AI

[Stwa]

Well, those are some very good points. I never thought of that. I agree with you about the attackers odds though. In many of my games against AI attackers, I will reduce the number of my teams, or give a tank to the AI, but modern combat being what it is, you can still create a choke point, and decimate the attacker, with a few machine guns, like in the example above.

BTW, hasn't someone done a mod where the tracers are turned off. I would like to try it again. Its like discovering the game all over again, because I haven't touched it since 2006.

And, to be fair to Vetmods, I just thought of a good use for them. A ZULU mod! This would be totally cool. South African terrain maps, British Victorian soldiers in red-coats, and of course, jillions of Zulu Vets!!...

[:)]

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

AFAIK attacking without a big advantage in numbers isn't something that is a good idea. The problem is that despite CC4-5 pretence to be a strategic game, you won't experience things like attacking one map with multiple units (on strategic map) and battles on tactical map will almost always be against units equal in size.

That's the point... force pool system always fills up the number of unit slots making it an equal match (not considering troop and equipment quality). In Bridge too Far, using the point system, it's more common that the attacker have more units than the defenders. In BTF, you can get away with crappy AI because campaign mechanics are good.

[dogancan]

The player can cheat by looking for tracers and muzzle flashes and reacting accordingly. AI can't do it because it doesn't see tracers and muzzle flashes.
Which is why they should be invisible until they are spotted by soldiers and then marked on map so that the AI and player in would know their position and could target them.

[&o]Exactly!!!

[Platoon_Michael]

I changed my GC to a 15 min timer,normally I use 30.

The AI left very good defensive positions to attack me with under 4 minutes to go.
Needless to say they were all killed.I'm playing as the Germans

Going back to 30 min. and see what happens.

On day 1 and on map 1 the AI shouldnt be leaving their foxholes to attack.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Stwa

Well, those are some very good points. I never thought of that. I agree with you about the attackers odds though. In many of my games against AI attackers, I will reduce the number of my teams, or give a tank to the AI, but modern combat being what it is, you can still create a choke point, and decimate the attacker, with a few machine guns, like in the example above.

Yeah, I remember reading about some WWII battles and defending troops with a good cover could give hell to attackers even if they were outnumbered.

ORIGINAL: Stwa

BTW, hasn't someone done a mod where the tracers are turned off. I would like to try it again. Its like discovering the game all over again, because I haven't touched it since 2006.

It would be some kind of solution. I'll try to find out how they got turned off. Though, it still doesn't change the situation of the attacking AI.

ORIGINAL: Stwa

And, to be fair to Vetmods, I just thought of a good use for them. A ZULU mod! This would be totally cool. South African terrain maps, British Victorian soldiers in red-coats, and of course, jillions of Zulu Vets!!...

[:)]

Or for a Civil War or WWI mod[:D].

ORIGINAL: jomni

That's the point... force pool system always fills up the number of unit slots making it an equal match (not considering troop and equipment quality). In Bridge too Far, using the point system, it's more common that the attacker have more units than the defenders. In BTF, you can get away with crappy AI because campaign mechanics are good.

Another reason why I stopped playing CC4-5 and moved to CCMT and Armored Brigade. Honestly, that whole "operational" campaign in CC5 thing is ridiculous. It doesn't show the titanic size of Operation Overlord, as the battles are fought by just two tiny units "equal" in size on a small map which is an epic fail in operational wargaming. Last time I saw something like that was when I played Desert Fox and Bismarck on C=64 *shivers*. Similarly it fails at putting the player in role of a single platoon/company commander during such a massive operation because of commanding the whole "operation" and jumping from unit to unit. It degrades the whole thing from decent simulationism with a bit of attraction and some limitations/inaccuracies to a worst, RTS-style gamey'ism.

[killroyishere]

Thanks for the info on the ai. I almost bought this one because I am always interested in Battle of the Bulge games. I guess I'll wait on that Panther game Battles from the Bugle? instead.

[Tejszd]

I agree that the AI, when it is on the defensive, should tend to stay put in its houses, trenches, etc.

By posting the feedback, the developers might be able to come up with something to make things better. In a lot of vetmods MG teams are coded as guns so they do not move while other teams are coded as vehicles so that they are more aggressive and attack with other vehicles. Unfortunately these code changes can/do cause some problems, example teams coded as vehicles can not go in houses.

One thing to remember guys with your feedback is that many of you are experienced players; the AI can give some new people a good fight. Don't want to push/scare people away like killroyishere above who might find the AI challenging at first and then could join others playing H2H when he gets bored with the AI....

[Stwa]

ORIGINAL: Platoon_Michael

I changed my GC to a 15 min timer,normally I use 30.

The AI left very good defensive positions to attack me with under 4 minutes to go.
Needless to say they were all killed.I'm playing as the Germans

Going back to 30 min. and see what happens.

On day 1 and on map 1 the AI shouldnt be leaving their foxholes to attack.

Hi Platoon_Michael,

This all may have more to do with the Charisma, Caution, Agression, and Tactics ratings for the Battlegroup in question. 21st Panzer division is just going to be more aggressive than a static infantry division.

I have played enough games (I think), were I have seen a wide variety of behavior accross maps and different units, etc.. This would make sense to me, because you wouldn't want any Battlegroup to behave exactly the same way every game.

Also, try a no-time-limit game with Force morale on if you like. After all the stated attackers/defenders can change during the course of the battle. Each side is trying to capture/re-capture the objectives, so the designated roles have more to do with deployment than any thing else. If the AI won't come out and fight (this is realistic to me), send out a patrol and find em, then move in and get em.

This is how I play, and I have a lot of fun with it.

[Stwa]

Regarding you comments about the Strat layer and CC4/CC5.

I have always been able to bridge the abstraction. So I like the strat maps in CC5.

But for my CC5 mods, I did not set up a strat layer. Its too hard and labor intensive to make. Plus I am growing more fond of single battles, etc..

Maybe you know this already, but its easy to hide the strat layer from your CC5 game. Just go the OPS and CAMPAIGN folder of your game and delete the files that are there or move them to a safe place if you want them later. Then restart your game, and voila, just the single battles will appear. You can still edit these (and I do a lot!), to make custom versions.

I did this for my CC4 on CC5 mod, and also for my Juno Beach (aka No Monty) mod, which uses GJS maps and pits the Americans against the Germans.

[Stwa]

The great AI equalizer: TANKS

I had forgotten how brutal the old Bulge maps could be. So, if you keep crushing the AI, load him up with tanks.

Peiper makes a run through Stoumont. Bet he wished the road signs had been switched!

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Stwa

Regarding you comments about the Strat layer and CC4/CC5.

I have always been able to bridge the abstraction. So I like the strat maps in CC5.

Personally, I prefer dedicated operational wargames - ones with dice rolls and combat resolution tables.
Same with tactical wargames.

One more thing that I dislike about CC4/CC5 that instead of improving the tactical gameplay and providing a bugless, well designed evolved tactical wargame with new features in tactical layer, Atomic Games simply added a very imperfect strategic game to CC.
There's so many things wrong with CC, mainly with info that is given to player, like lack of heigh map, special effects like tracers not being tied to game mechanics, bodies of unspotted soldiers magically appearing out of nowhere and betraying positions of units, and many other things, not to mention the infamous CC5 pathfinding. It looks like they didn't have any ideas how to improve the tactical combat, so they simply added another layer.

ORIGINAL: Stwa

But for my CC5 mods, I did not set up a strat layer. Its too hard and labor intensive to make. Plus I am growing more fond of single battles, etc..

I worked on a CC4 mod a few years ago. I gave up because of the amount of work the strategic layers and force pools required.

ORIGINAL: Stwa

Then restart your game, and voila, just the single battles will appear. You can still edit these (and I do a lot!), to make custom versions.

I prefer the engagement editor in CCMT.

[Korzun]

Without going too much into detail. I have played CC4, CC5, CoI and now WaR. Meanwhile I have had lots of battles in games like Sudden Strike, Blitzkrieg, Soldiers, Korsun Pocket, BiI, BiN, Highway to the Reich, World at War, Flashpoint Germany and others. All grognards would agree when I say that no AI can match a (skilled) human opponent. But the AI of WaR is one of the best I have encountered so far.