Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: mooxe
I know that your expectations of the AI are basically to just sit there and die.

I am not convinced you know what you think you know. Whether or not troops will attack or not may be based on many factors. The training and experience of the attacking teams, the aggressiveness rating of the teams commander, and for all I know there maybe other data in the map header data for each map named after a place.

In the following pic the attackers are all running toward the seawall. No problem. But this is the HUMAN player. The AI attack will be much more cautious.

But when the AI attacks, there are still runners, just not that many of them. Most teams are just crawling to the objectives. But they attack nevertheless.

Why is that? Because as HUMAN player in the first pic, I rubber banded the entire force before I hit begin, and gave them MOVE FAST orders.

ORIGINAL: mickxe5

Smaller maps did play a big role in making CC1 & 2's AI more competitive. As Stwa points out, from CC4 on, maps got bigger to accommodate the entry VL zones. Had the code base been more flexible it would have been nice to include a utility like the feature in Mafi's 5CC that could have sliced off small sections of a map at runtime as an option not to have to battle over the entire map every time.

Good point!

And I thought I would add the following pic, where ARMY captures the center bunker. In this game they go on to take the smaller bunker near the trenches as well. So, more action in ten minutes than in both of mooxes' videos. All I can conclude is that SIMPLY, mooxe is using maps that are too big.

Here is CC5 Vierville set on a 10 minute time limit. All infantry forces (both sides), the pic is from the replay, and with 8 minutes remaining. The shooting has already started. I will let you guess which sides is the AI.

So, I am not sure what is wrong with mooxe's GTC game, but that problem, is off topic.

Here is a link to the same battle mooxe used in his videos above as proof the AI performs poorly. This thread shows something may be amiss with how mooxe plays single player. In this game the AI gets a Major Victory.

http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/mo ... ic&t=11282

No nothing is amiss. Those videos are from a regular install of GTC. Single player is way to easy and ends in lopsided victories in all versions for most people, including the results you posted previously. The images here are not proof as we are comparing different versions and the BG attributes are not being taken into account. Changes have been made to the AI since CCMT. Even with a 5/-5/5/5 BG rating the attack would be piecemeal and easily fought back given equal forces.

ORIGINAL: mooxe

No nothing is amiss. Those videos are from a regular install of GTC. Single player is way to easy and ends in lopsided victories in all versions for most people, including the results you posted previously. The images here are not proof as we are comparing different versions and the BG attributes are not being taken into account. Changes have been made to the AI since CCMT. Even with a 5/-5/5/5 BG rating the attack would be piecemeal and easily fought back given equal forces.

I encourage people to take a the link provided in the last post of mine. The AI attacks come in piecemeal at Dog Green (go figure). And, until you use smaller maps and good column rules your single player games will not be fun.

ORIGINAL: mooxe

Single player is way to easy and ends in lopsided victories in all versions for most people, including the results you posted previously. The images here are not proof as we are comparing different versions and the BG attributes are not being taken into account. Changes have been made to the AI since CCMT. Even with a 5/-5/5/5 BG rating the attack would be piecemeal and easily fought back given equal forces.

NO! Usually the lopsided victories happen because the AI tanks are not taken out by the HUMAN PLAYER. Then the AI tanks shoot up all the HUMAN PLAYER's infantry.

Yea, but some of those lopsided victories are won by the AI, so you are just contradicting yourself.

One homebrew play balance rule I use is to re-deploy in the Deploy phase but only issue orders in that phase. As the battle plays out I limit myself to firing support missions and changing non-moving teams status between Defend and Ambush as well as their orientation. Occasionally I'll follow the restrictions above but command one team during battle. In an operation or campaign this creates a seesaw effect of limited advances and reversals where careful strategic movement and cutting enemy supply becomes more important. Force morale failure seldom happens, enemy truce offers are often a godsend and there is opportunity to just observe the spectacle taking place.

The AI is far from ideal but then neither was playing Risk or Stratego with your little brother