What gives?

[CarpeNoctem]

After much drooling research on HTTR I purchased it last Sat online, along with the Strategy Guide.

I have played many scenarios since then and have realized a pattern of play. It seems that if I command from the highest level of command possible, I am guaranteed success.

If there is one objective that is worth more than 50 points I focus on that without concern of any others, nor do I have to worry about defensive locations from the Axis.

If there is several equal value objectives I just take the whole force and work closest to the furthest and leave behind a minimal force to ensure ownership of previous objectives.

The only scenario that hasn't worked like this for me is the steamroller scenario, but that was due to me interviening more than once in the assault; which resulted in the assault being reorg'd everytime I messed with it. I am fully confident that it would have succeeded if I hadn't messed around.

What gives here?

-CN

PS. The version filename I downloaded contained v2286 so I assume that this is version 2.2.8.6

[MarkShot]

It's been quite a while since I played any HTTR scenarios. I no longer recall any specifically (my memory ain't that hot).

I do have varying logs, AARs, and battle plans/maps done for most of the scenarios from both sides while beta testing. (However, these are not up to or close to the level of detail that was presented in my mini-guides.) You are welcome to view any of them if you state the specific scenario which interests you and provide me with an email address. {They are in text, BMP, and JPG format.}

Regarding your comments:

(1) Focusing on the most high valued objectives seems like a reasonable way to go. It was never intended that you must hold every objective in order to get a decisive victory. It's all up to the scenario designer. However, be advised that scenarios can and do have assymetric objectives. So, simply focusing on what is high value to you may not deprive the enemy of what is high value to him.

(2) When the objectives represent a linear series over time, attacking each in succession while leaving a rear guard force to continue to occupy it again seems the proper approach. The OPFOR AI will flank and encircle, but not just for the sake of it. Meaning that if the string of objectives are low 4-8pt objectives, I would expect the OPFOR to apply its muscle on the ones that are 20-30pt objectives.

(3) I won more than I lost while beta testing, but perhaps you are very gifted (as it took me years to reach such a point). Try altering reinforcements and supply scedules to stack the deck against yourself if you need more of a challenge. Also, play with the MAX order delay setting.

(4) Most of the scenarios are balanced; meaning that they shouldn't be stacked against either side. The advantage of such scenario design is that most scenarios are appropriate for MP games or novice to intermediate players. The disadvantage is that for the experienced player despite a good OPFOR AI getting brutally crushed by the OPFOR does become less likely.

(5) Although I have never heard of anyone doing it for HTTR, you could impose a set of house rules that would limit some of the control ability the game gives you to up the challenge level. I have typically done this with certain games, but never felt the need for HTTR.

(6) Play some MP. You could try Yakstock, fellow beta tester, reputed to be one of the best MP players around.

I hope that helps.

[CarpeNoctem]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot
(1) Focusing on the most high valued objectives seems like a reasonable way to go. It was never intended that you must hold every objective in order to get a decisive victory. It's all up to the scenario designer. However, be advised that scenarios can and do have assymetric objectives. So, simply focusing on what is high value to you may not deprive the enemy of what is high value to him.

Yeah focusing on objectives would be critical. But my concern is all that I need to do is issue one command and watch it play out.

Good point on the asym. objectives. I sorta wondered if they were the same objectives, similar objectives or different objectives.

ORIGINAL: MarkShot
(3) I won more than I lost while beta testing, but perhaps you are very gifted (as it took me years to reach such a point). Try altering reinforcements and supply scedules to stack the deck against yourself if you need more of a challenge. Also, play with the MAX order delay setting.

A little gun shy on the max delay, I am using next level down. But even so it rarely comes into play; because I issue the attack and sit. Most I will do is some cases issue defend orders, but that wouldn't matter on the delay too much considering delay on smaller units is almost non-existant.

ORIGINAL: MarkShot
(6) Play some MP. You could try Yakstock, fellow beta tester, reputed to be one of the best MP players around.

Will have to try MP. A little reserved about that; being a newbie and don't like getting burned because of an exploit. (Not saying there are any, but at this point I can't say there aren't)

-CN

PS. Not gifted. Actually I couldn't fight my way out if a barn with a division. That's why I am scratching my head. Do I have a version that needs another patch? Should I get updated scenarios? Or is this how it is?

[Arjuna]

CN,

Sure in some scenarios with just one or two main objectives, you can let the AI win for you. But that is not the way to get the most out of this game. Try a more complex scenario like Mook Right Hook, where you have to initially defend and later attack and where you will be pushed hard initially and have to push even harder later on the counter-attack.

Also try and see things as a real life operational level commander would. Typically they would command two levels down. So for a Corps commander they would typically assign brigades to objectives. When the going gets particularly difficult they may intervene and order specific battalions. So get more involved. Let me know how you go. And remember the best fun is to be had in the process not in the outcome. [:)]

[Banquet]

I enjoy watching the AI play. Sometimes I've let scenario's run overnight where I've given one broad order to my HQ and left it at that. I have to say I usually lose this way. I can't recall which scenario's I've done this with (one was the 1 division each, fictional)

I think Arjuna is right, if there is one main objective you may get a result but the friendly AI won't do a lot of the moves that the enemy AI will do so even then I'd only expect a victory if the odds are a bit one sided. How do you get on when you do the same thing, but switch sides?

[CarpeNoctem]

Thanks for the info peeps:

I am starting to redefine my position as to the game play here. While it may be possible to win with one order, it doesn't seem to be a good win. I.e. there are a TON of casualties. It is interesting to see how the AI handles a HUGE assault

On the Steamroller scenario in which 30 Corp has a load of subordinate HQ's I issua an assault command on the main objective, reattach all reinforcements as they arrive, peal off minimal forces as main group passes through worthy objectives. Except for 506th once they completely arrive in the north, these guys gets the pleasure of assaulting main objective from the north.

With a force delay of 4 hours, it's interesting to watch. The actual assault doesn't get underway until the final day (3rd) and you are really bitting your teeth.

Anyway, it ends up usually NOT securing the final objective but win meter is between 50% and 65%. But when you see the casualty screen it's no pretty at all.

So in retrospect I think the measure should consider losses. I.e. I just went through the Planning Scenario of the Strategy guide (Joe's Bridge) and it's a great way to play. Had a Axis:Allies loss ratio of over 10:1.

-CN

[Banquet]

This is where a campaign system would be good. So if you win a scenario, but take massive loses, you're in bad situation for the next scenario.