BLSTK Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 So, I've spent the first 43 minutes of a one-hour game trying to manoeuvre my troops into position to achieve victory versus the AI. In urban terrain I have selected all motorized infantry plus a single "Stummel" with its allotment of four AP shells. My "eyes" have a sound contact on what turns out to be an SU-122. I have zero armour in this battle. Just a handful of Panzershreck-wielding Untermensch looking to deal the "coup de grace" against all odds. Things are heating up on the battlefield. At this point, the AI throws in the towel. The SU-122 crew are "broken" without having had a single shot fired in their direction. Talk about anti-climactic. Sadly, the AI surrendering late in the game seems all too frequent an occurrence. Why is there no option to battle to the death? To fight to the finish? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Why is there no option to battle to the death? To fight to the finish? Because it would be pointless. A single assault gun will be attached as part of the "Battalion" subelement that forms the basis of whatever force the AI picked. So if the whole (presumably infantry) force has been roughly handled, "contagious" morale loss (for being aware of all your mates being shot/blow up/fried) will drop the morale state of all that Formation and its attached "single vehicles" and "specialist teams" into the toilet. And a "Broken" assault gun is going to be no challenge whatever to hunt, since it will first of all run away when it's aware of the threat, and has terrible situational awareness so your Choob Guys will be able to sneak up on it at will. When the AI surrenders, the game is over; you've already fought them to the death (their death) and beating the bloody fragments further is simply wasting time stirring pixels with your genitals. If I had my druthers, it'd give in sooner in some situations like the time I killed 90% of an infantry Battalion, including all its vehicles bar 2, but because the armour element wasn't as badly hurt, the AI kept on coming, until the unescorted armour got monched by my defending* infantry and ATGs. It "should" (in an ideal world, and yes, I know how hard that would be; I'm expressing an aspiration I don't expect ever to be fulfilled) have given up when it could no longer support its advancing armour. As it was, the remaining 10% infantry got halved again in their mad kamikaze attempts to fulfill their next scripted order (in spite of their propensity for turning tail and running as soon as any bullets whizzed around their ears) while the armour failed to deal with the ATGs. * Yes I was defending against the AI. I'd given it a 150% combined arms force and taken infantry as the defender in an Assault to see how ATGs fared. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinkin Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Interested to know how much combat there was in the first 43 minutes? You might well have done the damage the Womble writes about. It's hard to tell from the OP. What did the map look like at the end re: enemy losses. Kevin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Given that the AI surrendered, and an unengaged armour unit was Broken, the action in minutes 1-43 was pretty much guaranteed to be intense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLSTK Posted August 2, 2015 Author Share Posted August 2, 2015 The battle for the periphery was indeed intense. But the city proper contained virtually no resistance, much to my disappointment. When I finally caught a sound contact lingering just inside the city limits I thought I was about to experience the much-anticipated "fight to the finish". I mean, my pixeltruppen had crossed five-sixths of the VL and...nothing. As you've correctly surmised, womble, the enemy support troops at this point were non-existent, which explains the "broken" status of the remaining units. So, it seems inevitable that the AI would pack it in. Unless. perhaps, the enemy troops were "fanatic". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinkin Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 So after the initial combat, you crossed 5/6 of the map with little fighting? The AI set up to defend well forward if that's the case. Kevin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 (edited) I personally like that the enemy usually surrenders after havy losses, but what I don't like is that I rarely ever get to actually occupy any objectives. Because the objectives will usually be placed where I can't get to them before killing most of the enemy force. Making it a bit pointless to even have objectives. Well, it's due to scenario design, so up to the designer really. Edited August 2, 2015 by Bulletpoint 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Why so attached to VLs? When the enemy surrenders, you score for occupying the VLs by default, and in a QB it's almost always a Total Victory. If you haven't had to assault onto those VLs you've lost fewer troops (even Broken troops will sometimes get a killing shot or grenade throw off before turning tail again, if you haven't suppressed them), which is inherently satisfying in standalone games and innately valuable in campaigns where you're using the same formation over again with limited reinforcements. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinkin Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 BP For a regular scenario it is up to the designer. But for a QB, only the map and AI plans are provided to the player. Those maps have to accommodate the various selections a player can choose when starting the QB. The map designer can't know what those selections will be and the AI is scripted in a general, less specific, way compared to a regular scenario. So QBs can proceed and end in some funny ways. Kevin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.