It is disappointing.

[ravinhood]

but in an even odds battle, on balance, a human player will make a far more challenging opponent than an AI one.

That only really applies if you are playing someone of "equal" or "near equal" or "advanced" experience.

If I sit down and play a beginner (like my nephew) or beginning intermediate in experience, the word "challenge" does not apply. While it might be more "FUN" to play a human, challenge is not what I would find out of beginners or beginning intermediate players.

In cases of playing beginners or beginning intermediates I would get more challenge out of the AI on normal difficulty (equal units no handicaps).

There's people I'm not even a challenge for them to play me. Each person has a challenge level and an experience level.

The difference being that if one sticks with it long enough, humans have this ability to "learn and improve", where an AI doesn't. It will never be any more challenging than it's highest difficulty. Which for most AI's the highest difficulties are always overcoming the odds.

So, you really should get FG and enjoy what challenge the AI does give you. They said above the AI is going to be improved, so if this is your type of wargame, might as well support ole Matrixgames. Them and HPS and some Shrapnel games is about all we have left for "real wargames". So give em "your" money now.

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

So, you really should get FG and enjoy what challenge the AI does give you.

I think your spirit is good but we gotta remember that the AI is broken for now. The helo and hq bugs/behaviors are very blatant one's to have missed. However, other companies have missed such obvious things too.

I think that Rob has engineered his AI with some potential genius if he can fix these other flaws. His AI is aggressive, territorially driven and capable of effective direct and indirect fire and assault combat.

Now as far as I am concerned, if he just gets the helos and hq's fixed, makes movement and fire more intuitive to look at and then gives players something to do as the AI fights itself in the resolution phases, his series has some legs yet.

Big if's maybe.

Adam.

[themattcurtis]

Hey Adam --

I think two of your points require addressing and every indication is that they will be tackled (HQs and Helos).

But I think the other stuff is a matter of aesthetics and really not a "game breaker."

Movement seems intuitive to me -- the simplified nature of movement and the ability to change waypoints is nice. You can set as many waypoints as you want or let the game figure out the correct path for you. You can tweak movement to the point that units arrive where they're supposed to on the minute. I also do not have a problem with how fire is resolved.

Finally, in wego titles you issue orders establish SOP and sit back to watch what unfolds. Its the same in other titles -- which I won't name or everyone and their mother might come in and try to debate it -- but that's the whole part of the tension involved. While things are developing, you're powerless to affect them until the next Orders Phase comes up. So why would a player need to be able to do anything except watch while combat's being resolved? I see some issues that give me a headache or two (I really would like to see how I do against Hinds used by the AI), and easy enough to correct (in theory). I just don't see any huge Ifs.

[EricGuitarJames]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

So, you really should get FG and enjoy what challenge the AI does give you. They said above the AI is going to be improved, so if this is your type of wargame, might as well support ole Matrixgames. Them and HPS and some Shrapnel games is about all we have left for "real wargames". So give em "your" money now.

So many games, so little money[:D]

When the AI is up to 'training level' (i.e. when I can try different strategies and get roundly spanked when I screw up), then it's worth a purchase. If I bought it now it would just sit on my hard drive doing nothing, plus I would be sending the wrong message to the developers and publisher. But hey, when it's right for me I'll buy it.

[z1812]

Hi all,

The idea of the A.I. is not just a matter of having a game against the computer A.I.

1. The A.I. is quite important in H2H games where turn resolution is governed by the A.I.

2. The development and first stage testing of 3rd party scenarios is usually done against the A.I.

3. Many people like to generate scenarios that are played best against the A.I.

4. People develop basic skills for eventual contests against humans by playing the A.I.

Of course that is why A.I. is so important. Again I wish to stress that I really like the idea of this game and I am anxiously awaiting patch number 2.

Regards John

[Adam Parker]

In a recent census the average family had 2.5 kids, 1.5 pets and 10.5 AI's. The AI's are sleeping where the pets used to and the pets are taking it out on the kids. The definition of a broken home now, is where 50% of a family's AI's don't work.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

In a recent census the average family had 2.5 kids, 1.5 pets and 10.5 AI's. The AI's are sleeping where the pets used to and the pets are taking it out on the kids. The definition of a broken home now, is where 50% of a family's AI's don't work.

LOL, [:D]
Adam, that's very clever! Signature-caliber material.
Cheers,

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Hello!
Nice thread.
Please take my comments with a grain of salt. I am not attacking anybody, just exchanging some opinions based on my personal experience with the game.
The challenge factor while playing NATO against the computer is very small. I still don't make up my mind if it is due to the WP AI, the way the game models both forces, the real nature of warfare at that time or else.
-WP AI. I have observed it moving towards my forces (no fog of war cheat for experimentation purposes) and I am in love with it. It moves battalions as a compact force and chooses axis of advance dynamically. I reckon that it should use helos and don't put HQs in harm's way, but that's being fixed. Besides, how much those changes will help the AI to win an scenario? I wish the WP would use it's fire support more aggressively, but again, would that help to beat me? I many times have tried to be critic on the AI's chosen approach avenues, but as many times I said: "Ey! I couldn't have chosen any better than the AI did!".
-FPG's combat model.
a) The simultaneous fire issue has been fixed. Still, an M1 platoon (that's 4 tanks!) can cause severe losses to a WP mechanized company (17+ vehicles, 4 being tanks, almost all having anti-armor capability). At the end of the firefight, a below-strength, low-morale WP company will retreat or yielded combat-unworthy, having caused only the loss of 2, maximum 3 M1 tanks. No AI in the world will ever be able to offer you a challenge if it has to manage such staggering losses.
b) Aggregated WP units. In the "Meeting of the Titans" scenario, the majority of the WP counters represent companies as opposed to the NATO counters which ussually represent platoons. It looks like FPG is an event-driven simulation. If so, every side will likely "get the attention" of the simulation engine in a proportional way to the number of counters it has on the map. If I am right with these considerations, the simulation engine will spend the same amount of time paying attention to 4 NATO tanks than to 17 WP vehicles. Even if I am wrong with that, the WP company still gets a handicap from its aggregated nature: all platoons of the WP company are forced to be in the same terrain, which reduces tactical flexibility, forced to get fire at the same time, forced to fire at the same time, etc. Aggregation-disaggregation is a tricky thing in warfare modeling and you would be surprised how different the results are when comparing a detailed to a slightly more aggregated model.
-Warfare in 1985. Was NATO that superior to WP? Will we ever know?
Cheers,

[GreenDestiny]

I think you maybe on to something here Chelco.

[John21b]

Soviet platoons would never operate (besides Recon plts) independently. Splitting the companies into platoons for the Soviets would allow way to much flexibility. Soviet Tk and Mot Inf platoon leaders were not authorized to talk on the Radio except to report losses etc.

John

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Hi John!

I get your point. And I also agree with the doctrinal accuracy you point out. If I am given command of individual WP platoons and go too fancy maneuvering them, I could create unrealistical situations. However, you could modify the command radius of the Co HQ to make it impossible to command the WP platoons outside certain range.

In "Meeting of the Titans", there is a WP unit labelled FSE (Does it stand for Forward screen element?). A formidable force, tanks, mech infantry, even AA defenses. When I play WP, I try to use it as a recon-in force unit or as a screen to fix the enemy while I maneuver. In both roles has proven useless, and I claim its failure to its aggregation in just one counter. As a recon force: why should I take an AA vehicle so close to the enemy lines? As a screen: what kind of screen do I want to mount in 500 meters of frontage?

I feel that the WP companies are like big elephants (lots of power if you are close to them, but a useless giant that, because of all its mass concentrated in a single spot, is too easy to shoot from the distance).

Cheers,

[Real and Simulated Wars]

It looks like FPG is an event-driven simulation. If so, every side will likely "get the attention" of the simulation engine in a proportional way to the number of counters it has on the map. If I am right with these considerations, the simulation engine will spend the same amount of time paying attention to 4 NATO tanks than to 17 WP vehicles.

Well, that appears not to be true according to a little experiment I conducted last night.

I setted up a H2H scenario and I placed an M1 NATO tank platoon vs a T-72 WP tank company at 1500 mts from each other, both in mixed open terrain with LOS between them. I placed all the other counters far from from the subjects involved in the experiment. When the scenario starts, both M1 platoon and T-72 company are in Hold position and in LOS to each other. I then recorded how many times each side fired and how much they scored during the first half hour of simulated time (1 turn). I ran the scenario 8 times.

Results:
1) At each run NATO fired 2 times, WP fired 4 to 5 times. Note: when I say "fired X times" I mean how many times the counter would go yellow with the sound of it firing against the enemy. This is not the same that how many individual shots the simulation engine counted for that event.
2) After 8 runs (remember each run was done re-starting the scenario), NATO fired 16 times and scored 24 WP tank kills. WP fired 34 times and scored 8 tank kills. NATO average: 1.5 tank kills per firing event. WP average: 0.23 tank kills per firing event.
3) Important observation: NATO opened fire first all the times and this resulted in WP going from "Hold" to "Screen". This resulted in all firing events by WP done under "Screen" orders.

That's pretty much it. Result 1) clearly says that I was awfully wrong (see previous quote). The more runners in a unit, the more time the simulation engine will take care of them, at least into the firing event.

Cheers,

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Just one more short thing.
If you take all the runs together: NATO killed 24 tanks and WP killed 8 tanks. That appears to indicate that in an hypotethical, attrition only (Lanchester/Osipov) kind of battle, WP would need more than a 3/1 WP to NATO tank ratio to win.
Cheers,

[Real and Simulated Wars]

WP would need more than a 3/1 WP to NATO tank ratio to win.

I have never played a scenario as a NATO commander in which I had to face so much T-72 tanks. Could this be the reason why I win so comfortably as a NATO commander?

[z1812]

Hi all,

While pondering this thread and others about general A.I. issues it seems, as usual, all is relative. That is to say that one persons satisfaction with A.I. will be measured by there own ability or lack thereof.

However, objectively it is fair to say that if a scenario can be won against the A.I. by pressing the next button something is amiss.

If components of the game are not used by the A.I. as they should be, then something requires adjustment.

When the A.I. is not sufficient to do primary scenario design testing a tweak is required.

I mention these items so the initial idea of the thread does not become lost in detailed accounts of doctrine ect.

Also I am aware that the second patch is in the works as per Eric Rutins post.

I am really looking forward to patch 2.

Regards John

[themattcurtis]

I think posting fire results between WP and NATO forces is pretty relevant to the thread if fire resolution is one of the issues over which folks are still trying to take FPG to task.

I don't know how realistic a 3-1 loss ratio is for T-72s when facing M1s in a 1989 setting. I understand that the T-72 has seen some armament upgrades in recent years, making it more of a threat to US Armor than it might have been in the late 80s. But honestly, that number doesn't make me blanche.

However, I do know the T-72s depicted in the game are not on par with modern western MBTs, so if they're fighting NATO positions, I'd expect to see a lopsided exchange. Right now, I'm playing a multiplayer game where my WP units are fielding T-80s and IFVs. On the offensive, we're losing 2 vehicles for every piece of German kit we're killing (which would be Leopard IIs).
My opponent has made the comment that my attackingunits are refusing to "die cheaply," which makes me smile [:)] and reinforces my belief that the 1.01 patch has gone a LONG way to putting resolution where it needs to be.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Chelco
Just one more short thing.
If you take all the runs together: NATO killed 24 tanks and WP killed 8 tanks. That appears to indicate that in an hypotethical, attrition only (Lanchester/Osipov) kind of battle, WP would need more than a 3/1 WP to NATO tank ratio to win.

If all combat took place at 1500 meters with one unit firing at one unit, that's probably right. As WP, you have to concentrate overwhelming force on a portion of the NATO defenses and get in closer than 1500 meters. At that point, NATO's losses become unsustainable in my experience. Getting there, though, means paying a lot of attention to terrain, using some scouting/diversion tactics and (depending on what force you're facing) using smoke.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: z1812
However, objectively it is fair to say that if a scenario can be won against the A.I. by pressing the next button something is amiss.

I am really looking forward to patch 2.

Valid comments, but I do want to point out that the "next button win" seems to mainly orient around one or two scenarios where the AI makes some poor strategic choices.

With that said, Rob is working on the AI and both 1.02 and 1.03 should have AI upgrades. The update schedule will depend on testing, as AI changes generally need a fair amount.

Regards,

- Erik

[Real and Simulated Wars]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
If all combat took place at 1500 meters with one unit firing at one unit, that's probably right. As WP, you have to concentrate overwhelming force on a portion of the NATO defenses and get in closer than 1500 meters. At that point, NATO's losses become unsustainable in my experience. Getting there, though, means paying a lot of attention to terrain, using some scouting/diversion tactics and (depending on what force you're facing) using smoke.
Regards,
- Erik

Hi Erik!
That's good advice, indeed!
What I posted were just an hypothetical situation to understand the game mechanics a bit more in detail.
I am worried if you guys will ever manage to get the WP AI to behave with such tactical finesse. Is a way complex behaviour. Not easy to do.

[Marc von Martial]

That's good advice, indeed!

It´s (was) WP doctrine [;)]