Matrix Games Forums

OK. Ive just played my third scenario (Arnhem Intorduction scenario small british force) and I got another decisive victory.

Full 100 points. Is the AI quite easy to beat with this game or was that an eay scenario.

I protected crossroads with small holding forces and left two battalions one each side of the bridge to protect the objective.

They tried a probe and one assalt but time ran out for them.

So the AI easy or not?

I don't recall the difficulty level of various scenarios. Play with ORDER DELAYS = PAINFULLY REALISTIC.

If you find that you are a "natural" at this, then try playing around with the supply and reinforcement settings to make things harder.

If you want a challenge, then try "Mook - Right Hook (Axis)" and see if you can get a decisive victory. In my opinion, that was one of the hardest I played (multiple times).

I had it at realistic so I will up it.

The scenario was only small so maybe on sonething bigger I will have a harder time. Or it is beginners luck.

'Mook Right Hook' is very difficult playing as the Axis if you want to achieve a 'decisive' - even more so with the tweaks applied in the latest patch (personally I think the change to the way 'fatigue' is modelled is not good). Playing the 'Arnhem Historical' as the Brits is also very challenging especially as you're trying to re-write history! It was this that piqued my interest when I first saw the news about RDOA a couple of years back.

My 2c. The AI isn't easy to beat, but it's better in some scenarios than others. I find the AI to be more "competent" than "inspired" - it doesn't do bizarre mistakes too often, but it doesn't seem to think outside the box much, either. Seems to play the Germans better than the Allies in the historical scenarios, from what I've seen, plus the Allied objectives are more challenging vis a vis reality, as noted.

Of course, if Panther actually wrote an inspired AI, we'd all accuse them of loading the dice for the AI; and they'd probably not be working on commercial wargames, either....

What's most special about PG's AI is that it can do a decent attack; most AI's do better defense especially where strong scenario design features are available (ie. CM series).

PG's AI is particularly adept at probing for holes. This can be exploited by a thin and layered defense which would fail to stop a massed attack, but keeps the AI attempting to probe and attack in minor actions.

On the defense, the AI is more oriented to foot print (ground coverage) than terrain features as a good human player might be.

On defense, you can get the AI to shift forces away from unthreatened objectives and hit those objectives in force late in the scenario.

Of course, the above really aren't a big criticism of the AI, because it like many humans reflects certain predictable patterns of play.

I would rate HTTR's SP experience to be very high quality. To win, you must employ reasonable/realistic strategies as opposed to depending on ineptness and unrealistic reactions by the AI.

I could see them probeing my defences. Then shifting to a different route to attack.

I really think I chose an easy scenario. Im not good at these games really.

It was only a small unit game as well.

Can someone advise other small scenarios for me to try before I go bigger.

wodin,

Trt the Molenhoek counterattack, Devil's Hill and Para Rescue.

If you want a challenge, Also try Crunch Time as the allies

7th Armoured vs 1st SS Pz LAH

Ha, Ha [:D], that was funny to read how...how Wodin changed his mind [;)]...(no offence)

ORIGINAL: MadScot
I find the AI to be more "competent" than "inspired"

Excellent analysis. I once thought the AI was inspired in the situation depicted below. The AI seemed to have feinted an attack on my right flank to disrupt my defense in Deelen.
But as I posted this in the forum, Dave, coldly, told us that the AI had just found out the path of less resistance. As he should, as a competent AI. My illusions vanished.

JeF.