Beamup Posted November 9, 1999 Share Posted November 9, 1999 I'm getting a little worried about the quality of single player games. I have only twice gotten less than a "Major Victory" while playing the computer - my first game and one game where I was trying all sorts of off-the-wall crazy tactics (that usually failed), and both of those times I still got Minor Victory. Is the full version going to correct this somehow? A better version of the Strat/Ops AIs, or maybe just maps where you play a definite underdog? Please reassure me about this, b/c while 2-player games are great and I will do a lot of them, I still like to have a single-player challenge available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 9, 1999 Share Posted November 9, 1999 Think about it... A company-sized battle is so small that whoever controls the objective is going to be the winner. A battalion-sized battle is so large that usually casualties caused and incurred is going to determine the victory. The beta demo scenarios are small scenarios and small scenarios are always going to be big win or big loss affairs... consider yourself re-assured ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted November 9, 1999 Share Posted November 9, 1999 To be fair to the AI you should really only count the first time you play a scenario. After that (even playing the other side) you pretty much know what is out there. The AI doesn't have that luxury. I know myself from playing Reis(berg?) scenario the first time I already knew to watch out for a couple of 88's from reading the message board. This was a huge advantage. Not to say there can't be improvements made but generally I find it pretty tough the first time I play a scenario. With all the scenarios that will be out there I doubt I'll play a single one more then a couple of times. Still with the demo each time I try different tactics to see what works and what doesn't and don't concern myself with winning or losing. Plenty of time for that when the game comes out. Hope this approach helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 9, 1999 Share Posted November 9, 1999 I think people should keep in mind a few things when evaluating the AI's performance: 1. How many times you have played a particular sceanrio. After the 1st time, you have a huge advantage over the AI. While you remember what happened in the prior battle, the AI doesn't. So you know that the AI has x, y, and z and the AI has *no* idea what you have. This is critical. 2. Luck has a big role in victory or defeat. The luckier you are, and the worse the enemy's luck, the greater the chance that you will win. So perhaps you are just lucky if you keep winning. In any case, the point above skews luck in your favor since you can avoid making mistakes, and the AI can't, due to lopsided knowledge of the battlefield and enemy forces. 3. Battles at this scale are more likely to have a definate winner or loser. 4. How hard of a fight did the AI give you? Did you feel like it was causing you to think? Were you ever surprised by what the AI did? Did you have tense momnents of uncertainty? Did you try something that was punished badly, even if you ultimately won? This is the ULTIMATE test of the AI. Other games that I have played didn't do any of these things well or realistically (yes, I have been surprised by the entire enemy force being in a single "stack", but that hardly impresses me ). I feel that CM with just the TacAI is more of a challenge than any other wargame I have ever played. Lastly... The weights for sticking the victory label on your score card at the end of the game is VERY wrong in the Beta Demo. All you need is a 1.6:1 ratio to get a Minor Victory. That is WAY too low. So there is a very good chance that you never achieved a "Major Victory" and perhaps even got a few "Draws". Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-09-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted November 10, 1999 Share Posted November 10, 1999 Steve, By saying that the victory ratio is wrong you just took away my last minor victory in Riesburg, where I only won by nine points. That destroys my perfect record in that scenario. As far as surprising us, once while playing Riesburg I had an the yellow zone guys near the main road targeting an ambush marker. Also one 88 is down the road targeting the marker. Then they all see one Sherman coming straight down the road and catch glimpses of the other two zig-zagging across the road (I couldn't figure out what was going on.) What they didn't see was infantry moving up the ditch. When the tanks hit the marker the most violent firefight I've seen in the game erupted. I ended up knocking out all the tanks but all my ambush units were wiped out in less than two minutes 15 seconds. BTW, my record in Last Defense is far from perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolColJ Posted November 10, 1999 Share Posted November 10, 1999 I think your missing the point with when playing the AI, it isn't by how much you won or lost, its how much fun you had getting there, that's why I prefer long campaign games. Because you have to think about the next battle, and just about the victory locations. ------------------ CCJ aka BLITZ_Force My Homepage - www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Beach/4448 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted November 10, 1999 Share Posted November 10, 1999 Something else to bear in mind is that once you get the full version you can always handicap yourself. Give the other side a few extra assets, downgrade the quality of your troops, change the victory flags. Plenty of ways to tweak the scenario. Still, I agree with Rod. The real challenge is the first game of each scenario. The fog of war is at its greatest the first time around (how many real life COs had the chance to replay a battle?) My first-ever game was defending Reisberg. It came down to hand-to-hand fighting in the last building, and I only managed a draw. Yeah, sure I have done better since - but that was the game I was sitting on the edge of my seat over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stef Posted November 10, 1999 Share Posted November 10, 1999 Hi, I've played/tested Last defence more tahn 10 time and with both side and I was astonished of the AI reactions (even if I've got Major Victory most of time...even first time) : Pz driving backward behind trees to take cover, bazookas waiting my Tiger passing away to shoot him in the back, a Stug coming out the road to crash a bazooka team fleeing, ... never saw so a lot of "so human reactions" in any other wargames !! Of course the hidden infantry shoots too early ( but I know it will be tweaked) and computer don't use dirty tricks or is not as cunning as a human being but it's a PC !! It's just in PBEM I've could find out the few drawbacks of the AI for general tactic (my human opponent is of course better than the AI) but AI's quiet perfect for individual troop reactions !!(bazooka shooting in the back,...) Perhaps in some years AI will work as well as HI but 'till then CM is the BEST wargame I've ever played and render at the best combat tactic situations (very close to my training during military duty !! ) long life to BTS !! Stephan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts