WHo uses the tactical system?

[wodin]

Ive just read a post about what seems like a poor AI in the tactical game.

So who is playing using the tactical battles?

Is it something that is cool to start off with but you end up dropping it?

Or is it considered a major part of the gameplay enjoyment?

If it is considered a major part I will hold off buying until hopefully a patch is released to improve the AI.

[nukkxx5058]

I think it is a big part of game enjoyment ... detailed battles are fun.
So far, I don't master the game at all (it's overall complex). But I think I will use detailed battle depending on the battle. Some battles I will have fun to play, some other no. Keep in mind that some battles are very long in detailed mode...

[ASHBERY76]

The game is good enough without the Tactical battles.In my view they take to long anyway.I prefer to play strategic battles only, ala E.U.

[Chaldkydri]

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

The game is good enough without the Tactical battles.In my view they take to long anyway.I prefer to play strategic battles only, ala E.U.

The battles are only 30 minutes or so long... that's absolustly nothing...

[Alan_Bernardo]

Ive just read a post about what seems like a poor AI in the tactical game.

You know, just because one or two people might say that the AI is poor doesn't mean that it is poor. There are those who make it their lifestyle to find the bad in everything.

A poor AI to one person may not be a poor AI to another. Too often, as soon as something happens (and without further testing), folks are ready to say something is or something isn't.

While the post you read may have some validity, I wouldn't base my entire decision on one post.

Alanb

[Hanal]

I decide whether or not to play a tactical battle depending on how much time I plan on playing the game...if time is short, I will do a quick battle....until they add a save feature to the tactical battles, that's how I do it.....

[bluemonday]

ORIGINAL: Chaldkydri

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

The game is good enough without the Tactical battles.In my view they take to long anyway.I prefer to play strategic battles only, ala E.U.

The battles are only 30 minutes or so long... that's absolustly nothing...

Have you played out some of the larger battles, like 175,000 French against 225,000 Austrains/Russians? That can take almost two hours. The auto-resolve (just hitting the 'q' key) for one battle took 20 minutes.

[nukkxx5058]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Ive just read a post about what seems like a poor AI in the tactical game.

Well, so far, I have got my ass kicked by AI all the time LOL. Both in tactical and strategical modes )))

[ess1]

As you say, early days. Perhaps the wargamers (BG, HPS) might prefer tatical, perhaps not.
Certainly a "save" option would be nice[:)]

[Banquet]

The tactical battles are fun and I will certainly play them in major battles. I have passed on some smaller battles. I had Spain repeatedly attack me in Gibralter. After fighting tactical battles 3 times I went to quick resolution after that (and I'm glad to see that the quick resolution seems to give similar results to what I'd expect from the tactical battles - unlike R:TW)

I have to say I have found the tactical battles a little easy.. I've not lost to the Spanish yet, despite being outnumbered sometimes up to 2-1.. however I'm playing on easy level at the moment while I get the hang of things, so I guess it's to be expected.

[Uncle_Joe]

To clarify, the Tactical AI is not bad. Not at all.

But is it up to what a good human player can do? No, of course not. This is no different than any other game out there in that regard.

If you find it too easy, increase the difficulty level to compensate.

[ravinhood]

You know, just because one or two people might say that the AI is poor doesn't mean that it is poor. There are those who make it their lifestyle to find the bad in everything.

Well it makes it poor to them, so their statements are valid for them. The quality of an AI is mostly a personal thing, but, as you get to know more people on a forum and/or real life you tend to know their strategic and tactical abilities and intelligence. So, when someone you know posts something about a game or AI that is poor, you can usually bank on it being poor as well for you if you feel you are equal in calibur to their intelligence in gaming.

But, when I see a chit load of comments by the majority of the forum start to say "this AI is challenging or hard as hell", then my eyes pop wide open. Unfortunately I haven't seen that yet out of this games forum members.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Alan_Bernardo

Ive just read a post about what seems like a poor AI in the tactical game.

You know, just because one or two people might say that the AI is poor doesn't mean that it is poor. There are those who make it their lifestyle to find the bad in everything.

A poor AI to one person may not be a poor AI to another. Too often, as soon as something happens (and without further testing), folks are ready to say something is or something isn't.

While the post you read may have some validity, I wouldn't base my entire decision on one post.

Alanb

Well said!

[bluemonday]

ORIGINAL: Alan_Bernardo

Ive just read a post about what seems like a poor AI in the tactical game.

You know, just because one or two people might say that the AI is poor doesn't mean that it is poor. There are those who make it their lifestyle to find the bad in everything.

I don't see any mean-spirited posts or anyone "trying to find the bad" in the game. I just see posters relating their experiences with a game they seem to be enjoying for the most part. The devoted fault-finders are a different kind of poster than that.

That said, I agree that one or two posts don't mean something is a fact. But I find that watching a game's messageboards is a good way to get good impressions of what's really going on with a game.

[SlapBone]

In light of Ravinwood's obsession with game AI, I am convinced he hates winning games. I therefore challenge him to a new message board game I just made up, and hopefully he will like it.

[SlapBone]

I WIN!!!

First round goes to me ...wanna play again?

[jchastain]

The original comment was mine. Although I did not say the AI was "poor", I did observe that after playing the game for 2 days I can beat the AI fairly consistently in detailed battles - even those where I am outnumbered significantly. Having remembered a comment by Raleigh that he has won with every nation in the game multiple times, it made me wonder what the winning percentages were for experienced players. And that is why I started the thread asking that very question. Thjus far, it appears that most experienced players are able to win in the detailed battles fairly consistently. I'll allow others to draw the appropriate conclusions of what that means.

To answer your question Wodin, while I was originally sketical about whether I would enjoy detailed battles and while I was fearful that they would detract from the overall strategic game that I was hoping to find, I now find that they are a whole lot of fun. Even though I can win fairly consistently, no two are the same and I must actually devise a plan for each and every encounter based on the terrain, forces present, and supply situation. The battles have a generally solid interface (the only downside is a few important commands that require a key stroke and have no corresponding button and therefore require you to look them up until you commit them to memory) and it flow quite well. Instead of detracting from the strategic game, I find that I look forward to the battles. So, I can't imagine not playing the detailed battles. It would be like going a park and skipping all the rides or going to the beach but not taking a swim suit.

So, does the ease of winning battles ruin the game? Not to me. I still haven't finished a full strategic game yet. There is lots more to do (and lots more to learn). But over the last several days, I have spent at least 8 hours per day in CoG. Very few titles are that engrossing. Even if the AI proves to be a long term disappointment, the entertainment value of the dollars spent are well worth the price. I spent the equivalent of 3 or 4 movies (or 1 night in a bar) on this game and I've already gotten far more hours of enjoyments out of this game (and had more fun than any recent movie or the vast majority of bar trips). Even if the AI is never improved, this game is worth playing and you'll get many hours of enjoyment learning to beat it. And if it is improved, then that's just icing on the cake in my mind. All-in-all, this likely isn't a game you'll still be playing a year from now (precious few have that level of longevity and that's not really what you should expect from any title - just be thrilled when it actually happens). But in my mind, CoG is a great and affordable way to spend the summer.

[Chaldkydri]

ORIGINAL: bluemonday

ORIGINAL: Chaldkydri

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

The game is good enough without the Tactical battles.In my view they take to long anyway.I prefer to play strategic battles only, ala E.U.

The battles are only 30 minutes or so long... that's absolustly nothing...

Have you played out some of the larger battles, like 175,000 French against 225,000 Austrains/Russians? That can take almost two hours. The auto-resolve (just hitting the 'q' key) for one battle took 20 minutes.

actully i had a 146k 7. morale swed army take on 200k+(those blasted reinforcements) and it took only 1 hour for me to punch a hole to retreat.. those garrison were taking out 500 man chunks with their guns.. though i lost quite alot.. It's mainly how you fight your battles, an agressive charge or a held out shooting fest. the latter are no good since you're there to rout em not kill em all. and really nothing is close to Hps games which last days if you take your time.

[bluemonday]

ORIGINAL: Chaldkydri

It's mainly how you fight your battles, an agressive charge or a held out shooting fest. the latter are no good since you're there to rout em not kill em all.

Actually, that's not true - you can gain significant advantage by methodically killing enemy troops rather than just trying to break the army because over several battles the amount of attrition can be enormous. The manual even suggests this as a tactic for Turkey: attack the enemy, kill of his weakest units, and then rout off the battlefield yourself! Repeat this several times and you end up with more even odds when you finally fight to the finish. You have to have a lot of cavalry to avoid pursuit losses in this case, but it's a viable tactic. In the large climactic battles of a campaign, killing the enemy and not just routing him can put an opposing power out of the running for a long time if you fight the battle properly. Unfortunately that can take quite a while.

ORIGINAL: Chaldkydri

and really nothing is close to Hps games which last days if you take your time.

True, but the difference with HPS games is that it's all about the tactical combat, which means there is no balance to strike. A game of CoG can take days as well. The problem is not the length of time itself, it is when one facet (tactical combat) takes an inordinate amount of time relative to another with no ability to save.

[Banquet]

I just played a tactical battle (as France, vs Prussia + Austria) on Napoleon difficulty level . I can't find any reference in the manual to what that is.. basically the list goes from Easiest to Very Difficult and then goes through 'general' thru 'Wellington' and ends up with Napoleon.

I fought 89000 French against 119000 Austrian and Prussian. I did win but the battle was a lot of fun. The AI deployed skirmishers which I've never seen when playing on easy. Also casualties on my side were higher (but not unrealistically so) and my charges were a lot less one sided compared to easy. I still got great hits on enemy units - over 2000 from one charge, and 1700 from one artillery attack, but I also suffered much higher casualties than before.

By the end of the battle I had lost 16000 men, the AI lost 18000 before pulling back. One thing I noticed is that their army was more inclinded to disorganise/route than mine and also as soon as the battle starts I try to form up my lines whereas the AI comes at me. Not sure if this makes a difference.. maybe if the AI were programmed to be more defensive it would help. Even in battles where I am attacking, it still comes at me, allowing me the luxury of forming a line a sitting in defense.

I reckon a time limit of some sort would help here.. with the AI able to recognise that it is defending where that is the case, letting it form up and wait for me, rather than the other way around.

The battle was a lot of fun though. I think if I'd played at the same difficulty as the British in Spain in my other game, I'd have lost some battles.

I personally wouldn't be put off the game, even if tactical battle are easy.. I don't even know if Napoleon is the hardest level?