First impression of the new patch

[Scotters1]

I'm a big fan of close combat, and of Matrix Games, but my first impression of this grand update is dissapointment. Maybe I just had a bad experience.

I started a new grand campaign as the Germans (veteran) againt the Allied AI (recruit). The first battle is a map where the allied 30th Corps has to go up a road to a village against light opposition. In the first minute my anti tank gun and panzerfaust were destroyed (this was good) but then the allied AI just stopped. The next two flags up the road were open for the taking. The rest of my defenders were up in the northern part of the map defending the Southern most point of the village, and none were a threat to the 5 tanks that the AI had, but it just stopped. For 19 minutes nothing happened. Despite barely having any men, I won due to controlling more victory locations. The AI should have taken the next two flags without a fight, and then they should have taken the village with minimum casulties even if it just charged in.

This was the exact same thing that happened when I first played this game. I thought with better pathfinding and AI that this would not happen anymore. Perhaps this only happens on this map but I lost my desire to continue to play after being excited by this grand update. (And yes I double checked the version of the game to make sure that I installed the update correctly.)

[Priapus1]

Play against a human opponent.

[xe5]

One improvement would be to hide the AI's Force Morale indicator from the player but code the AI to "interpret" the player's force morale (FM) similarly to the way players can interpret the AI FM.

All to easy for the player to determine 2 key things from the FM indicator:
1) how large/strong the AI's BG is according to the number/type of casualties it takes to reduce its FM
2) when the AI BG is weakened enough for an all-out assault against it

[Tejszd]

The FM indicator (and even the timer) being displayed should be a realism option on the command screen....

[STIENER]

like priapus1 says.....play against a human opponent on Game ranger. playing the AI blows.

[drillerman]

I was thinking of get this game as I remember playing it 15 years ago but if the A.I is that poor is it really worth it? Most of my gaming is done off line so having a reasonable A.I opponent is quite important.

[hondo1375]

I'd be interested in hearing the reply to drillman's question too as I'm in a similar situation.

[Priapus1]

It depends how competent of a player you are. Most people who play online are close combat diehards and play the game far too much. Therefore the AI doesn't offer much of a challenge. If you're just a casual player then the AI is intelligent enough to offer somewhat of a challenge.

[Scotters1]

Drillerman,

When I first played the game there were some maps in which the AI did well, and some like the one I described above where it was really bad and didn't make sense. I haven't played this game anymore with the new patch yet. One of these days I need to take the time to find a human opponent for the grand campaign. I have played a buddy in a few battles, and it is a lot more fun.

I am a veteran at Close Combat having played the original when I was in college, and I have played every other one expept the modern battle one. Still, in the first map the AI should keep moving foward and attack. What it did made no sense. It immediately knocked out the only real threats to its tanks, it suffered no casualties, and then it just stopped. 30th corps has to move, its mission is to get to the bridges. I rather the AI just charge and attack when it outnumbers the enemy, even if its not always a good move, but for it to stop for no reason, well that isn't fun. I think that the AI could be better, and I thought that was the main point of this grand update. However, this was just one map, so perhaps things have gotten better.

I think if you have never played close combat, go ahead and buy this game or The Longest Day, they are a lot of fun. Just understand that the AI is a mixed bag. If you are planning on playing against a human opponent, then buying this game for any wargamer is a no brainer. I hope that helps Drillerman.

[Southernland]

To play against the AI you pretty much need to be the side on the offensive. the main exceptions to this are the winterwar mod for CC5 where the maps are much smaller. hopefully one day this mod will be ported across to the newer platforms

[Uncle_Joe]

Well I think part of the problem is that the combat results are very much more 'Hollywood' than reality. The loss rates are extremely high. If battles played out in WW2 anything NEAR like they do in CC, whole regiments and divisions would routinely be wiped out in a short afternoon. I personally think almost all accuracy/lethality could easily be cut in HALF and it would be a good starting point.

That dynamic is very unforgiving for an AI that makes 'mistakes'. A vehicle is exposed for a split second and BOOM! it's goon. Same for a gun. Any form of 'duel' between ordnance is decided extremely quickly, usually with the utter destructing of the losing party. Ditto for infantry combat. The lethality is so high that even staying in a building or woods and getting shot at for a few seconds can be fatal to a squad.

So personally I think a lot of AI's flaws are greatly magnified by the extreme over-lethality of the combat resolution. Dont get me wrong, I dont think that turning down the lethality would instantly make the AI viable, but it would be a heck of a lot more difficult to win if one good shot or attack didnt wipe enemy units out wholesale (which was rare, even at this scale).

[Javolenus]

I agree that not showing OPFOR morale would be good as an option. I also agree that reducing lethality might improve single-player games. I'd like to see these things implemented in CCMT too, which, IMHO, suffers from greater AI defects than CC:LSA.

[xe5]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
...a lot of AI's flaws are greatly magnified by the extreme over-lethality of the combat resolution. Dont get me wrong, I dont think that turning down the lethality would instantly make the AI viable, but it would be a heck of a lot more difficult to win if one good shot or attack didnt wipe enemy units out wholesale (which was rare, even at this scale).

Agreed, but OTOH, realism wouldnt make much of a game if, at the first whiff of grapeshot, Allied units always went to ground until air/artillery support arrived, and the active rosters of Axis BGs tended to surrender en masse.

In addition to hiding the AI's force morale indicator, the player would be less confident/more confused if the game didnt provide such perfect intel (via enemy unit status, dead enemy sprites & death calls) on the results of his attacks. When enemy status is available on the toolbar the player knows more about those opposing soldiers mental states than, IRL, a small unit leader would know about his own men.

[Uncle_Joe]

Agreed, but OTOH, realism wouldnt make much of a game if, at the first whiff of grapeshot, Allied units always went to ground until air/artillery support arrived, and the active rosters of Axis BGs tended to surrender en masse.

Well there is PLENTY of middle ground between those two extremes...

[STIENER]

wow.....nice to hear / get feed back from guys ive never seen before!! [:)]

whats your impressions on the survivabilty of of a/t guns and the power of the mortors in LSA gents??

[Priapus1]

The medium mortars are a real game breaker. Troop movement, even over a short distance, is impossible without a 50% casualty rate. I've decided to remove all medium mortars from my custom campaign and increase the amount of mortar barrage each team receives. Doing this has dramatically improved the game and allows some genuine and realistic maneuvering.

I'm also finding, as some other people have mentioned, that half tracks are completely immune to small arms fire. Even the piats don't have much success at halting them.

I agree that casualty rates are too high. Although, relative to CC5, troops surrendering is much more frequent. Also, the majority of casualties are wounded. Presumably the majority are not life threatening and they'd be back to the front after a little R&R.

[tigercub]

I will edit the game and make the 8cm mortars less painfull also more ammo for the german light MGs rounds let me know what u guys feel is the right level  of ammo (900)and i will upload after.

[STIENER]

are you listening Odddball? [;)]

Tigercub
i posted in the lethality of the MG 42 thread a good compromise on the LMG ammo load....."the germans did at times have an ammo problem, but as the campaign progressed the germans got more of everything. FM Model gave the 9ss and 10ss direct access to his HQ for supply and reinforcment requests. they got what they wanted when they wanted it.

i would say the poorer quality troops in LSA should have 450 rds in there LMG squads and the better quality troops like the SS and Fallshirmjager should have 750 to 1000. that would be a good compromise IMHO. "

you might want to try my suggestion as a start point? any one else got any ideas?

uncle Joe and southernland......your thoughts on the survivabilty of of a/t guns and the power of the mortors in LSA gents??