Game plays itself - no need for player-input?!

[roderh]

Hi guys,

as a newbie (and, I would say, even to wargaming in general) after having carefully watched the very instructive tutorial-videos I played the tutorial and managed in my first play-through a decisive victory. Naturally I asked myself: I'm I Patton's reincarnation?
Then I had an idea: let's play the game itself with minimal player-input and watch, what the praised AI will do. So my "plan" was just issuing attack orders asap: the on-map 3 Bn to capture Lommersweiler, first 2 Reinforcements to capture St.Vith, last reinforcement to St. Vith and securing other objectives. Thats all. I watched. Result: decisive victory (for allies). "So what?", I asked myself (as I learned in the videos). Is this a "factor" in playing the game in the future or is it just interesting? Is it better to play "Modern Warfare 4" for tactical planning and actually playing a game?

I would think, in more balanced non-tutorial-scenarios it wont be that easy. Nevertheless, it somehow seems to me, that "Command Ops" is more of a simulation than a game, because the game can play itself quite nicely with minimal "planing" and input by the player (that should be me, not the AI).

What do you think? Please prove me wrong, because I would really love to play this game!

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: roderh

Hi guys,

as a newbie (and, I would say, even to wargaming in general) after having carefully watched the very instructive tutorial-videos I played the tutorial and managed in my first play-through a decisive victory. Naturally I asked myself: I'm I Patton's reincarnation?
Then I had an idea: let's play the game itself with minimal player-input and watch, what the praised AI will do. So my "plan" was just issuing attack orders asap: the on-map 3 Bn to capture Lommersweiler, first 2 Reinforcements to capture St.Vith, last reinforcement to St. Vith and securing other objectives. Thats all. I watched. Result: decisive victory (for allies). "So what?", I asked myself (as I learned in the videos). Is this a "factor" in playing the game in the future or is it just interesting? Is it better to play "Modern Warfare 4" for tactical planning and actually playing a game?

I would think, in more balanced non-tutorial-scenarios it wont be that easy. Nevertheless, it somehow seems to me, that "Command Ops" is more of a simulation than a game, because the game can play itself quite nicely with minimal "planing" and input by the player (that should be me, not the AI).

What do you think? Please prove me wrong, because I would really love to play this game!

The tutorial is imaginary and designed to illustrate the effects of exercising the game mechanics in an orderly manner rather than to be a combat challenge for the player taking the side recommended by the tutorial script.

If it's easy for the Allied side to get a victory with minimum orders, I'd suggest playing the Axis side and seeing how you fare from that perspective. You already know you're playing against a pretty effective Allied if minimum orders achieve a decisive victory. See if you can improve on the Axis AI's reaction by leading those forces effectively enough to defeat the the already well organized allies.

[roderh]

It is quite clear to me, that this tutorial is not meant as a real challenge. Although, I read some AARs about St.Vith, and I thought, it would be not that easy. I am sure, it will be much more difficult when playing with the Germans.

My biggest problem at the moment is, that I got the impression, there is not much for me to do and the AI plays against itself just fine.

Best Regards!

[budd]

What order delay are you playing with? I didn't get a decisive victory my first play through using realistic orders delay. I took too long to secure St Vith. Unfortunately this is a common opinion, a victim of a great friendly AI. I'd get some which scenario to play advice from one of the regulars around here who have played a lot of them and try one of the longer ones also there is more to juggle.This isn't a heavy micromanagement game, i give orders at Battalion and fine tune from there.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: roderh

It is quite clear to me, that this tutorial is not meant as a real challenge. Although, I read some AARs about St.Vith, and I thought, it would be not that easy. I am sure, it will be much more difficult when playing with the Germans.

My biggest problem at the moment is, that I got the impression, there is not much for me to do and the AI plays against itself just fine.

Best Regards!

A part of the pre-release play testing for scenario packs uses AI vs AI to watch for anomalies causing game crashes during play. There is a component that also evaluates play balance, meaning repeated AI vs AI contests using standard settings should tend toward an even distribution of victory results for either side.

[BletchleyGeek]

roderh,

Command Ops is the only game I am aware of where is up to the player to decide his (her) level of involvement. It is a simulation, and a quite realistic one in some aspects, where the "gameplay" structure is up to the player to decide. Check out the several excellent Dazkaz's AARs for a more 'hands on' approach to the game. You can indeed go and pretty much give orders to every unit on the map (as you would do in a John Tiller game, but without having to drag counters manually). If you tell me that the AI is doing a better job than a new player, it means that we're doing our job correctly.

Regarding the tutorial play balance. I do agree that the tutorial, with the default reinforcement settings, is very easy for the US. This was intended as it is. It is so to avoid frustrating newcomers. If you want a harder game as the US, select the Favour Axis options for reinforcements and supply. Or play as the Germans with the default settings, for a quite intense experience, where you'll see that a hands-off approach doesn't guarantee victory.

Cheers,

Miquel.

[gabeeg]

roderh,

If you do some searching around on this forum you will see plenty of new players expressing similar feelings to yours...including one from me. At first the game felt like I was watching a game instead of playing it. For me it was after playing a handful of scenarios (alternating axix and allied side) that it began to click and my enjoyment of "playing" the game increased dramatically. This game and the Decisive Campaign series are the only operational games I play regularly and this game especially is one of my all time favorites no matter the type or genre (and I am a tactical game guy). Give it some time, play some scenarios, read the manual...it will pay off.

Right now I am playing a user created scenario based on the battle for Saipan (yep..the pacific) by jimcarravallah....this is a scenario that will definitely show that just issuing just the very minimum orders does not mean a victory.

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: roderh

Hi guys,

as a newbie (and, I would say, even to wargaming in general) after having carefully watched the very instructive tutorial-videos I played the tutorial and managed in my first play-through a decisive victory. Naturally I asked myself: I'm I Patton's reincarnation?
Then I had an idea: let's play the game itself with minimal player-input and watch, what the praised AI will do. So my "plan" was just issuing attack orders asap: the on-map 3 Bn to capture Lommersweiler, first 2 Reinforcements to capture St.Vith, last reinforcement to St. Vith and securing other objectives. Thats all. I watched. Result: decisive victory (for allies). "So what?", I asked myself (as I learned in the videos). Is this a "factor" in playing the game in the future or is it just interesting? Is it better to play "Modern Warfare 4" for tactical planning and actually playing a game?

I would think, in more balanced non-tutorial-scenarios it wont be that easy. Nevertheless, it somehow seems to me, that "Command Ops" is more of a simulation than a game, because the game can play itself quite nicely with minimal "planing" and input by the player (that should be me, not the AI).

What do you think? Please prove me wrong, because I would really love to play this game!

The goal I often set myself when playing a game is not just to win, but to win with the least casualties possible.
When I finish a game I save the end results as a benchmark for my next play through, to compare how I did in achieving this goal.

I think this comes down to my perception of what it is to be a good General.
I like to be as involved as possible, and very rarely leave it to my subordinate officers to conduct a vital attack. Some of which lack the tactical skills to preserve the lives of my digital troops.

They still have their uses of course.
Ill have them conduct non essential moves, and defence in rear areas.
I may even allow a Bn commander to conduct an attack on occasion...under close supervision of course [:D]

[dazkaz15]

Here is a challenge for you.

This is from my last play through about a week ago.
I got inspired by someone saying that it was a lot harder since the Axis Tank crews learnt to shoot accurately.

It was harder than the last time I played.
The big cats are a real challenge now, as they should be.

[Jethro420]

The purpose of a tutorial is to teach, yes?

Not to challenge.

Play a proper scenario and see what you have. It's quite remarkable, really.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: Jethro420

The purpose of a tutorial is to teach, yes?

Not to challenge.

Play a proper scenario and see what you have. It's quite remarkable, really.

Amen! [;)]

[dazkaz15]

This was a lot more fun.

I just played it through with Reinforcements: Favour Axis, for both human, and computer opponent.
I have never played it on this setting before, I usually just go for the default, Standard, or historical depending on the scenario, so wasn't sure what to expect.

My first surprise was making it over Steinebruk Bridge, in a timely manor then pushing hard towards St Vith, only to find the way blocked by an enemy Bn just past Breitfeld Crossroads.

My next surprise was when I started looking for CCR 4 Arm Div, on the morning of Day 3.
Imagine my surprise when looking at the reinforcement schedule to find that a whole Combat Command group, couldn't make it to the battle in time!

I never had enough forces to keep the supply route to St Vith clear, and by the night of day 4 the defenders were in a desperate state.

It was only the actions of the brave, 35 Tank Bn, occupying a rise to the south of St Vith, and sustaining massive casualties as they did so that saved the day.
By pinning down the bulk of KG Peiper as they attacked St Vith across the open ground to the west, they prevented the town from falling.

It was a fun little scenario on these settings.

[rfrizz]

ORIGINAL: roderh

Hi guys,

as a newbie (and, I would say, even to wargaming in general) after having carefully watched the very instructive tutorial-videos I played the tutorial and managed in my first play-through a decisive victory. Naturally I asked myself: I'm I Patton's reincarnation?
Then I had an idea: let's play the game itself with minimal player-input and watch, what the praised AI will do. So my "plan" was just issuing attack orders asap: the on-map 3 Bn to capture Lommersweiler, first 2 Reinforcements to capture St.Vith, last reinforcement to St. Vith and securing other objectives. Thats all. I watched. Result: decisive victory (for allies). "So what?", I asked myself (as I learned in the videos). Is this a "factor" in playing the game in the future or is it just interesting? Is it better to play "Modern Warfare 4" for tactical planning and actually playing a game?

I would think, in more balanced non-tutorial-scenarios it wont be that easy. Nevertheless, it somehow seems to me, that "Command Ops" is more of a simulation than a game, because the game can play itself quite nicely with minimal "planing" and input by the player (that should be me, not the AI).

What do you think? Please prove me wrong, because I would really love to play this game!

One thing to keep in mind is that all "serious" wargames are simulations in the sense that they model war. Think of the famous Avalon Hill boardgame Blitzkrieg. Games like it have been (and still are) used in military profession education.

I think BftB is also being used by some armed forces.



By the way... if you enjoyed the original Blitzkrieg, Norm Koger's The Operational Art of War comes with a scenario that is supposed to play very much like the boardgame, but with AI opponents.

[roderh]

Thanks for answering!
Your input helped me quite a lot; especially to realize, that my impression is somehow a common problem among the newbies (thanks gabeeg!).
Of course I have to play more of this fine piece of software. I will try St.Vith with "Favour Axis" options for reinforcements and supply and as Axis (on the other hand,I somehow do not want to play as SS, esp. Peiper - warcrimes, you know and a really bad leader imho).
Nice community!

@**budd**: I played with the recommend settings, i.e. realistic orders delay.

@dazkaz15: Well, I would think your victory (0:100) was not that bad at all (aren't 274 Allies-KIA a bit too much?). It seems there is a long way ahead for me in order to get that kind of profession. Your house-rules are an interesting approach. This "Elsenborn Ridge AAR" looks very interesting, too. I wonder, if I will make it with my no-planing-and-attack-asap (= NPAAASAP) (TM) approach.

@rfrizz: I have to admit, I had to google, what this "famous Avalon Hill boardgame Blitzkrieg" is. Really, I meant it, I am a newbie to wargames (at the moment I play "Shadow Warrior" (2013) (for a more tactical challenge than COBftB, you know) - thats the guy I am.

Take care of you (and your troops)!

[dazkaz15]

Thanks roderh.

What ever play style you adopt, and I know there are quite a few different approaches out there, I hope you find one that gives you the kind of involvement, and immersion you are looking for.

As to just issuing arrack orders to win the game, knowing where, and when to do so in the larger scenarios could well carry the battle in your favour, especially playing as the Allies, that usually carry the advantage in terms of manpower, and equipment.
It would still require quite a bit of tactical skill to know where, and when to do so however.
Who knows you may well have these skills instinctively, and that is what is making your life easier.
Using this approach with the numerous Bn's involved, in the large scenarios, could well give you enough of a hands on experience to get more enjoyment from it.

There are numerous ways to ramp up the difficulty level of the game, so it might be a good idea to start using the options to favour your chosen enemy, as you mentioned above.

Good luck mate, hope you find what your looking for [:)]

[Phoenix100]

I just had a shot at the scenario, inspired by Roderh's post! Like most beginners I get very frustrated if I can't win, so I thought this might be the one for me!. I too was able to get a Dec Vic on this (so it really must be easy!!) just by giving a handful of orders. I thought I had seen many posts saying that this scenario was harder since the AI was changed over the years of updates - but I guess that's if you try to follow the tutorial, which I didn't. It was, I thought, glorious to watch the AI do its stuff. I mainly gave defend orders to about 4 groups (4 objectives, so....)always with attack ticked, and it was lovely to watch the AI do it all, putting in attacks along the routes to objectives where necessary. Great stuff. I took about 500 casualties, which was certainly good enough! I did have to select units for each objective, give the right kind of order, make a variety of tactical decisions etc, so it wasn't just a case of the AI doing everything, but I agree with everyone that this is a tutorial, when played from the allied side (and well designed for that)definitely, because this game isn't usually so easy.

I think I'll try it from the Axis side with similar tactics and see what happens. But if you can get over your distaste at commanding notorious Nazis, roderh (I share it) then Manhay (you get elements of Das Reich, 'fresh' from their notorious exploits in France....) is a scenario which is a similar size but will give you an idea of how difficult the game can be, and how well a well-set-up scenario can imitate historical reality. On all normal settings that's pretty challenging as Axis.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

As discussed on another thread I still think it would be a big plus to have a game option that limits that size of the orders group you can use.

Having an option to set the game so you cannot issue orders in one click to more than a battalion +, less than a brigade or regiment anyway, would add a lot to the immersion of Command Ops.

Great game/system, up there as one of the two or three best since wargames went digital. But I do find I sometimes sit back and admire the game more than get immersed.

All the best,
Kip.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: kipanderson

Hi,

As discussed on another thread I still think it would be a big plus to have a game option that limits that size of the orders group you can use.

Having an option to set the game so you cannot issue orders in one click to more than a battalion +, less than a brigade or regiment anyway, would add a lot to the immersion of Command Ops.

Great game/system, up there as one of the two or three best since wargames went digital. But I do find I sometimes sit back and admire the game more than get immersed.

All the best,
Kip.

Limits on what units can be commanded is artificial.

Many life actions include a commanding echelon with cross attached specialty support units to address the mission. For example, an infantry battalion ordered to defend with an anti tank platoon attached has a better cance to deter an armor attack than simply emplacing a bare infantry battalion behind defenses without sufficient specialized firepower to address that attack.

If the game constrains a commander from attaching that anti-tank platoon, it truncates the reality operational commanders address in field operations.

[kipanderson]

Jim, hi,


Absolutely.. would not argue with the above.

That is why I say “battalion + but less than a brigade or regiment...” should be the limit. Battalions should certainly be allowed to attach a lot of units.

In all wargames and simulations you play a number of roles. I am after a lower limit on the seniority of the top role. As an option if people wish.

All the best,
Kip.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: kipanderson

Jim, hi,


Absolutely.. would not argue with the above.

That is why I say “battalion + but less than a brigade or regiment...” should be the limit. Battalions should certainly be allowed to attach a lot of units.

In all wargames and simulations you play a number of roles. I am after a lower limit on the seniority of the top role. As an option if people wish.

All the best,
Kip.

The player is free to exercise direct command at whatever echelon he / she determines appropriate.

Under some circumstances (say ordering a unit to stand down and defend in place following intensive smaller unit operations operations to recover from fatigue, and poor cohesion) where it is appropriate to order at a brigade of higher level.

There are others (seizing a bridge or securing an objective) where an order to battalion or lower is sufficient.

If a player chooses to operate with battalions and attached unit task groups, that's his prerogative.

The largest issue that person faces is assembling task groups.