Jump to content

Mad Russian

Members
  • Content Count

    1,100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mad Russian

  1. Well, some of us are at the end of those long computer life spans now trying to figure out the best way to proceed from here. Nice that you're not. Sooner, or later, you will be one of those fools when your computer dies or won't turn on any more. Good Hunting. MR
  2. The time for war has come..............this being the 59th anniversary of the start of WWII we have chosen this time to open a new chapter in wargaming as well. We have created a new website that will be for wargaming, history and intersite tournaments. We are starting with CM but don't intend to limit the intersite tournaments to any single game. The new site is called War and Tactics. The tournament is the Master's Tournament. The scenario designers are from The Scenario Depot II. They have all earned a rating of 10 or greater on a scenario before 1 January 2008. They were asked to prov
  3. The time for war has come..............this being the 59th anniversary of the start of WWII we have chosen this time to open a new chapter in wargaming as well. We have created a new website that will be for wargaming, history and intersite tournaments. We are starting with CM but don't intend to limit the intersite tournaments to any single game. The new site is called War and Tactics. The tournament is the Master's Tournament. The scenario designers are from The Scenario Depot II. They have all earned a rating of 10 or greater on a scenario before 1 January 2008. They were asked to prov
  4. At least you're consistent, I'll give you that. You have nothing and at least this time you're not even trying to make things up. Not sure what you think you have that makes you all seeing all knowing. Nobody ever said the AI was as good as a human player. That wasn't the question now was it? But you know what, you win.... You're absolutely right. I've not seen a difference in the way the CEB adds to games. I've not had reviews that back up that the CEB makes the scenarios play better if you use it. I've not put them on here with the scenario names and location so that what I put
  5. What actually works to make the dumb AI challenging is long odds, carefully arranged set ups and flag placements, and shoestring-ish human forces that force the player to get something out of each team. But those will work without quality falsification. The vs the AI scenario is capable of certain things a H2H scenario can't do. As you correctly identified, there are certain situations that the AI excels in. High unit density actions on one side that a human player would crush his opponent with can be shown quite well. The issue of stupid comes into play as well. You can actually hav
  6. That's exactly what I mean. The AI is harder to beat with a higher CEB. That was the question. You even agree with the statement even though you don't use it. I have no idea how you would ever tell if the computer would or will execute more orders per game. What I do know is that the computer does other things I consider "smart". Such as flag rushes, flanking moves, using combined arms attacks, less dance of death maneuvers by tanks...etc...that I can see happen. Those are easily identifiable. As you say...DUH....to me that is better. If you want to break down the way the computer does ea
  7. Does that equate to the same thing as does it play better because it's actually smarter or does it play better because the units are better? Isn't that just another way of simply asking does it play better period? Well, I think I've made my position on how I feel about it fairly clear. What do you think? MR
  8. Let's just take that comment right there at face value. If you have no doubt the AI gives you a better game with the CEB increased isn't that what the original question was? The strangest thing to me in all of the CM world is what difference does it make what BFC did to allow for better game play? If using a higher CEB gives you better results in the game what difference does it make? If that happens because of an increase in CEB, the designer doing a better job, a combination of the two, or the little miniature men my disks came with to install inside my case so when I play they direct the
  9. Sorry you missed my claim. I made one claim Jason, over and over. The game plays better with higher CEB's applied. I didn't say I never use it and then tell others why it doesn't work though. Good Hunting. MR
  10. Not when you make the scenario with elite troops and play it out at 0 CEB. Then play the same scenario with an added CEB and it plays better. You guys can use the CEB or not in your own game play. I recommend it because it does a better job for me. But then I don't have a dumb as a box of rocks AI either. Funny you should mention the differences between games. I see a marked reduction in AI capability between CMBB and CMAK. In CMAK, it seems to me, the AI wants all games to be Meeting Engagements and will advance no matter what. I have had to use reinforcement groups to get the AI to
  11. I don't think the CEB was intended for designer scenarios as much as it was for quick battles, where the players are restricted to a point limit. Your points are valid and worth considering, but lets look at it another way. If BFC was able to code a function in the game that made the AI perform better and smarter with a simple click of the mouse, then why not have that function be the overlying code for the entire game? IOW, if it is universally understood that a smarter AI is a huge selling point, why would they code it so you can only get it as a selectable option, one that few people
  12. Here are some recommendations with descriptions: Scenarios for Beginners Hope this helps. Good Hunting. MR
  13. Double post. Been awhile since I posted here. Good Hunting. MR
  14. The issue is can the AI do better with the CEB at a higher level. The answer I think is yes. I thought I was showing that gamers feel that way too. It was not sarcasm on my part. (Well, the part where Jason says he doesn't use it but has alot to say about how it doesn't work, was sarcasm.) Let's look at this another way. If all that needs be done is to raise the experience levels the designer can do that simply. I could make all the troops in the scenario, at say crack,, or elite, and then there wouldn't be a need for a CEB setting in the first place. Much easier for BFC to do that as
  15. Try not to tell me how I balance my scenarios. I playtest and balance my vs the AI scenarios with a +2 CEB. They are set that way for a reason. I thought the entire reason for playbalancing is, "to make the fights more challenging". That's the reason I playtest and balance my scenarios. Can't speak for your ultimate goals as a designer. Personally, if you don't use +AI settings how can you even comment on their usefulness or effectiveness? Good Hunting. MR
  16. Alright then...but still that's only two scenarios...so let's take a look at some others.... How about HSG B Bussard I played all games with +2 AI experience and managed a score of zero first attempt and 100% 4th attempt. The addiction is trying to better your previous score and trying out different tactics. Or HSG B Each in Turn... Well I reckon the 'B' in the scenario title stands for 'Bitch'... I started this baby thinking 'a tank battle vs the AI...? how hard can it be...? Trust me, with a +3 CEB, it's hard enough. Do yourself a favour, download and play it. Thanks for a
  17. But you know what, maybe that first scenario was just a fluke. I mean even a broken clock is right twice a day right? So then, let's move on the the number 3 downloaded scenario for CMBB on The Scenario Depot II. It is also 24th in the ratings for CMBB scenarios. That would be HSG EW Panthers Roll. Here some of the comments it has earned: Excellent fight against the AI. Gave them a +1 experience bonus and managed to score a tactical victory. As indicated before you really feel overwhelmed at first, but hang in there and you will experience a very fun and intense armor heavy fig
  18. At The Scenario Depot II my HSG KC Untstfhr Muehleck is second on the all time downloads list for CMBB scenarios. It is first in review ratings. Not bad for a vs the AI scenario...here are some of the comments that it has earned: If you're looking for a fun "thinking mans" shoot'em up, high action, use the map or die, never a dull moment solo play scenario then this is the one for you. Played as Axis vs AI. I can see why this is top rated, it's great. The first time through, I got stomped into the dirt. Exellent scenario, Gotta have good skills using Panther Tanks or it could be
  19. The major flaw in with the AI is two fold. First most game designers aren't experienced enough to make it work. Second you are asking a machine to be as smart as a human player. I'll post some comments for some of the scenarios I know about. My own. You can decide from there. Anyone with other concrete evidence and not just a cookie cutter opinion can then start the debate about stupid the AI is. Good Hunting. MR
  20. Well you could try playing hundreds of games against the AI and see if you can tell a difference. Or you could ask the wonderfully talented and all knowing experts here on these forums. Or you could ask someone that has played the AI hundreds of times. Or you could just let the gamers that play the scenarios tell you. Let's just take one small item into consideration. Why would BFC add a Computer Experience Bonus to the game, take all that development time and the resource space on the disk if it has no effect? Good Hunting. MR
  21. I guess I don't get this post. HSG has scenarios that feature single tanks for your entire OOB...how much smaller than that can you get? While the emphasis for CMx2 seems to have changed to a smaller scale that doesn't mean that CMx1 can't portray that same smaller scale. BFC is trying some different approaches to modeling the combat portrayed. Whether or not they succeed in that is a personal determination by each and everyone of us. To say that CMx1 didn't cover small unit actions doesn't seem to hold much water for me though. While CMSF isn't my cup of tea, the evolution of the
  22. How can they be too small, when you posted these parameters.... I am looking for Meeting Engagement scenarios, at about 2,500 points total or less, 30 turns or less (I have found this to be ideal for TCP/IP play). Too large I can understand..but too small? The "or less" parameter should keep any scenario from being too small. Of all the parameters to use for searching for a battle the points is the worst. A 1941 Russian Front 2,500 point battle has far more units in it than a 1945 scenario. The later units cost more....so take a look at overall number of units and not the points. A goo
  23. The question of Tiger Battalions being subordinated to Panzer Divisions is simple. They were. I'm not sure that they were for reasons of missing tank battalions but they could have been. As has been pointed out by both sides, the Tigers were sent to areas of critical need. Whether that meant an area of a PD without it's Panther Bn or not seems irrelevant to me. There are almost countless situations where the Tiger Bn's were under the operational control of a Panzer Division. I'm sure that authority came from Korps/Army/Army Group. No matter where it came or why. The Tigers may wel
  24. Well, that answers the question if 16th Panzer Division had any. MR
×
×
  • Create New...