BornGinger

I think that a part of the problem is that the area where the troops can move to are too large and take a lot of space. Sometimes you'd like to move your squad or team to a certain position just to notice that the game don't allow them to go there but place them somewhere in front of or beside that spot you want them to go to. So although you maybe find a good spot where you want to place your squad or team to have overwatch they might end up on a bad spot. If the action squares were divided into nine position squares instead of four, or how many they are, so the area where they can be placed are a bit smaller it would be easier to put them in that good spot you want them to occupy.

That's exactly what I did. I suggested that you edit a scenario, or a few, and change the experience of the side you play against the AI and I also suggested that you could play against people. But you didn't like those suggestions. That's exactly what they do. It is often mentioned for example Player Axis vs AI Allied. And by that you should understand that there are no AI-plans for the Axis. That is the reason why the designers for the stock scenarios put those plans in the mode to not being used when playing the scenario.

It's not a hobby but more like a duty.

It seems to me that you should avoid playing the scenarios and quick battles against the AI and spend most of your time on TheFewGoodMen and TheBlitz so you can play against human opponents. Or you could edit the scenarios and change the experience of the defenders to be conscript or green and save the scenario with another name. Maybe fighting the AI will get more challenging and interesting then.

That's the reason to why it's good to use all, or most of, the 16 AI-groups in quick battles (or to save a quick battle map we got with the game under another but similar name and split up the AI-groups in the battle plans into smaller ones so there are more of them). It's a bit more work to give all those 16 groups orders but might make the quick battles more fun. I had the same happening to me in that scenario. But that tank doesn't just stand without moving. If you click on the tank you will see that it has been bogged down in the mud. I have complained in other threads about how easy it is for vehicles to get bogged down in a little splash of mud and suggested that there could be different kinds of mud; deep mud, for vehicles to get stuck in, and shallow mud, where vehicles don't get stuck. Another thing is that when AI-vehicles do get stuck there is no function to make infantry leave those vehicles automatically when the vehicles haven't been moving for a set amount of time. I hope that BF will make some changes to mud and how the infantry behaves when the vehicle they're in, or on, get bogged down.

I think I might have found the reason to why the AI-attacking forces never began to move from the setup positions in this quick battle map. There were two other AI-plans with setup positions but without any move orders added to them. Those plans weren't set to "never use" which caused the game to load them with the result that the AI-troops just stood and waited. I have now removed the setup positions in those two AI-plans and also set them to "never use". It should work now. Thanks for your time.

This thread is not about whether the AI is able to attack in a good way. What wham is mentioning in the first post is that the AI-attacking forces don't move from their setup positions to begin the attack but stay there as if they have a supply problem or as if they all have the runs. I noticed the same with a quick battle yesterday and today. Although there is an attack plan for the AI-opponent the AI troops never starts to move but stay in their setup positions the whole two hours. When I checked that quick battle in scenario author mode a couple of times the AI-troops sometimes began to move out to start the attack but more often didn't.

That scenario is one of those we get with the game, right? The scenarios we get with the game usually have plans for both sides. If a scenario is for one side only it is clearly mentioned when you are about to pick a scenario to play. Custom made scenarios more often are to be played for one side only.

I did a little test with a quick battle in author mode, or what it's called, and gave an AI-group the setup order to ambush armor on 600 meters. And then in the quick battle selection window for the AI troops I picked a medium tank battalion from which I removed most of the tanks. And I picked an infantry battalion too. When I later on clicked on the red start button the AI-tank group was moved into the setup zone to ambush armor from 600 meters. If the setup zone which you set to "ambush armor" is small enough and you pick a company or platoon of something from which you remove what you don't need and add AT-guns instead, maybe that platoon or company will be placed by the AI on that setup zone. I didn't try this with AT-guns, but you can always try that yourself to see what result you get.

I haven't noticed this before but actually had this happen to me yesterday and today but in a quick battle. When I had the same happen to me I decided to prepare that quick battle in author mode, or what it's called, just to check on the behaviour of the attacker. The strange thing is that a few times I've prepared a quick battle on this map, the attacker starts moving his troops but most of the times I've prepared this quick battle the attacker doesn't move at all. Maybe @wham, as he was the one who started this thread, should report this as a bug?

This would be much easier if quick battles could be longer than 2 hours especially if the map is large or huge.

Good to know, chuckdyke. But it seems you replied in the wrong thread, as what you wrote didn't have anything to do with what wham asked.

To see more AI groups, 32 instead of 16, would be great. But if that isn't what BF wants to have, I would be ok with being able to split a group into different smaller blobs, instead of one large blob, and that way have for example a company's three squads moving together or a platoon's three squads moving together. Now if you split an AI-group up and paint three different smaller blobs on the map the platoon leader (or company leader) often move too far away from the different sections they are supposed to support. I made a thread about it but it went into hibernation quite early, like most of the threads here.

The training in Devon before being shipped out for some serious business.

It was just a bit of sarcasm from my side. But I'm sure some peoole would be happy to get something extra for making a pre-order.

Allright @domfluffthanks for the information. So if a C2 connection is maximum eight action squares long, while not in hiding, it's maybe better to keep platoon leaders around that distance from the squads he's leading if things might get hot.

I decided to read through this thread again just to remind myself of this in-game feature. As I understand the C2 info sharing is not only about giving and receiving information about what's happening on the battlefield but also about keeping the morale high among the troops as when in C2 they get a morale bonus and don't break as easily when under fire or taking casualties. But while reading this I began to wonder about what happens when a squad is under fire and maybe even have casualties and their platoon leader has -1 or -2 in leadership. Is a squad in such a situation and with such a platoon leader still getting a morale bonus just because they're in C2 or do their morale suffer from having a -1 or -2 platoon leader?

Although Zloba probably still is sleeeping now from having played CMBN all night and into the early morning and maybe continues to play after the brunch and cup of coffee, I'm pretty sure he'll check back on this thread later on. A little tip for him is to read this thread about C2 sharing between different troops and units. It will be of help while playing against the AI and I believe especially against a human opponent.

Some game companies seem to give those who preorder something extra as a bonus. Maybe Battlefront could give those who preorder something as prestigious as a banner on the website saying for example "MikeyD - Hero of the Battlefront Community" or "MikeyD put his trust in our DLC. Do you do the same?" Or why not give them a special forum icon to use here if they get bored with the one they have? That could make those who preorder a bit special and feel like a great bonus. Have buildings on fire as mentioned above is something I have wanted for a long time. Would be great to have if BF would like to bring it back. What was the reason to remove that feature in CM2?

I bought Final Blitz in the Summer 2016, if I'm correct, and haven't bought a second game as I believe the WW2 ones are quite similar and the later day ones don't appeal to me much. As Zloby bought the CMBN bundle, I think he has enough fighting to do before he wants to buy another one.

Shall we guess how long we think it takes before Zloba decides to try a pbem-game? I think (s)he'll use not less than four months to play the game against the AI as a way to learn it well enough. And after maybe six months the time might has come to go to either TheFewGoodMen or TheBlitz and ask for a CM-bout against someone.

It is possible for anyone to feel a bit "sick" of a CM-game after three or four weeks. But the reason for that is probably that they have played them a bit too much. I have tried out games earlier and after a week or two felt that I don't want to play it anymore because it was too stupid or there was something else in the game I didn't agree with. There are some things in the CM-games I wish were different, but I still enjoy them enough to continue. The reason for me is mostly that I enjoy playing with a few companies with armored support on large or huge maps. If you would buy a CM-game and later on feel that you want to play something else I'm pretty sure that you will come back to the game later on. And one reason to this could be that you have watched a documentary about the WW2 and would like to play out something similar as what you just have watched. Another reason could be that you have a friend or relative with whom you'd like to play a hotseat game or who convinces you to play a hotseat game with him/her.

Proper house to house fighting with different rooms on each floor and basements where the troops can fight is probably something for CM3 if that engine ever will arrive.

It's always fun to read these kind off threads in which people recommend their favourite CM-version because one gets this and that. I'm sure in a couple of months zloba might enjoy them too and maybe even recommend the version he is buying because one gets this and that. Whichever version zloba is choosing I'm sure he'll enjoy it.

Just as you wrote a CM-game is quite expensive. But all scenarios that come with the game, scenarios that can be downloaded from TheFewGoodMen website and scenarios that can be home made in the editor and also the quick battles we get with a game make sure we will have fun for a long time. And when we start playing against people with the pbem-system we will have even more fun.