AI help or command ?

[sullafelix]

This game has no options for the AI to help you or for you to command parts of forces like the old Battlefront or HPS games, correct? It is the same as playing a boardgame where you have to do everything maually? Thank you.

[e_barkmann]

There's a new hotkey, ctrl+O, which will automatically move your units to a selected target hex for close combat - used judiciously this can be of some help.

cheers

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: sulla05

This game has no options for the AI to help you or for you to command parts of forces like the old Battlefront or HPS games, correct? It is the same as playing a boardgame where you have to do everything maually? Thank you.

This isn't technically impossible, and indeed we do allow the AI to command some human player forces in Carriers at War, but I'm not sure that it's necessary in a game like Kharkov. There aren't that many units and I probably wouldn't want the AI assaulting units I wanted to hit with artillery or moving guys out of the way when I rather wanted them to stay where they were.

It's somewhat different in CAW, where it makes sense for you to delegate the less interesting and less critical elements, such as command of land based air, to the computer.

Gregor

[dakjck]

This is a shame.  I have been playing wargames since 1965 (Tactics II) and have always bemoaned the fact that your level of command was grossly inappropriate.  Lee did not order ever battalion into position at Gettysburg.  Lee ordered his Corps commanders who in turn ordered their division commanders, etc.  SSG used to recognize this back in the old days (Remember the C-64?).  The manuver units might have been battalions, but you issued objectives on a regimental level and relied upon the AI to execute your orders.  Sometimes this didn't work out the way you wanted it to.  But that is more realistic than ordering every rifle to move and fire.  You could begin to understand how some battles could turn out the way they did historically.  If only Rosecrans had had the ability to control every unit at Chickamauga, there would never have been a hole in his line for Longstreet to attack through. 
 
I bought every wargame SSG produced back then and played them almost exclusively.  When SSG announced the re-release of Battlefront, I was ecstatic, only to be dissappointed to see they abandoned what made their old games great.  Quite frankly, it simply gathers dust on my shelf.  I am afraid I will have to pass this one too.
 
 

[sullafelix]

I'm not trying to cause a revolt, or telling people not to buy. I'm just confused as to why after so many games that used the commander approach with infantile computers ( almost exclusively early on ), that that you have never tried to do another game like that. The AI in your games was and is one if not the best in the wargaming world. The original C-64 games put HPS commander games to shame.
 
I might also add that I have been confused over your lack of added scenarios after you release games now. I know that this has been brought up and I'm sorry for the dead horse thing. But we simply used to be awash in your output of scenarios after a game was released.

[Erik Rutins]

Kharkov will effectively be the start of a new successor series to Decisive Battles. The Kharkov campaign scenario itself has a lot of replay value thanks to all the area of operations variants and the variety of possible strategies (there's not just one way to win). Based on my experience, the AI is also quite good in Kharkov.

We realize there were some complaints with the documentation for Battlefront, particularly on the editing side, although we tried to address that with updated post-release documentation. However, we feel these issues do not exist for Kharkov, which is well documented. SSG is already at work on an Across the Dnepr sequel for the Kharkov system and more releases are being planned.

Regards,

- Erik

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
SSG is already at work on an Across the Dnepr sequel for the Kharkov system and more releases are being planned.

Fabulous!

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: sulla05

I'm not trying to cause a revolt, or telling people not to buy. I'm just confused as to why after so many games that used the commander approach with infantile computers ( almost exclusively early on ), that that you have never tried to do another game like that. The AI in your games was and is one if not the best in the wargaming world. The original C-64 games put HPS commander games to shame.

I might also add that I have been confused over your lack of added scenarios after you release games now. I know that this has been brought up and I'm sorry for the dead horse thing. But we simply used to be awash in your output of scenarios after a game was released.

One of the traditions that we faithfully observe on the release of a new game is the appearance of a post that bags the game, not for what it is, but because it isn't a completely different game.It's sometimes hard to know how to answer these charges, since the game after all, is what it is.

In this case there is an easy answer and the responsibility for the command scope in our later games lies directly with you, the people. It is entirely true that our earlier games were much stricter on command decisions, and the user didn't directly control every unit, but instead gave orders that were carried out by the AI. However, since reviewers and customers consistently preferred games which offered complete control, we changed our approach.

It wasn't just a commercial decision. I definitely prefer controlling all my units, and, if I can speak for him, I think Roger does too. Ian is simply confident that he can win regardless of the design philosophy.

In the end, I think it comes down to whether you are more concerned about process or outcomes. Kharkov definitely delivers the right outcomes. Your joy at the power of the initial Russian offensive is matched by your despair at the weakness of your southern defences. The Russians can reach Krasnograd, as they did historically, but struggle to actually capture it, again just as it happened.

We have made a major design change that does make your command decisions more realistic. The Areas of Operations constrain how a player can move and fight preventing unrealistic and ahistorical redeployments of major formations for arbitrary and tactical reasons. Check out the article on the SSG website if you want to know more. Importantly, though, this is an option. If people really want to move their men without any constraints then we're not going to stop them. Ultimately, its all about enjoyment, which is what I suspect that you would get from Kharkov if you gave it a go.

Gregor

[dakjck]

My comments were not to "bag the game."  I realize a lot of gamers want the very unrealistic experience of commanding every unit and having every unit go exactly where they want it to and perform exactly as they want.  That is what makes these nothing more than militarily themed games and not simulations becasue they do not simulate the level of command presented.  Every now and then, a game designer tries to produce a game more faithful to the level of command.  At one time it was SSG.  Now, I understand that you would prefer to produce commercially acceptable games and there is nothing wrong with that.  I wish you all the best and hope this game is very successful. 

[HercMighty]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

We realize there were some complaints with the documentation for Battlefront, particularly on the editing side, although we tried to address that with updated post-release documentation. However, we feel these issues do not exist for Kharkov, which is well documented.

Regards,

- Erik

How much of the manual is dedicated to AI programming? I do not play PBEM, my choice due to my own time and needs. One of the biggest complaints is SSG relied on the community to make scenarios, most of which look great but have no AI due to complexity and no documentation. So how much time and effort went into this part of the manual?

[sullafelix]

I wrote out a whole post of how I wasn't bashing the game and how my remarks might have been better in a "SSG games " posting thread instead on one on this game. Unfortunately the web page went away right before I was finished.
 
My points were that I just want to force you to make a game with the options I want I guess. I was not aware that reviewers and others had bashed your games for having the commander view, just what I long for again. I'm just not into taking control of every unit on a large map anymore. I do believe you would have a large amount of people who would buy a redone ( new graphics, windows etc. ) compilation of your Great Battles and Battlefront series. But it would probably be harder to do that than create a whole new game. But I can dream can't I.
 
I hope this game any any others you do are a great success.
 
I do want to say two things. first, I don't understand all the SSG bashing about  " I don't trust them anymore ". I have tons of games that I've bought that are headed for the landfill. If I buy a game and it turns out I don't like it , it is only my fault not the game companies. I am a big fan of SSG but not even I would buy your next game based on your name being on it. Thats what reviews and other peoples take on it are for.
 
As far as the " one scenario" beef, I've bought plenty of games that only did one battle or campaign. As I've posted before I believe we were spoiled by you with the vast amount of add on scenarios you used to make for your games. I do wish fervently that that the scenarios for the old CAW and Battlefront games could be reverse engineered to use in the new games.
 
So sorry you took my post the wrong way, the new game looks great but I don't think it's my cup of tea. I think that the unit amounts in Battlefront are as many as I want to personally handle nowadays.

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: sulla05

I wrote out a whole post of how I wasn't bashing the game and how my remarks might have been better in a "SSG games " posting thread instead on one on this game. Unfortunately the web page went away right before I was finished.

My points were that I just want to force you to make a game with the options I want I guess. I was not aware that reviewers and others had bashed your games for having the commander view, just what I long for again. I'm just not into taking control of every unit on a large map anymore. I do believe you would have a large amount of people who would buy a redone ( new graphics, windows etc. ) compilation of your Great Battles and Battlefront series. But it would probably be harder to do that than create a whole new game. But I can dream can't I.

I hope this game any any others you do are a great success.

I do want to say two things. first, I don't understand all the SSG bashing about " I don't trust them anymore ". I have tons of games that I've bought that are headed for the landfill. If I buy a game and it turns out I don't like it , it is only my fault not the game companies. I am a big fan of SSG but not even I would buy your next game based on your name being on it. Thats what reviews and other peoples take on it are for.

As far as the " one scenario" beef, I've bought plenty of games that only did one battle or campaign. As I've posted before I believe we were spoiled by you with the vast amount of add on scenarios you used to make for your games. I do wish fervently that that the scenarios for the old CAW and Battlefront games could be reverse engineered to use in the new games.

So sorry you took my post the wrong way, the new game looks great but I don't think it's my cup of tea. I think that the unit amounts in Battlefront are as many as I want to personally handle nowadays.

I didn't mean my reply to be taken as personal criticism of you or your question, I was just trying to put the question in context. Your question is a legitimate philosophical question for which there was a clear answer. The contrast would be criticism of CAW because it wasn't a campaign game, which is simply pointless (but which we got anyway).

As far as unit numbers go, I find that the Areas of Operations in Kharkov really make a big difference to your understanding of the battle. The effect of the AOs is to provide a plan for the battle within which you can work. So you know exactly which forces are available for which task and which ones aren't. You don't have to worry about the men from 1st Panzer Armee and 3rd Motorised Korps until at least turn 4 because they can't move until turn 5 (unless you get lucky with the Mystery Variants). The men from 29th Korps must defend Belgorod and the flanks of Liptsy and can't intervene further south. This makes it much cleared what you should do with them. I'm sure that if you tried Kharkov you'd like it.

With Kharkov, a lot of what we have worked on is under the hood, and therefore harder to sell. I can categorically state that if we had kept the old Battles in Normandy system then the Kharkov battle would never have been done. The AI for the old system only worked when there was a continuous front and forces moved pretty much along the same axis so the Kharkov battle, and lots of other fascinating situations would never have been done. Only the combination of the new AI and the Areas of Operations make Kharkov possible. You can't do scenarios unless you get the system right first.

Gregor