I purchased the game now. I hope I will not regret it.

[Talon_XBMCX]

This has been the first war game in a long time where the AI has completely surprised me and punished me for bad decisions. In the demo scenario I got a little ambitious and removed my rear guard. The AI proceeded to wreak havoc on my supply lines and caused me to lose control of several objectives. Fortunately I was able to regain control before the scenario ended. That taught me a very important lesson ... don't take the AI for granted. With the included editors, I will be playing this game for years to come and look forward to whatever player and developer expansions come along.

As for regretting your purchase, I can understand that. I was one of those that purchased WitP before WitP AE came out becuase the requirements were that you would need the original title in order to play the new version. Several months after my purchase, that requirement changed and WitP AE was going to be a stand alone game. Was I disappointed ... slightly. Only because I felt I wasn't going to get the investment out of playing the original. However, the amount of time I have spent with AE makes the entire purchase of both games combined only pennies/hr and I see no end in sight with that title. You could say that the original purchase was a waste of money. I consider it an investment in Matrix and the developers they publish ... others may think differently.

I applaud Matrix for keeping threads like this open. It's just a shame that a few individuals feel the need to attack those who support the game ... that somehow it makes them fanboys. I've not purchased any of the previous titles because I was waiting for this one to release. I've not been disappointed. I've already gotten the value for my purchase. Your mileage may vary ... but hopefully we can continue the discussion while maintaining respect for one another.

[Templer_12]

I usually prefer TBS games.
For me RTS games useally includes less depth and sophistication.

Command Ops Battles from the Bulge, and perhaps Conquest of the Aegean are an exception.

@ Bairdlander
As far as I can judge it now: Command Ops Battles from the Bulge in fact an excellent game.
I agree with you.

However WitP AE is still my all time favorite!
But I understand, this is all a question of taste.

You write you prefer BftB, mostly because of the tutorials you have a better understanding of the game.

Word for word, I agree with you on this!

But:

@ Adam Parker

I. Command Ops Battles from the Bulge tutorial
I followed the video 1 for the tutorial and saved as ordered my game at the end of.
Then, out of curiosity I proceed as follows:
After the capture of Steinebruck I left two companies for defense there.
With all the rest of my army I moved to Lommersweiler.
Here it comes: I used the "Move" command, not the "Attack" command!

After taking Lommersweiler I left there two companies for defense again.
With the rest of my army I moved to Breitfeld Cross Road.
Again, I do not used "Attack" command, an ordinary "Move" command was issued.

During the fight for Breitfeld Cross Road I ordered two companies to defense and while the battle was going on I ordered the remaining forces from Breitfeld Cross Road to St. Vith by a "Move" command.

All reinforcement I ordered them just after release and the "Move" command, not by "Attack" command, direct to St. Vith.

Adam Parker you wanna now?

End result of the scenario: Minor Victory! [&:]

How can that happen, win a scenario with such simple tactical commands (these are no tactics at all!)? [&:]

II. Scenario: Stuck in the Teeth
I have issued a total of two orders in the scenario:
1. First I ordered all the armed forces with a 'Move' command (no "Attack" command!) by the shortest route to the western exit to Hoffalize.
2. Reinforcement immediately after the publication were ordered by "Move" command (no "attack" command!) by the shortest route to the western exit to Hoffalize.

Result at the end of the scenario: Draw!
Well, I can live with such a draw. [8|]

@ Wodin
I have read your post in the Conquest of the Aegean forum.
I described my difficulties to Conquest of the Aegean.
I can not understand why, if one command like an idiot, can be successful.
If so, then why should I sit for hours in front of the game and come up with more sophisticated tactics?

@ Frank.Costanzo
I'm not disappointed in the moment of Command Ops Battles from the Bulge.
Quite the reverse.
However distraught about the fact that you also may have success with stupid decisions. [:(]


Please note:
To clarify: I don´t want to attack, Matrix Games or Panther Games or those who support the game! [:-]
If you think so, I was misunderstood.

I don’t want to make Command Ops Battles from the Bulge bad a bad game!
Command Ops Battles from the Bulge is (or could be, or should be) an outstanding (and expensive) masterpiece of software.

I prefer Command Ops Battles from the Bulge because I like the scenario and because I prefer the extended features very much.
The level of detail in the game is improved and remarkable.
Also, I am particularly pleased with the implementation of the historic black & white pictures in the E & S table. I know it is only a "gimmick" but I love such things.
I need something like that. For me, it helps to immerse yourself in the scenery!

The comprehensive and informative tutorial videos, I am much more instructive and agreeable than the tutorial in text form.
I find (hypothetical) opportunities in the videos which I weren’t aware before.
Considerations of which I knew nothing before.

I think the idea of the gameplay, and the system is unique and awesome!
But I really hope Matrix Games and/or Panther Games find a solution for the "General Forset Gump Feature" (collect everything and throw all in)!

Something like that should not happen in a strategy or tactic game.
Especially not in an high quality game like Command Ops Battles from the Bulge or even Conquest of the Aegean.

I am sure you all agree with this.

At that rushing all tactics itself, Command & Conquer was even more demanding!

Thanks for your answers, information and your assistance.

Huh, I hope I found the right words now.

[Pergite!]

How many, and how detailed orders do you think that General Manteuffel gave to his subordinates when it regarded crossing the Our?
There is a reason why its advisable to adhere to the "KISS"-principle when it comes to military planning. [;)]

Anyway...

There is an abundance of recorded cases where armies where able to be victorious despite incompetent leadership and utterly stupid decisions. If you want realism and reasonable blue-force AI then situations that you described above might just happen.

If you attack in a 3:1 force ratio you will probably defeat your opponent, its attrition warfare and requires very little finesse. Its a battle of logistics and resources. That is indeed a viable but blunt way to play this game and still win. If you however use a little more effort, the same victory will come at a much lower price of men and machinery.

To summarize, all I want to say is that  the more effort you put into the game, the more reward you are going to get out of it, just like life in general.  

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: Templer

End result of the scenario: Minor Victory! [&:]

Yikes! Out of curiousity, (talking about the Tutorial Scenario here) where did the SS counter-attack turn up on the map?

[Arjuna]

Templar,

Welcome.

Sorry I haven't had internet access for days as I'm travelling. Can I suggest you review the tutorials as these do go into some length on how best to play BFTB. I have to go now, but I'll get back to you once I'm back in Australia.

[wodin]

Templer,

Sorry for sounding alittle rude...not ment.

I really do suggest watching the tutorials as Arjuna says...however I still feel the game system hasn't clicked with you yet...and I feel that you will probably selling the game on to be honest.....I do hope I'm wrong though...also read the manual from begining to end...and I say agin watch the tutorials...something is going wrong in how you play if you only got a minor victory playing St Vith...

[jomni]

Well like any other game you can win without thinking if the scenario is not balanced and you pick the advantaged side.

[wodin]

You really do need to read the scenario briefings to get the most out of BftB....some scenarios are unbalanced and it usually states best played by a certain side...another thing I do..if I win no problems with the Germans I then have a go with the Allies....and it's usually a tougher proposistion. You can also mess around with the reinforcement options...

ALL wargames live and die by scenario design...doesn't matter how great a game system you have it will seem absolute rubbish and no fun with a bad scenario...CMSF is an example...I've played two scenarios which where terrible and if thats all the game had to offer I'd never go back...however thats not the norm and I've played other scenarios that have given me some of my greatest PC wargaming moments..

[Foolio]

I only have CotA, but I think my point is still relevent...and this isn't attack at anyone, just my opinion.
 
For me, the point of this game is not just about getting a win at any cost. It's actually about playing the scenarios over and over just to see how the battle can be waged. Using different approaches and tactics to see how the battle can be won. Playing it from both sides.
 
All games have weaknesses, problems, glitches which can allow you to "win" if you choose to use them. But if you approach the game in the right way the enjoyment is about the little things like holding off an attack with a threadbear army, a successful flanking maneouver or racing to a bridge before it is blown.
 
If the only interest is the result or trying to break the game to get an easy win, then I'd be surprised if anyone enjoyed the game. What I'm trying to say is:
 
Enjoy the journey, because the destination is more than often crap.
 
If I'm not paraphrasing some famous philosopher there, then I'm claiming that quote for myself. It's going on my headstone.

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: Foolio
If I'm not paraphrasing some famous philosopher there, then I'm claiming that quote for myself. It's going on my headstone.

We had a famous poet called Karin Boye that put it something in your terms.

I rörelse

Den mätta dagen, den är aldrig störst.
Den bästa dagen är en dag av törst.

Nog finns det mål och mening i vår färd -
men det är vägen, som är mödan värd.

Det bästa målet är en nattlång rast,
där elden tänds och brödet bryts i hast.

På ställen, där man sover blott en gång,
blir sömnen trygg och drömmen full av sång.

Bryt upp, bryt upp! Den nya dagen gryr.
Oändligt är vårt stora äventyr.

[;)]

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Foolio

I only have CotA, but I think my point is still relevent...and this isn't attack at anyone, just my opinion.

For me, the point of this game is not just about getting a win at any cost. It's actually about playing the scenarios over and over just to see how the battle can be waged. Using different approaches and tactics to see how the battle can be won. Playing it from both sides.

All games have weaknesses, problems, glitches which can allow you to "win" if you choose to use them. But if you approach the game in the right way the enjoyment is about the little things like holding off an attack with a threadbear army, a successful flanking maneouver or racing to a bridge before it is blown.

If the only interest is the result or trying to break the game to get an easy win, then I'd be surprised if anyone enjoyed the game. What I'm trying to say is:

Enjoy the journey, because the destination is more than often crap.

If I'm not paraphrasing some famous philosopher there, then I'm claiming that quote for myself. It's going on my headstone.

I fully concour and couldn't have said it better myself.

Thats exactly how I see the game...and how I play it aswell....I imagine due to the great AI in this game it would be hard to make belenced scenarios...as each time you play something different happens...so I play it as I would play the battle..I see it as if I'm reading a book on the scenario and imagining what they would do next and trying it out...thats why I fancy duing a Nordwind scenario as I have a great book on that operation...and I think I fair few of the divisions used are already in the game...

[Foolio]

ORIGINAL: Pergite!

ORIGINAL: Foolio
If I'm not paraphrasing some famous philosopher there, then I'm claiming that quote for myself. It's going on my headstone.

We had a famous poet called Karin Boye that put it something in your terms.

I rörelse

Den mätta dagen, den är aldrig störst.
Den bästa dagen är en dag av törst.

Nog finns det mål och mening i vår färd -
men det är vägen, som är mödan värd.

Det bästa målet är en nattlång rast,
där elden tänds och brödet bryts i hast.

På ställen, där man sover blott en gång,
blir sömnen trygg och drömmen full av sång.

Bryt upp, bryt upp! Den nya dagen gryr.
Oändligt är vårt stora äventyr.

[;)]

Well..who am I to arguewith that?

[&o]

[Duck Doc]

Interesting thread. I have only tested COTA some & am not an expert & I am not yet playing BftB. Let me suggest a new way of looking at BftB & the game engine. I suspect if you did away with the victory conditions or hid them from the player there would be a lot of people who would still enjoy playing. In this way it is more a battle simulator than a game. As a matter of fact it is a simulator clothed in a game.

I have always been underwhelmed by the victory conditions of any real time engine compared to the juicy victory points you get in a turn-based game & I don't know why it is. But as any buddhist worth his prayer beads will tell you the journey is worth way more than the destination. This engine comes as close as I know of anything available that allows you to simulate real command. For me that is most of the fun. The outcome is almost irrelevant. Besides if you work hard enough & are smart enough (this excludes me) you can overcome any ai on the planet.

Jump in the river, Grasshopper.

Can you imagine how great it would be playing BftB against a human opponent. Wow!

[PirateJock]

In line with the style of this thread ... "If you do not expect the unexpected, you will not find it; for it is hard to be sought out, and difficult" Heraclitus (c.535 BC - 475 BC)

It'd be interesting to see how the AI reacts to a hell-for-leather dash for exits within the constraints of initial historical deployment and movement limitations. Just have to figure out how to see everything both sides are doing. Any ideas?

Would a human opponent have more or less information than the AI or is the crux about how he/it reacts to available data .... OODA territory I think. How do you program in reaction to the 'surely nobody would be that stupid' observation. Which brings me back to the original quote [;)]

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: Dale H

Interesting thread. I have only tested COTA some & am not an expert & I am not yet playing BftB. Let me suggest a new way of looking at BftB & the game engine. I suspect if you did away with the victory conditions or hid them from the player there would be a lot of people who would still enjoy playing. In this way it is more a battle simulator than a game. As a matter of fact it is a simulator clothed in a game.

I have always been underwhelmed by the victory conditions of any real time engine compared to the juicy victory points you get in a turn-based game & I don't know why it is. But as any buddhist worth his prayer beads will tell you the journey is worth way more than the destination. This engine comes as close as I know of anything available that allows you to simulate real command. For me that is most of the fun. The outcome is almost irrelevant. Besides if you work hard enough & are smart enough (this excludes me) you can overcome any ai on the planet.

Jump in the river, Grasshopper.

Can you imagine how great it would be playing BftB against a human opponent. Wow!

One thing that's missing from this "simulaiton" is Friendly Fog of War (unless it's implemented and I'm not aware of it).
In a real war you are also not aware of the exact status and location of your troops.
You will have to wait for their sitrep.
This is somewhat simulated in Flashpoint Germany and heavily simulated Point of Attack 2.

[Arjuna]

To effect realistic friendlyt fog of war, each force needs to maintain its own database of freindly units. Now that becomes very expensive in processing time to update these each minute. When we go to team play and implement multiple commands per side, we will allocate a seperate friendly database for each command. This will to a degree allow us to simulate friendly fog of war.

[Templer_12]

In the meantime I reinstalled COTA on my PC.
In reference to my first post in the thread I found the scenario I mentioned.

Scenario: First Clean Break v2
Select the German side.
Order all units and all reinforcement fast and quick to exit Kozani - done!
Watch the show now!

The result = Decisive victory!

Unfortunately, precisely this scenario was chosen as the first after completing the tutorials.

[wodin]

Templer,

How are you finding BftB?

[RobearGWJ]

With all due respect, Templer, that COTA scenario is *designed* to allow the *Germans* to walk right through the Allied defense.  It is intended to be played by the *Allied* player, who has a number of disadvantages to overcome to slow or stop the exit of the German column.  In fact, at the end of the scenario description it says that the scenario is intended for play as the Allied side.

Please try the scenario as the Allied player and get back to us with your results and methods.  Bonus points if you simply leave the Allies on "Defend" and in place. 

I have to say, I have found the BftB AI to be surprisingly good. Admittedly I'm no genius at this stuff, but I can follow doctrine pretty well. I'm very much enjoying the game - I liked COTA, too, for what it's worth - and I've yet to run into a situation where the AI just passively let me move through it. But I also know that if a scenario is designed to be played by one side, playing the other will not be a challenge.

[Templer_12]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Templer,

How are you finding BftB?

Hello Wodin,

I'm really busy right now.
Much too busy to seriously deal with the game.

I will keep my eyes on this thread, and as soon as I can report something to my game experience and my feelings I will report.

Right now just for short: I like the BftB better than COTA.
After I finished reading the whole (yes I did!) forum and after the tutorial videos, wich I find excellent and very usefull, I now have a little more insight into the gaming system.

I have a good feeling about understanding the system once, but this needs much help with the game.
First of all, I must learn to shut down and get off my hex/turn based thinking and acting I guess.

I´ll stay tuned. I hope you too.