Think blue line results

[Poliorcetes]

Another Nato blowout. Other than my HQ units being decimated during the first 10 turns due to the radio traffic of my reinforcements (calling every 30 minutes to remind me they were coming) it was a turkey shoot. It seemed like I actually outnumbered the WP in this one.
You really need to have a way to impose radio silence on reinforcements. A global SOP and Report Frequency option is also needed (I had to go through all 40 NATO units to turn off the Report when Delayed option).

Poliorcetes

[Poliorcetes]

Oh, I also started getting a black window during some of the later turns in the Radio Reports window. Might have been when the Hinds showed up (I never knew there were helicopters until endgame review).

Poliorcetes

[Mike_w]

Yeah, I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that the AI is not really effective. Maybe it can be "tweaked", so that as NATO it will stay in defensive positions and force the player to attack instead of charging headlong into the advance. Also, I wonder if it is possible to change the AI so it masses at the point of contact. I have played a number of scenarios where the AI as WP sends a steady trickle of units towards me. These are destroyed by pressing the "next" button....one at a time.

I have also noticed that in one scenario, the AI as NATO decided to charge me from its defensive positions (as usual)...then proceeded to advance over its own minefield. All I could see were explosions in the distance as the AI drove its forces (continually) over the field. I chalked this up to the fact that the game is really suppposed to played as player/NATO vs. AI/WP

Having said that, I imagine the AI is the hardest thing to code and I'm sure it will get fixed up in no time. This is a great game and PBEM is always good.[:)]

[JudgeDredd]

I think Rob is looking into AI...I know he's looking into lethality and process of fire.

[John21b]

If he could just stop the AI from attacking when its supposed to defend it would be a big step forward. Makes playing the WP boring. Once they get the bug fixed that makes it impossible to change doctrine for one side in a head to head game I'll just play that way or PBEM.

John

[Fallschirmjager]

AI also tends to bunch up which makes for easy kills with artillary.
Also tends to rush forward HQ units and SP artillary and AA units as well and they get slaughtered.
All around not that great.

[iberian]

The real problem with the WP AI is that it commits its forces in piecemeal attacks, very early in the game. I'm not sure that changing weapons lethality and process of fire is the only solution.

An assault against modern entreched weapons is suicide in real life. Think about it: you have a company of entrenched Leopard II's, hiding behind berms and natural obstacles to expose only a small part of the frontal side of the turret. You have plenty of ammo, rested crews, and 100% attention directed to the defended sector. Then, you see an exposed enemy company 3-4Km away, charging across a flat plain. It will be blown to pieces. Then another company appears, it will be also be blown. The AI will commit its forces company by company, until an entire armored battalion is destroyed. That would also happen in real life, if anybody would be that crazy (and believe me, it has happened, and it will happen in real world). So, IMHO the FPG fire model and destruction rate, is not far fetched, because the AI is dissipating its forces.

Now, suppose the AI knew how to do the following:

- Holding the main attack force together, getting them in battle formation.
- Doing a proper recon to spot your entrenched Leopard II positions.
- Spending several hours (6-8 turns) shelling the hell out of your entrenched position, building up their fatigue and destroying their morale
- Sending as many Su-25s, Su-17s as available against your main line of resistence.
- Concentrating the main attack, an entire battalion, in a coordinated front of 1.5-2Km, with precise timing.


If the AI could hold the attack, and do the above, then your defense would be in deep gaga. Notice that I haven't mentioned any sophisticated move (encirclement, multiple-axis attacks, etc), just a plain, simple, coordinated frontal blow.

[GreenDestiny]

I think the biggest problem in this game is that there is no facing.... and with no facing then you have no flanking , and there is no way….with the way the game is set up , for you to come up and attack your opponent from the flank or the rear. In this game you have a full power 360 degree defense. I find this to be unrealistic. There is no way you can have a 360 degree defense and cover for a tank in the open, unless you planting it in the ground and turn it in to a fortified bunker.

[iberian]

ORIGINAL: GreenDestiny
I think the biggest problem in this game is that there is no facing.... and with no facing then you have no flanking ...

I have to agree 100% The game needs a facing value at least for the units with "Hold" ground orders. If a unit needs 30min to set up a defense, they must have done it with regards to a specific facing... if they need to change it, they should need another 30 min, or go to "Screen" orders with "Exposed" posture.

[Poliorcetes]

Well I'm playing it from the WP side now. Once again the Nato forces charge straight ahead, with artillary in tow into my organizing WP forces. I may just ignore the Nato forces to work on my manuever skills, as I could just easily bunker down and wipe them out.

Poliorcetes

[Erik Rutins]

Facing is generally not an issue at platoon/grand-tactical scale. With five tanks in a platoon, each watching their sector with 1989 communications and sights, it's difficult to effectively judge that a unit has been flanked. At a more tactical scale, with single tanks, flanks have more meaning. Some of the firepower reduction of the more mobile orders reflects the fact that they can't always bring all guns to bear quickly.

Regarding attack vs. defense, I think some of the 1.01 balance will help. Poliorcetes, if you are finding the AI a push-over, post a PBEM request and see how things go. Meanwhile, we'll see what we can do to make it less aggressive in defensive situations.

Regards,

- Erik

[Poliorcetes]

I'll do the PBEM once I get all the game mechanics down.

Things I'd like to see.
1. A better way to manage WP artillary. With 12 arty units, having to individually choose each one, choose their mission, set their type of attack (neutralize, etc), and then choose a target (for barrage or direct support), I'm spending a lot of my turn button mashing rather than enjoying the game. Couldn't you do something like Choosing the HQ for the offboard Arty unit selects all the arty units and give them the same orders.
2. AI, AI, AI. The WP seems to send small packets of units at me, often in Movement orders with artillary only a few squares behind them. Nato AI is useless as they just charge off, often leaving the only Victory square practically empty (in the defend scenarios)
3. on Board Arty ranges, I only figured out that my arty units have limited map range when trying to set a barrage and was told it was out of range.
4. Off map radio orders. Blue Line scenario was terrible with reinforcements calling in every 30 minutes. I was orange radio status until they hit the map and I could cut down on the reporting frequency and "delay" notification. I notice the computer didn't have this problem when I played the WP.

Overall I like this game. But I'm spending the first 30 minutes of play reseting every single units SOP and Radio orders so that people aren't yelling out every 30 minutes and my scouts don't start shooting the moment they spot someone a long ways away. I already mentioned the artillary headaches.

Poliorcetes