More realistic gameplay in Singleplayer ?

[Jock Tamson]

Maybe Jock is saying that if someone only gets a few hours free at times which aren't regular or predictable, that would be frustrating for their opponent.

Indeed. If I suddenly have 4 hours free I can use it against the AI at my own pace.

I poured several hours into Wittman's Demise the other week against the AI. I guess I am three quarters through and I may not get back to it for another fortnight.

If I had been doing it PBEM for 4 hours we'd be maybe 12 moves in?

[Battlefront.com]

Indeed. If I suddenly have 4 hours free I can use it against the AI at my own pace.

I poured several hours into Wittman's Demise the other week against the AI. I guess I am three quarters through and I may not get back to it for another fortnight.

If I had been doing it PBEM for 4 hours we'd be maybe 12 moves in?

When I see people saying they don't understand what the value of TCP/IP WeGo without playback is, I'll just send them to you to explain it to them

Seriously, this is why I don't play PBEM. When I have free time to play (ah, those were the days) I want to *play*, not sit around twiddling my thumbs and refreshing my inbox, only to find out that my buddy's kid just came to him looking for help with his homework and so 20 minutes later I'm still sitting there wondering what's going on.

Now, there are those who like playing one turn at a time. So I'm not knocking it. I'm just saying that's not for me.

Steve

[Skwabie]

While numbers certainly helped you couldn't be anymore wrong...

Well from a scenario playing standpoint, Company A, B, C of the ruskies pile on a single company of germans. As the defender I would just expect the reds to keep coming until my forces all die or the reds die out. Doesn't seem too much different to me from previous CMBN/FI scenarios when the AI is attacking, it's just the ruskies will have much more manpower, which provides a better challenge. If it's not like this, I'd like to be enlightened.

[Ithikial_AU]

You can either choose to spend your available gaming hours playing against the AI or against a human opponent.

I fight most of my battles against the AI because when I have time free I want to play. The nature of the work I do plus timezone differences make MP a possibility, but there could be a few days where my opponents don't get a file from me. That's not fair on them.

Why bother playing the AI when you can play against an opponent that is much less predictable? The AI does ok on defend, is barely passable in meeting engagements, and is pathetic on attack.

Because scenario makers can make some great AI plans once they understand the system and can really stump you. Look at the Road to Nijmegen thread, players are getting plastered (me included) in certain scenarios. The new Trigger system in 3.0 will enhance this by giving those designers even more control on how they want the computer to react to how the human players proceeds to tackle their mission. Give it a few months I think you'll have your challenge and lose a few rounds to the computer.

[Macisle]

My experience with always gravitating towards SP is similar to what others have said. Here is the usual flow of events:

1. Finish previous SP QB and declare that from now on, I will only play PBEM, or at least, work through the stock SP campaigns and battles.

2. Some free time materializes, but not enough to make PBEM enjoyable. -Fire up CM and start looking through the stock campaigns and battles.

3. 20 minutes later, after having loaded setup views for 3-5 stock campaigns/battles, decide that I just don't have the time and energy to bite off something so involved.

4. Fire up the QB generator and choose a small attack. Give myself a full company, 2 medium modules of arty and 2 to 4 vehicles.

5. Play the QB and declare that from now on, I will only play PBEM, or at least, work through the stock SP campaigns and battles.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

If you want any challenge from the AI, you need to play with Franko's True Combat rules. One set is here.

It's from CMx1 so you'll have to note the control differences, but it basically keeps you from looking around in God mode and picking your own targets.

There's another reference to it here.

[sfhand]

As one who basically plays pbem exclusively I'd like to add to this discussion. I am not advocating sp players drop sp gaming.

One of the main advantages of playing against another person is I don't get to quit the battle and start over when things start going pear shaped. I really believe this has helped me become a better player. I recently played a major battle and was ready to quit multiple times yet I wound up with a victory. Also, playing against really good players gives me the opportunity to learn by example (and most of my opponents are really good players) Another advantage is I've met some cool people from this forum and am always open to meeting more (gotta be a cool person though ). The biggest advantage, for me, has been learning about grace in defeat and in victory.

Then there is what I consider the flexibility of it. The people I play with understand I'm doing my best and I understand they are doing theirs to keep the game going and yet still have a life. I play multiple games at a time. So, if I have 4 games and spend 15 minutes per turn I've just spent an hour playing the game. If, by chance, one of my partners is free I have found another turn waiting in H2HH for my attention. There have been many times where I've spent a couple hours, when I had the time and when a gaming partner had the time, playing the game (or even multiple games when the stars are so aligned).

If I am challenged for time those same 4 turns could be a 20 minute investment. So, I urge you to at least give mp a shot.

[Collingwood]

My experience with always gravitating towards SP is similar to what others have said. Here is the usual flow of events:

That's pretty funny, because I think I follow a very similar loop.

With the arrival of triggers I hope I'm going to have some fun making my own scenarios instead now. I had given up before, the AI is too hamstrung - but triggers might make things just a bit more interesting - especially later on when they've evolved further.

[Macisle]

Yeah, once triggers come in, I'm going to look at scenario design again. First, I need to see if I can add satisfactory AI plans to my one published scenario. After that, I may start a series called ACPC ("A Company Plus Change"), where I take existing QB maps, add better AI plans and/or beef up the terrain a bit. The player would always be the attacker with one full company, plus some arty and up to a platoon of vehicles.

But of course, I know the magic is in MP play. I'll be tied up with work until Red Thunder comes out. After that, I really will focus on the MP experience.

Then again, one good thing about having spent so much time with QBs is that I'm coming to 90% of the stock content of BN, CW & MG fresh under v. 2.12+.

[Wiggum]

@Vergeltungswaffe

I think its the job of the game to not give me too much information, espacially about the enemy.That would include false indification of enemy troops, strengh and vehicle type.

-Remove the ability to click on enemy units

-add a intelligence indicator from poor to excellent.

-make it possible to actually show wrong information to the player like a Panzer IV as Tiger or a enemy units where there are non if the panic level rises.

Oh, and make the AI use area fire with small arms, tanks ect. !

[76mm]

Haven't played any PBEM games since CMx1, and not many then. What is the etiquette of requesting a cease-fire if you're getting your ass-kicked and don't want to play to the bitter end?

[poesel]

Haven't played any PBEM games since CMx1, and not many then. What is the etiquette of requesting a cease-fire if you're getting your ass-kicked and don't want to play to the bitter end?

The proper thing is not to ask.

Seriously - think it from the other side: your plan has succeded and your enemy falls in droves, exploding tanks and objectives gained. Wouldn't you want to play that through to the last minute?

You can always try to save as many men as you can as your last goal. It's not much but better than nothing.

But I have to say such an outcome is very, very seldom. Much more common is that you know who is going to win before it ends but the question is by how much. That is always something that is worth to play through.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I have no issue with someone requesting a cease fire if they feel the situation is hopeless.

[Doug Williams]

Re: the subject of free time and playing H2H vs against the AI

Ah, now I understand what is being said. It's the same reason I quit playing MMOs. I didn't have enough free time to do well (raid, etc).

My own situation is probably similar to most of you. I work full time and have perhaps an hour or so to play games after work on week days and larger chunks of time on weekends.

Now my solution is, instead of using my hour to play against the AI (yawn), I almost always have 4 to 6 PBEMs going with opponents who have a good return rate. So, when I get home from work, I usually have at least three files waiting for me, which can take me close to an hour to go through.

Now, on weekends, when I tend to have a larger chunk of free time, I can use up my turns and still have time left, so that's when I might play against the AI or might try the new TCP/IP WEGO system being implemented.

@Steve

"Refresh your inbox." Dude.....learn to use Dropbox and check out GAJ's HH2H program. With one mouse click I can see how many PBEM turns I have waiting and have them all sorted into the correct folders.

[Fenris]

My experience with always gravitating towards SP is similar to what others have said. Here is the usual flow of events:

...

3. 20 minutes later, after having loaded setup views for 3-5 stock campaigns/battles, decide that I just don't have the time and energy to bite off something so involved.

....

Ahhh, deployment anxiety, I know thee well. I find the hardest part of the game is setting up/deploying. Often puts me off too.

-F

[Erwin]

While there are truly hopeless situations, I learned during over a decade of playing CM1 that what I thought was hopeless is often not, and by persevering, I have won battles that seemed hopeless, cos the other guy is often in more trouble than you realize.

[Maarten]

I found, in SP at least, that "rage quitting" in hopeless situations actually allows me to distance myself from the situation and come back at a later point with a fresh view. As Erwin said a lot of hopeless situations are quite manageable.

[BLSTK]

Ahhh, deployment anxiety, I know thee well. I find the hardest part of the game is setting up/deploying.

Fenris, I feel your pain.

Set-up is the single most daunting part of the game. But as far as determining success or failure it is a "necessary evil". Once you've committed yourself to a plan, it's "Go Time". And there's no turning back.

[Jock Tamson]

When I see people saying they don't understand what the value of TCP/IP WeGo without playback is, I'll just send them to you to explain it to them

Seriously, this is why I don't play PBEM. When I have free time to play (ah, those were the days) I want to *play*, not sit around twiddling my thumbs and refreshing my inbox, only to find out that my buddy's kid just came to him looking for help with his homework and so 20 minutes later I'm still sitting there wondering what's going on.

Now, there are those who like playing one turn at a time. So I'm not knocking it. I'm just saying that's not for me.

Steve

Any chance you could take a look at the idea I had for QBs in the wishlist thread Steve? - being able to set probability of appearance for the AI's forces in QB force purchase. This would add an awful lot to the uncertainty when playing the AI.

[Battlefront.com]

Jack,

This is related to a concept long ago advocated where some purchased units can be deliberately held in reserve. I have always thought it a good idea for an optional form of play, but it's never been a priority. However, having this be done randomly for the AI is something that would likely harm overall AI performance. The problem being that the AI is incapable of making decisions based on units which aren't currently present. And that's the sort of thing that is necessary to effectively use reinforcements.

As to your specific suggestion, it gets into some complicated balancing because the total value needs to be balanced. The player would have to over purchase by about the equivalent of the % chances of stuff showing up. It's a straight forward math problem which complicates the idea to the point of being unworkable. Better to just set the AI's forces to random and let it go from there.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Ahhh, deployment anxiety, I know thee well. I find the hardest part of the game is setting up/deploying. Often puts me off too.

And made worse by the—sad to say—rather inelegant mechanisms for setting up that are the current standard in the game.

Michael

[Vergeltungswaffe]

But the C & C lines making their grand reappearance in RT will help with that immensely.

[Jock Tamson]

As to your specific suggestion, it gets into some complicated balancing because the total value needs to be balanced. The player would have to over purchase by about the equivalent of the % chances of stuff showing up. It's a straight forward math problem which complicates the idea to the point of being unworkable. Better to just set the AI's forces to random and let it go from there.

Steve

Yes I get where you are coming from. But sometimes in a QB v the AI you just want to go up against a company of grenadiers and a couple of AFVs in support, which means buying the AI his force but ruining any surprise. Once you have knocked out the 2 PzIVs you bought him you know your tanks have got a reasonably free hand.

If you didn't know precisely what from the pool was going to turn up, combined with the new triggers, you would need to play in a more measured way. Dare I say, more like you would against a human.

What if there were three probability settings of 25/50/75 and the cost of the units at each probability scaled accordingly? So you could buy the AI four 25% chance PzIvs at the same cost as one at 100% ?

[Macisle]

Yes I get where you are coming from. But sometimes in a QB v the AI you just want to go up against a company of grenadiers and a couple of AFVs in support, which means buying the AI his force but ruining any surprise. Once you have knocked out the 2 PzIVs you bought him you know your tanks have got a reasonably free hand.

If you didn't know precisely what from the pool was going to turn up, combined with the new triggers, you would need to play in a more measured way. Dare I say, more like you would against a human.

What if there were three probability settings of 25/50/75 and the cost of the units at each probability scaled accordingly? So you could buy the AI four 25% chance PzIvs at the same cost as one at 100% ?

Something like this would be great. I too, am often looking for the enemy to have roughly a company plus 2-4 AFV in support for my SP QBs. That pretty much means I have to choose the AI force myself and battles are much more fun when the enemy force is unknown.

As things stand, the only way to be reasonably assured that you're getting a decent unknown enemy mix in a SP QB is to either go for all-infantry (they'll have ATGs and lots of warm bodies at least) or a large enemy force--which is not what I usually like to play.

Jock's idea is something that I've been thinking about for awhile and would love.

[Macisle]

Oh, quick note:

Folks reading this thread who are still playing early versions of the CMBN family really owe it to themselves to upgrade to 2.12. Even with the SP AI problems we have been discussing still present, gameplay is lightyears better under the current version than the early ones. Those German MGs are scary now!

Also, the Market Garden maps alone are worth the price of admission. I heart ditch locks!