Thanks for the update

Mustang · #1 December 27th, 2012, 06:50 AM

I've been away for a while, but a few minutes with the 6.0 patch feels like a whole new game. The AI's IQ went up two standard deviations, while the OOBs have really been redone. Just wanted to say thanks, Don and Andy.

The longer turn limits make it impossible to lose though. Just buy a ton a cheap-shirt infantry and insurgents and in 78 turns you're guaranteed a win or at least a draw. The AI wastes all its points on tanks, planes, and artillery and all I have to do is swarm them with the cheapest combat units in the OOB.

I'm not saying it's not fun, just the contrary. I haven't tried out my new "strategy" against a human player yet.

Anyway, again, superb game. I appreciate the new scenarios too, I'll have to try them out.

Mobhack · #2 December 27th, 2012, 12:45 PM

Well if you "discover" a gamey tactic to flog the AI with, and decide it is not fun - then stop doing it!....

Any human opponent who pegs you as a human-waver will invest in artillery ("steel rain"), tripod MMG and AGL teams, CS tanks with the emphasis on HE bangs over AP, etc in subsequent games.

The human wave melts like an ice cream in Hades, provided the opponent is expecting it.

It might work once on a pure tread-head tank combat only focussed type who is not particularly well equipped with HE chuckers and grunts. And really only in close terrain - the wave is not good on a featureless desert or steppe for example. Also most humans will have some ammo resupply as well, unlike the AI.

And in any case - the next edition will require 2 free MP available to assault. That works against a force advancing on an armoured opponent somewhat, especially for WW2 where there is a lack of ranged infantry light AT weapons. (It removes the rally back to OK status rinse and repeat assault tactic that allowed a unit with no MP left to assault several adjacent vehicles). Oh - and failed results can cause a retreat with a casualty inflicted on the team.... Emplaced unseen infantry is still unhealthy for armour to bump into though.

Mustang · #3 December 27th, 2012, 01:54 PM

You're right, buying a full force of snipers and ATGMs would be no different. I'll also give you that I exaggerated in my first post. I set my entire force to autodeploy/AI control and laid back hitting "end turn" over and over, and now I'm finally starting to lose.

The sheer numbers of infantry aren't even that much of a problem. The problem is artillery misuse combined with the fact that their humvees and Bradleys lunge headfirst into my RPG barrage rather than hang back and engage sensibly. If I was playing against a human player who didn't shell their own forces a third of the time then I think things would be a bit more even.

Ultimately it comes down to artillery placement being a really hard thing for the AI to do without the old SPII code that just forced it to throw everything at the player's center of mass. AGLs and MMGs will not necessarily have long range shots to stop the hordes on the jungle maps I've been playing.

Quote:

And in any case - the next edition will require 2 free MP available to assault. That works against a force advancing on an armoured opponent somewhat, especially for WW2 where there is a lack of ranged infantry light AT weapons. (It removes the rally back to OK status rinse and repeat assault tactic that allowed a unit with no MP left to assault several adjacent vehicles). Oh - and failed results can cause a retreat with a casualty inflicted on the team.... Emplaced unseen infantry is still unhealthy for armour to bump into though.

Glad to hear that you're still working on the game. Personally it annoys me when I mean to click "end turn" and accidentally hit "end game", but I guess that feature is supposed to work against my clickfest tactics.

Requiring two free moves to assault sounds like a good idea. However I don't think it would make much difference because most units need to retain pretty much all their shots with zero suppression in order to assault.

edit: Getting the AI to use ammo resupply would help it fight better as well. The ammo truck is the most underpriced unit in the game.

Miketee10022 · #4 December 28th, 2012, 03:06 PM

Thanks for your insightful comments, and for Mobhack's excellent reply.

I too have brought up the idea of the AI using ammo resupply. I think it comes down to the fact that this would take a LOT of complex coding to accomplish, if it were achievable at all. What I do in my scenarios is to use static AA and arty, and put an ammo bunker right next to them. That's at least a partial solution.

If the programmers are at some point ever able to lick the ammo resupply for mobile units, they would - of course - earn my undying gratitude, along with that of many others too, no doubt!

Suhiir · #5 December 29th, 2012, 06:16 AM

The other thing you can do for scenarios you're creating is use the editor and give whichever units "need" more ammo a larger supply to start with.

That earn me if not undying gratitude at least a pat on the back?

Mustang · #6 December 29th, 2012, 08:44 AM

Thanks for the thanks, Mike. Suhiir is right; if the ammo shortages really bothered me I could set up a separate OOB for the AI which gave them 999 shells per artillery tube and four tubes per unit. That's probably the only way the AI can beat my "strategy".

As the game is, human waving is almost foolproof really. I've played a Red vs. Green/USA/others battles so far with both sides set on computer control, and Red set to human buy. These are long campaigns on Balkan maps, so there's a fair amount of open terrain.

My 13 point FN FAL insurgents haven't scored anything lower than a minor victory yet and have one or two decisive victories. The infantry just moves past tanks like they aren't even there because I can buy 38 squads for the cost of 1 Abrams. The artillery has some effect, but the sheer mass of troops gives such strong cross-HQ rally that the suppression doesn't stick. The only somewhat effective thing the AI has against me is their own infantry, but the FN FAL unskilled insurgents are only an order of magnitude less accurate than a US Army Ranger M-4 ACOG squad apparently, and I can buy three guys for every one of theirs.

I haven't done the math yet but I think I've pretty much found out how to beat the game. Unless I guess if I was to fight 1946 Red vs Afghanistan and my opponent were to use the same strategy.

DRG · #7 December 29th, 2012, 09:01 PM

NO Suhiir is NOT saying set up a separate OOB. She's saying change the ammout of ammo the unit has with the games scenario editor

AMX · #8 December 30th, 2012, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRG

NO Suhiir is NOT saying set up a separate OOB. She's saying change the ammout of ammo the unit has with the games scenario editor

Indeed.
I think Mustang is thinking about generated battles - OOB modding seems to be the most straightforward approach to that.

Mustang · #9 December 30th, 2012, 10:41 AM

Oops, my bad. Either way works.

Update: I've been playing Red vs Peru 5 missions and I got 4 draws and 1 minor win. The AI has defeated my strategy. All they had to do was buy less aircraft.

Mustang · #10 January 6th, 2013, 01:33 AM

If you don't mind, SPMBT team, I have a dumb question about pricing in the Soviet OOB. Most Soviet tanks seem to be priced 2/3rds of the equivalent US unit. However this only gives them a 1:1.5 numerical advantage over NATO. Historically it was more like 2:1 or 3:1 in tanks. It seems that if I wanted to make a historically accurate central front tank battle scenario I would have to give the USSR double points.

I'm not saying you should deflate the Soviet OOB because perhaps the way it is now works better for game balance. But I'm curious, was that the intent? Do the Soviets really need a handicap?