Game Assumptions

[robertjohnoxborough]

I am very impressed by the new level of detail in this game and the advance AI that accompanies it. However, the AI has introduced a frustrating issue.

AI assume that historic events occur as did. The game takes no account of differences that occur due to game play. For example, as I have been learning the game mechanics and understanding the game's systems, I have played a few basic scenarios including Destruction of the SW front and the Drive to Leningrad. In both the progress of the game differed dramatically from the historic. AI did not perform historically which naturally drove the game in a different direction. AI seems always to apply a foresight that the Soviets did not possess to prevent major en-encirclement. However, it always introduces and withdraws units as per the historic schedule. For routine re-inforcements, this is fine as it simplifies game mechanics. However, the introduction of PzGp II in SOSWF and withdrawal of PzGp IV in DOL take no account of the actual situation. For example, in DOSWF, I made better progress than historic, crossed the Dnepr much earlier (as I already knew that the AI would not permit the encirclement of the Soviet SW front), yet Pz Gp II appeared anyway.

This combination of AI that is better than the Soviets were with assumed historic coarse of events really makes no sense. I would suggest that there should be options that permit a choice of AI between, 'historic accuracy' and leaving 'as is'. Also, an option to call or cancel the major operational events that lay outside immediate game play.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: robertjohnoxborough

.... However, the introduction of PzGp II in SOSWF and withdrawal of PzGp IV in DOL take no account of the actual situation. For example, in DOSWF, I made better progress than historic, crossed the Dnepr much earlier (as I already knew that the AI would not permit the encirclement of the Soviet SW front), yet Pz Gp II appeared anyway.

...

these aren't AI issues, they are set by the scenario designer

it might be possible to make such outcomes contingent by using the events system, but again that is the scenario design not the AI making choices

[carlkay58]

You have hit upon a problem with historical scenarios that take only a slice of the historical events. The reinforcements are the best guess by the scenario creator as to what units were available in the theater. The withdrawals are what were historically taken from the theater and sent elsewhere. This is the trade off of any scenario that does not include the whole picture. The only way to get rid of these types of restraints/possibilities is to have something that covers the entire world.

In the Grand Campaign scenario there are withdrawals of units needed in other theaters. There are reinforcements from other theaters. This is always going to be there. In the Grand Campaign there is the option to have Theater Box control to allow you to change these withdrawals and reinforcements based on the game situation, but that is an abstraction but an effort to address the issues you have raised.