Defensive Locations

[FFE]

Hopefully, the new version will permit the scenario designers the ability to manually set units to do not move! This would be a handy tool that prevents the AI from lunging forward from well established positions while on the defense.

[Michael Emrys]

That could get complicated. For one thing, they might find themselves in positions that are not tactically sound, especially as the battle evolved, and you'd want them to be able to move. This sounds more like something that needs tweaking in the Tac AI, like putting a higher priority on remaining in good positions on defense.

Frankly though, I can't say that I've ever witnessed the problem that you are describing. I don't mean to say that it can't happen, I'm just trying to get a handle on how common it is.

Michael

[Pzman]

I found that the AI would often bring up 'reinforcements' from other (even large VLs) to help hold onto small ones. I have often run into little counter attacks as the AI tries to move men up to retake a lost flag.

[stoat]

I have seen them shift whole platoons across open ground from small VLs to large ones even though they still held both. The AI is then minus one platoon, and when the time comes it is easier to take the small flag. If the enemy would have stayed put, they still would lose the large flag but it would cost me significantly more casualties to take the small one.

[Kingfish]

As far as the AI is concerned, one flag lost is all flags lost.

[FFE]

Yes, the situation that often leads the AI to maneuver out of well entrenched / placed locations is often due to a capturing a VL. The shifting of forces across areas often leads to AI forces being shredded with little to no impact, at least in large scenarios.

What I would like to see is a "toggle" that permits scenario designers the option to select formations that could be "excluded" from the AI movement routine. Perhaps having a time selection that turns the "Do Not Move" or "Hold at All Costs" toggle off may prove very useful.

Another "fun" possibility is to code trigger points that activate certain units and automatically issues a set of orders based on the scenario designer's intent. For instance, if an enemy unit crosses a bridge then a set of reinforcements appears.

[Zalgiris 1410]

I feel that you may be asking too much for the senario design perspective. That said, I agree with you about the problem of the behaviour of the AI from plenty of experience. I hope that at least there is some good tweaking of the AI's own programming to keeping units in good positions when on the defence. However hopefully it could be arranged as a options chioce setting for AI before battles that range between hold at all cost-elastic-counter attack as mush as necessary etc. In that case I would be up to the senario designer to suggest which option he recommends while allowing players the ability to try others or a default or random AI tendancy. Especially good in case the designer was wrong or not to players liking and for the replayability of designed battles etc. That's what I would like to see in CMx2, the cioce between different AI opponent options settings rather than just one hopefully default good AI opponent.