cool web head Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 My apologies if this has been asked before, a brief search turned up no good advice on this topic: What's the deal with quick battles? I spent all afternoon yesterday trying to set a good one up. I learned quickly that you can't let the AI choose its own forces, but even still, it seems that nine times out of ten the AI is totally incapable of mounting a sensible defense (forget about having the AI try and attack you). Yesterday I spent an hour or so choosing forces for both sides and positioning my men only to find that the AI had left its fortifications bunched up in the corner while trucks drove AT guns about in seemingly random directions. Another time on a map which was essentially just open ground, I was surprised to see that the German's positioned all but one of their tanks in a ditch along the border of the map. I suspect it just dumped its units down at the starting position during the deployment phase. How do you guys get the most out of quick battles? I've generated a few scenarios which were absolute gold, and had an awesome time. But I've also wasted hours on quick battles which featured completely nonsensical behavior. Please note that I have been exclusively using the quick battle maps which shipped with the game, none of which (if I'm not mistaken) indicate they are H2H only. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 QBs against the AI are a bit limited, indeed. I soon decided that they were for practicing maneuver and developing SOPs against a "somewhat active" enemy in live fire conditions. Scenarios are where it's at if you're fighting the AI, IMO. One thing that might be foxing you is a current bug which I can't claim to understand. This bug will sometimes set the sides up with messed up deployment zones. It might explain the "all in a ditch" at least. The best way to pick forces for the AI is to do it yourself. Use the "suggestion" option until you get something that's at least got a bit of sense to it, add a few teams or vehicles to get the points right, check it's not using "Forward Observer" independent formations which add 50pts to the cost of an FO, and forgo some FoW. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I think it's better to not choose your own troops against the AI - either let the computer pick both sides, or let it pick yours and you pick the AI's. IME, the AI fights best against as the defender in a "Probe" type battle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I think it's better to not choose your own troops against the AI - either let the computer pick both sides, or let it pick yours and you pick the AI's. IME, the AI fights best against as the defender in a "Probe" type battle. For me, half the point of picking a QB is getting to choose my forces. Even if, as I said, I'm just running a live fire exercise I want to be using a force composition that allows me to run the exercise I intend, rather than, say, being lumbered with a force of ATGs with no prime movers, an Armoured car and an FO with no arty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool web head Posted August 29, 2012 Author Share Posted August 29, 2012 I think it's better to not choose your own troops against the AI - either let the computer pick both sides, or let it pick yours and you pick the AI's. IME, the AI fights best against as the defender in a "Probe" type battle. My experiences have been so bad I really can't imagine having the AI pick either side. I have never seen the AI pick a force that was sensible, so I'm pretty surprised to hear that someone actually prefers that to manual choosing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WynnterGreen Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Don't expect to have a challenging or tactical game vs the AI. It's a worthy turkey shoot exercise early on, a good way to learn how fire and movement work mechanically in the game and a great way to test the capability of different units. But the reality is, 'THERE'S NO SUBSTITUTE' for a human opponent. Gain some confidence by playing a few largely nonsensical games verse the AI. Then use this forum to find some other new players to have a human v human game. Play a few games verse a human and you'll soon be amazed by this games depth and complexity. Play a few dozen and you'll realize you've only been scratching the surface of it's potential. But, in my opinion, it doesn't (and can't) shine without a well matched human opponent on the other side. It's a game with many frustrations and significant flaws, but it's also absolutely unsurpassed in its niche and absolutely worth some perseverance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPB II Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Unfortunately I have also run into these issues. It doesn't happen all the time, but when it does it's a bummer. I have taken the habit of saving a QB after deployment, then surrendering and taking a quick peek from the corner of my eye to confirm that the AI has deployed somewhat believably but I don't look at it long enough to see and remember what is where. If I don't see a bunch of icons clustered in one corner of the map, I load the save and play. I've had much better success in CMFI, it's a rare sight to see fumbled QB setups there. I believe it has a lot to do with the compartmentalized nature of the bocage. If some units get deployed in the wrong place they will likely be useless for the entire battle as they are trapped in some hedgerow corner. I would also believe that the game has been fine-tuned in this aspect. Also, I respectfully disagree with WynnterGreen. You can have challenging and tactical games against the AI. I always buy forces for it myself and give it a huge bonus modifier so all the units are Crack/Elite with Fanatical motivation. This helps overcome the broad brush that the AI paints with. Since the AI doesn't know what is the best possible approach or cover in a particular moment in time nor does it know how long it should stay in that cover to suppress your troops, the fact that his men will be returning fire on you from their sub-optimal positions will do wonders for the flow of gameplay. It doesn't feel too gamey, there is still that realistic touch. It is so much more fun. You can even have the AI attack you and get your teeth kicked in. It's worth a try. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool web head Posted August 30, 2012 Author Share Posted August 30, 2012 It's a game with many frustrations and significant flaws, but it's also absolutely unsurpassed in its niche and absolutely worth some perseverance. Yeah, the times when everything comes together definitely make this game worth the trouble. And even though the quick battles are hit or miss, I have had fun with every scenario I've played so far. I plan on getting into one of the larger-scale campaigns soon. I've had much better success in CMFI, it's a rare sight to see fumbled QB setups there. I believe it has a lot to do with the compartmentalized nature of the bocage. If some units get deployed in the wrong place they will likely be useless for the entire battle as they are trapped in some hedgerow corner. I would also believe that the game has been fine-tuned in this aspect. Does the AI in CMFI actually compose a balanced force? Sorry; when you say QB 'setups' I don't know if you mean explicitly the placement of troops or the units the AI buys as well. 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.