift about the night battles i generally like them, but last turn i had 5 different battles to fight at night. The krauts have me on the ropes and i think they know it[:'(]
nothing like some snow and fog at night and shooting up some flares to throw a little light on the enemy advance....now that is some atomosphere. I'm getting better at doing things on the op map, pulling battered troops back, using reserves and using my repair unit better. I think of it like a marathon now, where before i played it like it was a race. Well i see Krasnaya Polyana is on sale at GG, time to pick that up.

[budd]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

How do you mean, Budd? Is that an option I haven't discovered?

[Phoenix100]

Ah! Thanks. I'll try that!

[Phoenix100]

I suppose to be fair to CM I should say that it's some kind of indicator of something that in CM if you want to take the greatest care to keep all your guys alive then you can. You can move slowly, carefully, from cover, through cover, to cover (if available). It seems impossible to keep the troops alive in APOS, certainly in that kind of way, via precise positioning. It's a micromanaged feature of CM, which you just can't do in APOS. It's much more like you give them a general order (with some conditions possible) then off they go. If they're caught out I think they react much better than in CM, but they do get caught out more. When i think of the long hours playing CMSF, for example (not as good as CNFI, but still great, in its own way) and having to get objectives without, if possible a single casualty (and it was possible) - nothing like that is conceivable in APOS, surely? You just can't micromanage the troops position with the same finesse. But as their friendly AI develops this will be a good thing.

[budd]

i have trouble with exact positioning also, especially with guns. Getting your troops to move just a little one way or the other is a problem. Good use of waypoints and orders can get them there using your desired route, but certainly not in a finite way. Andre has said that there really not trying to use that level of micromanagement in this game. The AI does a pretty good job though. I just wish you could tow guns, my guys get tired pushing those guns to a new position, also would help them to survive when you have to bug out.

[Dane49]

I find a certain amount of micro management is still necessary in this game,as much as I'm against the idea.The AI for this game still isn't developed enough to properly mount an attack by just ordering the platoon to do it.I normally have to step in and fill that void were the AI fails in its tactical approach in how to properly and realistially accomplish this.If I order my platoon to attack I would expect 2 of the 3 squads to assault while 1 squad and the support weapons lay down suppressive fire with the platoon HQ following closely behind the assault elements.This doesn't happen!Instead the whole platoon rushes forward with the HQ generally taking the lead.

And as far as WEGO at the tactical level in a 3D environment-NEVER!Not for me not ever.RTS only.

Combat at the tactical level is not a chess match or a fencing duel.It's more of a knock down drag out bar fight.No sitting back and analyzing the situation from every perspective,in real life combat you need to think quickly and act even faster to triumph over your opponent on the battlefield.If you can't adapt quickly to the fluid nature of tactical combat on a modern battlefield than you quickly become a casualty.The Germans trained for understood and excelled in this tactical doctrine by giving their junior leaders the latitude to act on their own assessment and judgement of the situation and gave them the ability to alter previous orders if the tactical initiative presented itself.RTS captures this in a more realistic manner,it also captures the chaos of combat and the inability of the commander to influence every single action on the battlefield,I find this refreshing in a wargame where lack of absolute control enhances the uncertainty and chaos that is inherent in all firefights and to where only quick thinking and proper tactical action are the only true measure of success in this arena.

WEGO at the operational level-fine.At the tactical level-No way.

[Phoenix100]

Very eloquent , Dane. I wholeheartedly agree. Except fencing isn't like chess (though I realise it's often billed that way...). You train in fencing to get your movements ahead of your thinking (a certain kind of conscious thinking, anyway - the kind that chess absolutely requires). But point taken.....

I need to do more to properly manage attacks etc, I think. I'm still learning this game. But I guess I meant there is a world of diff what happenes if in APOS I, say, group select 2 tanks and 2 inf sections and simply give them an assault order, and what happens if I do the same in CM. In APOS they do actually form up, they do advance together (inf slowing to wait for tanks to get ahead, if, say you've requested tanks in front and the tanks happen to be heavy and slow) according to the formation set, etc. They don't form a good enough plan, of course. The AI doesn't get one tank to flank the target, or one section, whilst another provides suppression and the remainder proceed direct etc. But they do do something more than just move forward as they were...

[wodin]

Dane I disagree..completely..none of us are trained commanders and what a commander can assess on the fly we'd take alot longer to work out..and WEGO gives you that.

This debate has gone on loads and I could give you a massive list of why WEGO is more realistic just like you could why RTS is..at the end of the day it's about evens..they both have the plus and minus.

I hate RTS games..clickfest..awful..plus you miss alot of the action..which is apart of the fun. The only two that are great games are AP and CC2. The rest are mainstream the one who clicks the fastest wins..yawn.

WEGO gives me time to appraise and analyse..and as I said as I'm not a trained commander I need that sort of space to review.

Anyway I will say no more otherwise it will get into a heated argument that I'm not willing to go down. I'd take WEGO everytime over RTS even from a pure enjoyment viewpoint, plus replaying and watching what happened across the map is not unrealistic..what your doing is being the eyes of an AI that can't respond like a human player can..so you get to see everything thats happening and can respond appropriately, the day an AI is good enough to be left alone at one end of the battlefield why I'm looking at the other is the day you can say RTS is more realistic, this hasn't happened yet. In a post I read by someone, can't remember who they where bemoaning that they where missing out on stuff further across the map, well wego or a replay feature will fix that......I'm right for me, your right for yourself..

I'm an old school wargamer. I will say this I don't take to kindly when RTS players start throwing the unrealistic rubbish around..it's a wind up. When really both mechanics have their faults. As soon as you start mentioning realism your going to annoy others who enjoy a different way of playing. Just because it suits you doesn't mean another way of playing is a BIG NO NO. With AI the way it is RTS is as unrealistic as WEGO..simple.

Just enjoy the way you like playing and lay off on others who prefer a different mechanic. The realism debate is silly. I'm not sure how long Dane has been around wargaming forums, but nothing can cause a flame war better than the wego RTS realism debate thats raged on many forums...and never has a conclusion..thankfully CMx2 has both to suit both player types. I'd never openly moan to RTS players about a game being RTS and unrealistic and a big no no. I'd just say I prefer WEGO and would always choose that over RTS.

[Phoenix100]

Well, it needn't be heated, Wodin. It's only about a game, surely? But - just curious - what's the problem with the pause button in RTS? Does that not allow you to stop it whenever you want and think as long as you want? You miss out on the playback, of course, which is, for me, the truly excellent thing about wego - you can't see everything happening at the time, but at least you can work out afterwards what happened. But I've often wondered why this isn't incorporated into RTS. There is a camera button in APOS, I note, but I'm not sure what it's for.

I see your point about realism precisely though, Wodin. It's none of it realistic full stop. But if you assess which mode gives the info that the people on the ground who must command would have, then some kind of recording mode is essential to simulate that (as you can't be everywhere at once, but you are required to act the part not just of senior commander, but section leader too, for each section, and in reality they would have seen a lot more than you, so you need - for it to be realistic, some way of being given all the informartion all those leaders would have obtained from their ground level - certainly in CM the role you 'assume' is the role of each and every commander on the field, from highest to low. It's probably the same in APOS, though I've found myself able to play at, say, platoon leader level (1 command to 3 sections, say - let the AI do the rest) I'm quite sure Dane is right in saying everything would work better if I actually took on the role of every single commander on the field and micromanaged it.)

For any of these games to be a realistic simulation of what a higher level commander does (as Command Ops is at a diff level) then the friendly AI in particular would have to make the subordinate leaders capable of assessing info that they have (and you don't, because you aren't there, where they are) and forming plans as a consequence, good plans. But that doesn't happen anywhere except Command Ops. My dream game would be APOS with Command Ops AI (or CM with Command Ops AI - no diff there). So you give orders at platoon level, maybe, and then the AI develops attack plans using all the info and all the assets, designating a suppression section, a flanking section, whatever. Interestingly, i don't think my dream game is some kind of impossibility. It's just Command Ops at the tactical level with graphics. It's definitely do-able, I assume. It's just nobody is doing it, or they're doing different things in different companies etc.

Wish I was Bill Gates (well, no - wish I had his money) then I'd commission Panther to do it.

[Phoenix100]

Ah. Whilst I was typing all that you edited your message to already cover it all!!

Hope I didn't tread on your sensibilities. They are - I see from your post - somewhat higher than mine when talking about games. No offence intended.

[wodin]

I agree Command OPS at a lower level would be cool. Tigers Unleashed is far more realisitic in many areas than either APOS or CMx2, but only very few will actually enjoy it because of how realistic it is modelling FoW at the commander level..you no longer have a game as such but a lesson in fog of war and not knowing what the hell is happening anywhere until 5 mins or longer later...

I do have a game idea mulling around where your at a high commander level..where reports come in through runners and the radio that you analyse then send out the order, you have to work out where your doing well and who needs help purely by messengers and radio reports (when the lines aren't broken)..you then have a map that updates only with your current knowledge through these reports. Now the reports soemtimes will be short and brief..other times intense and full of panic..your constantly making decisions on when reports come in..some will just be sound reports..hearing intense fire at a certain point..other times you get no reports for a couple of hours..not knowing what the hell is happening..sending out runners etc..other times you'll have loads of reports coming through. Underneath the game the war is playing out with forces following their orders or getting held up and being wiped out..you have to decide when to reinforce..whether you should sop pushing on the left and concentrate on the right..etc etc..You can also go to a units HQ to get a fuller picture on whats going on..but while your gone your out of the command loop!! so though your presence gives the troops of D Coy a moral boost and you can assess their situ better and give orders that will also have a modifier boost because you can explain it better as your face to face, another part of the front could be in deep sh1t sending you runners etc demanding reinforcements or saying they are being pushed back..but you don't know this as your visiting a HQ..when you get back it could be to late!! Alot of the game would be text based..though as I said you will have a map that gets updated with your current knowledge..I think it would work well for a WW1 game..I imagine loads of text files for different situations so the game always throws up something new to respond to..each message would have say five different answers you can give..each answer will have some sort of effect on the battlefield..

[wodin]

Phoenix..I always edited my posts I'm a nightmare for it...the RTS\WEGO debate has raged on that much over the years that the mere hint of it drive me nuts...I just think there is no need to go into it as both sides have plus and minus..it's just silly and can get people worked up.

[Redmarkus5]

Funny, I was always an APOS fan boy and CM basher but while waiting for some new APOS campaigns to come along (I have played them all several times now) I updated CMBN to version 2.0 and I'm having fun with it. Both games have their strong points, although once some new APOS stuff comes along this is where I will be!

[Dane49]

I have CMBN-not updated though.I mainly play this game because APOS doesn't have Americans in it,plus I like the Panther tank and the cool camo schemes on the vehicles.I like RT only so my battles are usually really small,which is why I don't play CMBN often plus I'm not a big fan of the mechanics in the game and some other things I won't go into on this forum.I'll most likely purchase the model for the Ardennes when it comes out,but I don't have any interest in the Market Garden or East Front Models,especially at the prices they are asking for them.I like RTS so when I discovered APOS I became a true convert and its difficult to get back into the CM series.I'm hoping some other little company will come along and do the same thing to the Western front that APOS has done for the Eastern.

All in all,I find I get a lot more bang for the buck from the APOS series than I do from the CM series.Those guys who purchaed the $5 special from Strat First have know idea what a great deal they got,when compared to other games of this type.

[Redmarkus5]

East front model of CM? Do you mean CM1 or CM2???

[wodin]

CMx2 version 2 is superb..love it. Can't wait for the East front game.

I've been playing CMBN version 2 all day today and yesterday. Love it..the game\sim is a different beats altogether compare d to APOS..I'd say it's defiantly more difficult and you really have to think and think hard as every move counts..

I'm also really looking forward to CMSF 2.

[Redmarkus5]

I think they are both superb games. Different but superb. We are lucky to have such outstanding titles to entertain us and this time of European peace to play them in