Campaign battles

[tow-2]

Greetings all -

I've heard about the upcoming patch, and look forward to it tremendously. I love to play the campaigns when I can find time, and it sounds like that will be a focus of this patch.

One thing I haven't heard about being fixed with regards to campaigns (or even just generated battles) is the AI force levels. In every battle I've played in the campaigns (as the Germans), the AI has come at me with at least 5:1 odds in almost every category. This seems to be in the attack/defense, delay, or what have you - and can be Russian, British, French or Poles.

I've had numerous meeting engagements where my core force of 4 tank platoons and 4 infantry platoons, plus an 88 platoon and a couple MG platoons, gets about 300-350 points for support (barely enough to buy mortars or recon screens) and have had to withstand the assault of 80-100+ tanks and 25+ infantry platoons! (note, this is with toggle for AI additional forces OFF - what would it be like ON???!!)

Plus, the AI is very unimaginative with deployment of these forces. In the attack, he lines them all up right on the start line and charges forward. On the defensive, he lines them all up again on the start line and digs in (although I do run into occasional fortifications near the v-hexes towards the rear).

It all adds up to some very boring campaign battles, ones where I'm always completely outnumbered and can predict easily where the AI is set up. I'm always just picking off tanks one by one and drawing back, trying to slow down the waves of enemy with whatever I can throw out there. It reminds me of something I read about Red Alert or some other game, where players used tanks in a huge mass and just performed a "tank rush" time and time again.

Anyone else feel this way? I might have to go to playing all downloaded scenarios to have some fun, because I'm winning these battles but not enjoying it much. I seem to remember having much more fun with the SP1 campaign battles, which seemed to vary a bit more and
surprise me.

I know you guys get more of these types of emails "complaining" than those praising - but you know gamers are rarely completely happy with any game! This is as close to a perfect game for me as any, and I truly thank you all for supporting it as you do! Being able to inquire about such details as this make it even better...

Regards,
Marc

[Nikademus]

that boring selection and preformance trend of the AI is the main reason why i'd love to see a 'two player' option built into the campaign generator.

The AI preforms so dismally at times that even playing BOTH sides would seem a relief.
(I'm really getting tired of facing hordes of L5 Renault knockoffs in my Italy vs Greece campaign....i mean how many did they have in their entire army!!!??)

[Charles22]

tow-2: Consider the following: I've had about three or four campaign battles, as Gerry, where the opponent has gone for all three objective areas at once and the rest have been the AI's all-out attempt to take only one or two of the frontline objective areas, which of course leaves one or more unnecessarily unmanned, while the others are barely holding out. I've also had numerous times where the force will divert to engage fire that is coming from an area that he's not normally attacking. I would suggest you change your setup to include five clusters of objective areas instead of four. I've also seen entire companies or larger go after my recon deep penetrations, and in some cases decimate them.

I've also seen MANY times where the enemy ISN'T on his frontline, or if he is, his main force certainly isn't. I've also seen virtually half of the enemy's forces, go from a staunch defensive posture, to suddenly attacking me, as though a deep penetration set off a trigger (I suppose I threatened one of his objective areas too much).

Frankly, with all the variety I've seen, I can't believe that you haven't seen any of it. Also, perhaps if you refused to yield any ground while on the defensive, as I do (not one objective hex must be taken [though it certainly happens at times]), there would be more excitement.

This latest battle of mine (I restarted Gerry campaign beginning in Poland after I changed the faulty ratings for the Polish 75mm AA and the rifle squad level of 19 back to 10) in 10/39 I have a visibility of 18, in a meeting engagement. Two of the objective clusters are TOGETHER in a HEAVILY wooded area. Never allowing not a single hex to be taken will be virtually impossible, but it does show that how different placing objective areas can alter things. If your strategy to deal with this is to retreat, you can forget that, because much of the map is wooded too, and I doubt it'll be any easier retaking that area, then to hold it as is. I also have an objective area well south of that, which the Poles have sent some infantry some ten hexes back to make a flanking attempt through some more woods, while sending a platoon of tanks to take those objectives, directly; obviously diverted from the force that he had intent on taking the big two clusters. Frankly, what I see he's trying to do with the infantry that's trying to go south, I've never seen him doing before. I say give the AI a chance, there's a lot more variety then you're giving it credit for and given the varying objecitve area clusters and visibility it can be quite unique.

I hate to say it, but your idea that SP1 had a better situation for AI is WAY OFF BASE. There, literally everything was predictable, including the AI ALWAYS knowing where the 88's were, without firing a round (even if behind hills, unseen). You might also recall how irritating it was that you had to buy a TON of AA guns just to try to keep your best tanks, the really expensive ones, from getting destroyed by one lousy aircraft passover, the artillery that did it if the aircraft didn't, and all those lousy track hits if none of those things did it. SP1 doesn't even compare by a long shot.

Another thing, being greatly outnumbered is common when you have a defensive mission, but then I guess an SP1 vet would know that. How has it slipped your mind?

[Larry Holt]

I kind of agree with Charles, I have seen the AIP do more than just mass on the start line. I have had to maneuver against the AIP and its more interesting thatn SP1 (which had a real straight forward AIP that would leave vehicles parked in the open facing backwards!) or SPWWII where the force density was so great that there was no open space to maneuver through.

I think that while the AIP is much improved, it still can't really maneuver or conduct overwatch of bounding elements. I'd like to see the AIP parcel up its forces into packages where some would go straight for objectives while others would take round about routes simulating flanking maneuvers and some packages would alternate moving and overwatching with others.

------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.

[victorhauser]

AI And Campaign Force Ratios...

There are reasons you could be "outnumbered" by the AI in your campaigns. As I understand it, the AI gets a slightly larger number of points to buy troops with than a human would under the same circumstances. If you spent 2000 points to buy your core forces, and bought 40 core units with those points, and made them all crack veterans by setting their troop quality very high when you bought them, then yes, you will be greatly outnumbered in almost every campaign battle you play. Because the AI will buy based on its troop quality (or use "encyclopedia" costs if the national troop quality button is selected), and because the AI also tends to buy its forces using "scripted packages" (I'm guessing here but it looks like that to me), it almost always chooses a large number of units to work with compared to the human player. But why complain? Many of the greatest generals in history fought outnumbered and won. A lot of them lost, too! But that's why we play the game.

[Charles22]

victorhauser: You make a great point there. I forgot about generated campaigns abilities to pick troop quality and then suffering point loss for it. If you have Uberman troops while the enemy may pick billions of rookies, no wonder he's bored and forced to play an organized retreat. Who knows, maybe he has the opponents force toggle way too high?

Only thing is, I don't get one of his general complaints, that the forces are too heavy against him, and yet he's bored. That sounds like a contradiction to me. If such a thing gets his forces slaughtered, then I suppose it might be boring if you couldn't think around the problem, but then I've never been that badly slaughtered, that some fine tuning couldn't change that situation. He mentions that he has to scrape things together to stop the enemy. To me, that's exciting, and the mere fact that he has to scrape things together, already shows me how the AI is being unpredictable, because if it wasn't he would en masse his forces and there would be little or no need for movement (in defense anyway). He might be able to hold his ground better, if he would employ finer mining and more engineers.

[tow-2]

Charles -

Thanks for your continued insulting tone and barbed responses! It makes it much more fun to post inquiries about the game when someone jumps all over you like that... I'll try to keep my clarification clean -

My point was simply that the AI - in my case and with what I've seen (about 8 battles into German campaign) has shown little imagination. It simply buys a ton of troops and then THROWS it at me in a line. Of course it breaks up into groups to take the hexes, but they're still fairly much in line with the other groups. It's just Russian mob tactics - but from every nation!

I've basically just drawn a line near the front line, ahead of the objective hexes, and
then just shoot, and shoot, and shoot, and shoot. I do not give up ground (occasionally drop back behind a ridge), nor am I scraping anything up to counter-attack - I just shoot and shoot and shoot. There's rarely any maneuvering from either of us. Even when I'm attacking, his forces are almost entirely right on the front line, so maneuvering is just to get within range and then start firing until he breaks.

My forces all started as low Veteran ratings, which must be default because I didn't touch it.

So yes, just like you I'm not giving ground, am deploying myself with a strategy, using mixed forces and mines/terrain etc - and I've had a decisive victory almost every time. As an "SP1 vet", yes I'm more than aware of the fact that as the defender I should be outnumbered (thought I made it clear that defend missions were not the only time I was seeing this). But I'm not seeing flanking attacks, AI inventiveness, or anything of that nature. Just mob attacks - and straight forward.

I suppose it is correct that it is a contradiction to say the OPFOR is swarming at me in great numbers and yet I'm bored. But I only mean that to be that it's tiring to play that same scale for every battle.

Is this post just my experience? I guess so. Some of the constructive answers I got make it sound like others have not seen this or do not consider it a problem - which is good to know. Maybe I'll start seeing better AI functionality in future battles, and it's just a randomizing luck-factor that I keep getting the same results. I just remember in SP1 (despite admitted faults) stumbling across pockets of enemy dug in along likely routes in the rear areas, and things like that. Not the Maginot Line tactics I've been seeing here.

Sorry to draw this out - I'll leave it at that and keep trying to irk the AI into brilliance! <G>

Regards,
Marc