The Bad(?) AI

[berto]

I know that, in order to make games more historical, and to handicap the player vis-a-vis the computer AI, many people play games like the BGS and HPS Civil War games using "house rules".

Question: How many players from time to time make deliberate mistakes in their play, or mimic the command decisions or command styles of their historical commander counterparts, much like what happened in Real Life?

So, for better game balance and increased historicality, do things like:

--In Shiloh, march Lew Wallace's division in the wrong direction.
--In Chickamauga, leave a gaping hole in the line for Longstreet's troops to attack and pour through.
--In Chatanooga, launch a spontaneous, reckless charge up Missionary Ridge.
--In Bull Run II, ignore Longstreet's imminent mass attack on the Union left.
--In Chancellorsville, as the Union, deliberately hold back overwhelming forces, also ignore Jackson's imminent "surprise" attack on your right.
--In Seven Days, as the Confederacy stumble about and attack piecemeal, late in the day. Or, as the Union, and like MacClellan, believe that the Confederate forces far exceed your own (imagining they have 200,000 troops to your less than 100,000), and advance super cautiously.
--In Antietam, as the Union (and again like MacClellan), likewise hold back overwhelming forces, also attack piecemeal.

I could give many other examples.

In order to make the games more interesting and balanced, do any players play in a deliberately ham-strung way--trying for the most part but goofing up on occasion?

[Luciano B]

An interesting point, Berto.

Try to play "solitaire" battles, using the "hot seat" option - it means playing in the two enemy sides in the same time - making the historical moves of the armies... it is a good way to explore the eventual developments of a battle remaining in the path of the actual fight.