Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About wham

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 07/28/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    Tampere - Finland

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm not sure what this is trying to prove? Evidently all the built-in scenarios have an AI plan, since most of the units move, and only a small portion of them fail to do so.
  2. You make it sound easy, but somehow I feel that if it was quite so easy it would already have been done a decade ago. Hence I suspect there is more to it all.
  3. Two scenarios = double the work designing and testing scenarios, so unlikely to happen unless fans start to create modified versions themselves. Maybe in a few years Battlefront will develop a massive supercomputer AI in the cloud, and all the games can connect to it and a mega-AI that uses machine learning and algorithms to create the best AI in the universe will provide a challenge for us. Or, more realistically, maybe the games could collect data on player moves and use that to automatically generate more complex and efficient AI plans. And even this option would be a massive un
  4. While I see the merit of setting myself extra goals as the defender, I feel this is akin to modding the scenarios myself, which is not what I'm looking for when purchasing a game. I feel this issue could pretty much be remedied by admitting to the shortcomings of the scenarios and engine and AI, and adding a note either in the game description, manual or scenario descriptions that all scenarios are best played as attacker unless the mission is designed and tested to be challenging to play as the defender as well. Multiplayer is a different matter, and I feel nearly all scenarios are perfe
  5. I attached an excel sheet with a list of mission and their outcomes when played as the defender, but not giving units any orders. I did not test meeting engagements, and two other missions kept crashing for me, so I ended up giving up on testing them. Out of 18 scenarios tested: Attacker was able to score some kind of victory in 5 scenarios, mostly smaller ones Attacker managed a draw in 2 scenarios, though I feel these were mostly due to the defender having objectives that required them to take on a more active role Attacker lost against a passive defender in 11 sc
  6. While I understand the challenges of designing AI plans as well as the fact that Combat Mission is less a game and more a simulation of sometimes unfair combat conditions, for some reason I expected the base game scenarios to be balanced out to such a degree that they would provide a challenge no matter which side you played on. Once I noticed this was not always the case, I got curious and opened this thread. So far I see three issues: 1. The attacking force and scenario combined often make it so that even if the defending played does not play and just skips all their turns, the defender
  7. I have not downloaded any extra scenarios. I am only testing the ones by Battlefront, that are provided with the game. So far I've tested 7 maps and only on 3 of them the AI was able to attack effectively.
  8. It says the same thing in the scenario notes for the Germans. Depending on how the Americans move, they can come under MG fire from the Germans during turn 1, even if the Germans don't move. That warning is visible on the image on your previous post, too.
  9. I've decided to run a test on all the attack/defend maps in the games to see if they all produce a similar result if the defender is just passively sitting in place and shooting on sight. Will take me a bit of time, but I'll report back and, as BornGinger suggests, report the issue as a bug if it seems to be one after this testing. As for the scenario, I don't think I can start any more cautiously as the defender than sitting in place and waiting for the Americans to come up to me. If anything, I'd expect the AI to attack more eagerly if it doesn't see any defenders even as it moves up, t
  10. If that really is the state of the AI, even with a plan provided for it by the scenario designer, then I kind of feel cheated here. I'll do some more research in Final Blitzkrieg and Black Sea, as those are the only CMx2 games I own, and see what I come up with.
  11. You make a fair point, sure, and the AI is never going to be on part with a human player. However, since the game has the option of playing single player on either side, and only some scenarios have the "best played as X" warning, I'd have imagined there was some standard to ensure all the scenarios that are included in the game are at least somewhat playable on both sides unless otherwise stated in their description. And if ASL Veteran above says there is an AI plan to enable its attack in this scenario, I wonder why it seems that it's failing so badly?
  12. Wait, are you saying that if the scenario type is "Allied attack" then it is only suited to be played with the player as the Allied side, and if it's "Axis Attack" then it should only be played as the Axis side? Since all of the scenarios that come with the game say they are either a meeting engagement, probe, attack or assault, that would mean there are no scenarios where a human could play as a defender against an AI attack? I must be misunderstanding something there, right? EDIT: I just quick-played through the scenario again. Single player, turn based, elite difficulty. Human as Axis
  13. Nothing in the "Drive them Out" scenario description indicates that it should only be played with a human as the Allied player, and hearing that there is an AI plan for it indicates that it should work (really neat to hear someone who worked on the scenario is in the thread @ASL Veteran!). The reason I raised this thread is that I keep seeing similar issues in multiple scenarios. I took some screenshots of the game as I played. I've attached one image below, taken about 15 minutes into the 60 minute scenario. The blue line indicates the movement pattern of the American Sherman tank. The red li
  14. This link works just fine, thank you kindly! I tried IE11, Edge and Chrome on the original link. All 3 browsers still give me the same "invalid link" error page, so no idea what's going on there. Out of curiosity: does it still work for you if you try it in incognito mode on your browser? Maybe you guys have something in the browser cache from an earlier visit that keeps it alive, but for newcomers it fails? If it still works, then I've no real idea, but I got the file now, so at least I'm good. Cheers!
  15. Tried on my work computer now, same result. "The link you are trying to access does not exist." along with a button to go "back to sign in". Am I supposed to log in to download the patch? I tried the login button on the page https://battlefront.sharefile.com/ but I don't seem to have credentials there. At least my main battlefront account credentials don't work.
  • Create New...