Matrix Games Forums

I'm not familiar with this game at all. I only play vs. the AI. How would the AI in this update of an older game compare to the AI of a newer game such as Decisive Campaigns?
Thanks.

I have not yet had time to look at Decisive Campaigns, so I can’t really comment on that title. Though I have played quite a few different AIs from different titles as of late. To be honest, the only thing that has totally impressed me with the current titles out there, is how far Chess & Checkers has come. It’s to the point where it’s no longer fun to play as you can’t WIN anymore.   As for the other flavours, probably the game I’ve most played (and given me the most problems) was Civ IV on deity level (yes I know it’s not a TRUE WARGAME!). Now let’s be honest here, does the AI really challenge you? That depends on what you are really asking. The AI really is horrible at attacks & defending, however the difficulty in beating it is that there are ridiculous bonuses stacked up against you in its favour. This is the solution the developers have chosen in order to make it FEEL SMARTER. In fact, the damn AI doesn’t even suffer FoW penalties in many areas of the map. Again, another attempt to make it FEEL smarter.   Combat Command does not cheat in FoW, or any other such craziness, so I suppose in that regards, you would have a better time trying to score a victory over them here, then you would playing against a deity AI from Firaxis. So... take that as you will   I should point out here there are a few different flavours of AI in this game, and there are also various orders. Now, if you really want to get an edge at every angle possible, I suppose you could load up a scenario into an editor, and then one-by-one check each individual unit to see what the scenario designer has ‘briefed’ them into following. Some may be mostly reserved for defense, others for escourts, etc.   Some units don’t feel threatened until an enemy approaches within 5 Km of them, while others may have differing opinions at 15 or just 5 hexes. Though, if playing a smaller map & over-crowded with units, this sort of info may not really help as much.

It's too early to say just how effective the AI from the few games I've played so far. I had no problem defending against the IJA in Guadalcanal. The IJA was set on very aggressive, but it only made one push with a two units. The attack was easily held in check until destroyed. I wonder if perhaps there is a scenario listing (outside of the manual) that outlines 1) AI's "best" side to play and 2) optimal AI opponent settings. I've a feeling that the AI is much better on defense then attack, but will reserve making that conclusion until I can play the same scenario with several different settings.

Bison, when you highlight a scenario to start, there should be a field that is supplied with the little historical text. It will tell you which side generally the human player should chose.

In Guadalcanal for example, it will say:

Type of Battle: Japanese Attack.

I believe, you will find it significantly harder, though not impossible of course...

Yeah I figured that if it meant Japanese Attack I should play the IJA, but I didn't will do on the next game.

No comment since I only palyed tutorial.
I see AI agressivness can be tweaked and some given bonuses if you don't find them challenging enough.
In the tutorial, I thought he AI fought quite well. Or maybe it's because I didn't know what I was doing.

Well, this is not a Sierra war-game where you can master things over-night. So don't worry if it doesn't CLICK right away.

IIRC with that Japanese scenario, the real-life situation turned out to be a big foul-up for axis from the start. Therefore, the scenario even starts with the group in the East/South in disruption, and one or two units are not even assigned to an HQ, so you may want to re-attach them or your movement will be halved, amoungst other penalties.