TOO EASY

[BDW]

OK - I have confirmed it. This game, as it stands right now, is too easy. Against the AI, 100% of the time, playing either side on either scenario, I get a Total Victory(without saving/reloading, either). The AI seems totally disorganized and totally reactive to what I do. What is worse, the AI never seems to figure out how to even use the firepower it has available. I have seen it's tanks just sit there for turn after turn, doing nothing. AI infantry does not know how to cover it's own squads. It wastes it's arty and mortar fire on open fields where I barely have any units. It seems afraid to bring it's halftracks close to my infantry. It bunches up its forces. etc etc

One thing it falls for every time:

When I am the germans and I have htose half-tracks, I position them so that when the US tanks come after them, there is a German tank that pops out from behind a tree or house and kills the US tank. Why are the US tanks so aggressive towards the half-tracks when they should KNOW that there are German tanks out there. Does the AI not get the same intel that I read before the scenario?

I could go on and on, but I have to get some sleep.

I almost feel bad for the AI - it is like playing cards against a young child.

BTS, please work on making the AI more pro-active.

I know, this is a BETA, and also I know this is going to be awesome to play against my friends, but the AI needs an IQ boost.

Does anyone else agree with me?

[Fionn]

BDW,

Umm, I think a little primer on tactics and real war is in order here (don't take this the wrong way)...

1. Steve has stated publicly that the ratios for calculating victories etc in the demo are WRONG. So, you wouldn't actually get a total victory in the final version of the game. Maybe a minor or major victory but surely not total.

2. If you say the "AI seems totally reactive" then I think you'll have to give some examples since simply stating it gives no grounds for discussion except to say I've seen it do some pretty smart things like shifting its axis of attack etc.

3. "Tanks sitting there turn after turn". Sounds to me like the AI was being CAREFUL and keeping the tanks back due to worry about mobile AT teams. Most people find the AI does use its tanks aggressively.

4. "Wasting arty"... Well, the AI has NO more info than you. Have you ever called down artillery on a position which you later found was not strongly held? I'm sure you have. Same thing for the AI.

5. "It seems afraid to bring its HTs close to your infantry." You DO know that a grenade can destroy one of your half-tracks don't you? Also, I presume you realise that the AI WOULD be stupid if it rushed its HTs close to your infantry IF there was a bazooka team there. The AI is playing it safe. This isn't stupid, in fact its more intelligent than a lot of people who are losing HTs to bazookas and grenades left right and centre (it's happened to me too guys ).

6. Bunches up forces.. Umm, I bunch up my forces too and gain concentrations of firepower... It works for me.

7. Your usage of tanks vs the US Hellcats and using HTs to target-fixated them is a bit gamey BUT it does illustrate that the game DOES model target fixation. Target fixation is what kills most tank crews and most pilots and in WW2 quite a lot of fighter-bomber pilots died from flying into the ground due to being target fixated.

So, when the Hellcats see your HTs they fire at them. How STUPID would you say the AI was if it WOULDN'T fire at HTs? Like any good commander the AI wants its tanks to kill whatever they can see. If your tanks come out of woods and kill the AI then that's just bad luck AND something that happened more times than you or I can count in WW2.

It's actually funny because this realistic behaviour is what you criticise BUT the alternative (which is unrealistic target ignorance) would be criticised even more.

BDW, it's realistic the way it is.

8. Like playing cards against a child? Hmm, methinks that your lack of knowledge of what is realistic when it comes to WW2 combat is skewing your opinions here.

I think that I have shown how most of your criticisms are either:

a) just bad luck for the AI.

the way stuff really happened or

c) misinterpretations.

BTW a lot of people have been spoiled by the "radar-equipped tanks" in Close Combat which are instantly aware of eachother. Tanks simply aren't like that in real life. Unless you are unbuttoned and NOT engaging a target your visibility sucks.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[MarkEzra]

I've played computer war games for several year (5-6?)...None compare with CM in reality, AI action/reaction, nor the down right tension that this game developes. I get DV as well. It's good to know that the numbers are off in the demo, 'cause it's cost me way too many KIA/WIA's for that rotten little town. I've learned to reley on Arty/ and Smoke to advance, ect. To know I've been fighting Half trained Germans and have never lost less than 2 shermans and many infantry makes me pause to consider that old WW2 phrase, "Home alive in '45". I doubt that any hard and fast judgements can be made about the AI in a BETA Demo...but CM is on the right track.

[Strider]

RE : #7

That's what I was trying to get across in my question last night on the live-chat. The 'gamey' side of using target fixation. I understand 'if' armor isn't aware of any armor present, then it should go for whatever the AI 'suggests'.

My 'misunderstanding' (using the scenerio with the Hellcats) is :

I was Germans; had my Tiger and 1 Stug 'tucked' in beside the houses on the dirt road so the Hellcats couldn't 'see' them when they entered the game (of course, my tanks couldn't see the Hellcats either), but, other of my units could see the Hellcats. My opponent ran the Hellcats into town on the main road...My tanks were firing HE at some of the houses containing Inf...my opponent saw this and put his lead Hellcat on 'hunt' and moved on me the next turn...of course my 2 tanks didn't have AP loaded, so he wasted both of them.

Wherein lies my problem; should my tanks have been aware of the Hellcats, (due to other of my units having a visual on them), and been ready with AP in their main guns (while still nailing the Inf with MGs) in prepreation for dealing with the Hellcats? If not; should I have attempted to use the 'ambush' marker on the area I knew the Hellcats 'had' to enter, and if so, would my tanks have used the 'ambush' command or would they have continued to use their main guns loaded with HE on the Inf?

I wouldn't consider this a 'gamey' tactic as long as no units are aware of an 'immediate' armor threat to their armor.

(Hopefully, my wording is a bit better this time )

[Doug Beman]

Strider, units will only react to things they themselves can "see." In your example, your tanks could not see the Hellcats, even though your infantry could; therefore your tanks continued whomping on the infantry.

Using an ambush marker MIGHT enable you to set up your tanks to be ready for the advancing Hellcats. If, however, your tanks feel that the threat posed by the enemy infantry is great enough, they will ignore your ambush command and continue whomping on the infantry.

DjB

[MarkEzra]

I wonder if sending the Infantry CO over to an Unbuttoned Tiger would change their alert status?

[Fionn]

When I say the numbers are off I mean you have ALL been doing worse than you are currently being told

Strider,

In real life those infantry would NOT have been communicating with the tanks so to cut a long, long answer short, the way CM does it is realistic and right, the other way is plainly false although it is commong in certain other popular wargames set in this time period

BTW it would be REALLY gamey for tanks to know of threats they couldn't see or couldn't possibly have known about in real life . It'd be like having radar in tanks and THEN you'd lose nothing by buttoning your tank. All in all this way is realistic and enriches the gameplay IMO.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Captain Foobar]

One point that should be brought up is that AI, short of DEEP BLUE, is at a disadvantage. It cannot think "outside the scenario" A Hellcat would have no indication that you have tanks on the way in real war. Unlike a CM scenario, conflicts on the ground have no design keeping them "balanced for each side".

An american tanker wouldn't say " These krauts seem unfairly outmatched, I bet Charles gave them some Stugs, so I had better keep a lookout.." He also wouldn't have the advantage of a learning curve/ replaying each game 10 times. He treats every encounter as a fresh one, as it should be. And when the FINAL VERSION arrives, you'll be too busy fighting your way through fresh encounters to mull over 1 scenario again and again and again.

What better reason for some new scenarios for us pre-ordered customers! hehe (no flaming intended here y'all, just bring my opinion to the table"

[K_Tiger]

Hi Fionn,

I wisely, you have much expectation of the war. I can not understand however, that you want to make believe us, that the tanks use their radio only for it around with other tanks.

It can not be however, that the soldiers run to the tank, and made signs with a hammer on the Tank, to show the crew, what they have to do .

Maybe have made that the Russians . If already no Kommandtank is thereby, then must have at least the HQ a Radio thereby, to coordinate the attack from a favorable position.

Greetings

Big Backblast

[billcarey]

Actually, I have noticed a bizzare AI potential glitch. I was playing last defense on about turn six, and ALL of my forces were hidden. The AI Tiger came to the bend in the road, and turned around backwards. It then reversed into the road, and drove into some scattered trees staying backwards. I understand caution, but it probably should know which general direction the enemy is in.

There was a lot of traffic in the area (3 HT and a Stug) so that may have confused the Tac AI a bit. Needless to say, when the Cats showed up they torched the tiger pretty quickly.

Is the backwards thing an AI glitch? (It's the only potential I've noticed)

- Bill Carey

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well, not only do I agree with Fionn's counter points, but I would like to ask what wargame out there has better AI than CM? Personally, I know of none. BDW, you should take a look at the other thread about the game being "too easy" because of replayability. Everytime the human plays the human retains the knowledge of the previous game. The AI does not. So you know what it has, it does not. That right there is a HUGE factor which you haven't considered. We think that there is really only 2 shots at play from each side before it gets to be less of a challenge.

BDW, the AI gets *NO* intel about anything, either before the battle or after playing it once. It simply plays with what it has. What you are suggesting it do would require more work than you could ever dream of.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-13-99).]

[dumbo]

I just want to point out that for me the AI ALWAYS wins when I play "fair". What does "fair" mean? It means playing the scenario cold for the first time WITHOUT using your time machine (save game & reload or replaying).

I deliberately used "last defence" as a testing scenario and saved Reisberg for when I knew the system and could play the scenario through without using the time machine.

Its always a blast and your respect goes up a lot when you play this way IMHO. I would expect to win every single time replaying the same sceanrio as I am "cheating". Just a thought.

[Fionn]

K_TIger,

Oh boy do you have things to learn about WW2 tank radios .

I'll give you an explanation:

1. YES the tanks in a tank platoons only had ONE radio which was set on the tank platoon frequency. Command tanks are special and rare. (company commander toys basically ) The ONLY ways infantry could communicate with the tank were as follows:

a) shouting to the tank commander.

running up to the tank and using a phonebox on the left or right rear portion of the tank.

Option B wasn't available most of the time since most tanks didn't have the phoneboxes. Actually I have an interesting article which talkes about how TODAY infantry STILL have to use the phone on the back of British tanks to give firing orders most of the time.

Infantry and tank nets do NOT intermingle much ESPECIALLY if the tank are NOT from the parent formation. TDs by US doctrine would ahve nothing to do with infantry units and certainly wouldn't be on an infantry company commander's command net.

So K_Tiger, pretty much the infantry DID have to run to the tanks and either shout at the tank commander or phone him up using the phone on the back of the tank. I have an interesting Victoria Cross award citation here in which an officer was awarded the VC for STANDING BEHIND A TANK'S TURRET and using the PHONE located at the back of the turret to guide the tank's fire onto enemy infantry positions. The Tank in question was a Cromwell VI with 95mm Close Support Cannon.

CM has it right and your conception is just a little wrong. Sorry about that but that's the way it is.

K_Tiger, check the US Army Handbook of German forces to see what communications equipment a Company Commander had. I have a feeling you'll be absolutely astounded how little he had.

Guys, this is NOT the US Army of 1999 with GPS, satelitte radios etc. Back in World War II platoon leaders sometimes didn't even have ANY radios, if a little hill was between you and the company HQ then you simply couldn't communicate except by runner etc etc. 1945 was a LONG time ago technologically speaking.

BillCarey, had ANY of your men opened fire when the Tiger reversed and then drove into the trees? If they hadn't then you can understand it a little moer if you think that to the AI the Tiger was exposing its ass to NOBODY since it hadn't spotted anyone.

Still, I think it is a little too likely to reverse in the demo and that has been tweaked.

Laters,

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[This message has been edited by Fionn (edited 11-13-99).]

[billcarey]

Fionn -

No, no one had opened up yet. I suppose the tiger just didn't realize any threat (realistic). I guess that explains it. However I would expect it not to turn back towards Germany, knowing that the Allies are generally to the west... If it's been fixed, that's fine. Only happened a couple of times.

Bill Carey

[Brian Rock]

Dumbo, I agree that the best "test" of the AI is the first game, with minimal knowledge of the terrain, enemy OOB or deployments. Those are the nail biters.

I tend to agree with Fionn on the tank communication problem, only more so. Situational Awareness in a tank is terrible.

I read a piece written by a tanker with tips for how people in civilian life could get a sense of what it's like being in a tank. Things like paint all the windows of your car black, except for a tiny little gap in the front windscreen. If you have a sunroof you can drive while someone hanging out the top screams directions at you while he kicks you in the head. And so on.

Plus, even when you know the badguys are out there, they are using terrain trying not to be seen as well. Radios can and do drop out of comms. Infantry and tanks were on different nets. The inside of a tank is hot and noisy. You probably haven't slept for more than few hours a day. And then for an additional distraction there's that eveybody-on-the-other-side-is-shooting-at-me thing.

If anything the fact you can give orders every 60 sec is far too generous. However I concede that for most players if you take that out the game tends to go away.

[BDW]

Hey Fionn and co. - don't get me wrong - I love this game. I just don't find myself really challenged by the AI.

And that goes for the very first time I played each scenario, too. Yes, it said "Total Victory" - but guess what? it WAS a total victory. Each time I controlled EVERY victory location and I had wiped out at least 75% of the enemy forces while losing much less of my own (approx 30%).

Of course, after playing each scenario, my performance has gotten even better. LAst night, I played the Germans attacking the town with the river scenario and I totaly dominated - so mcuh so that I had to do that not-very-well-thought through posting.

I apologize that it lacked specificity and examples. I agree with all the counter-points in retrospect.

But I stand by my position: the AI is too easy to beat. I guess I can't exmplain why except to say that I win - by a huge margin - every single time. And it is not just because I know what to expect from these scenarios, either.

Ok - I really have to go now, but I will write this example. In the game last night, I kept all of the German infantry forces in the trees. I snuck my spotters into the edges of the treelines on the left, center, and right sides of the map. I raced my two smaller tanks to the dirt road on the left hand side of the map, next to the tree-line, one below the other one. I moved my Tiger behind the first house on the center of the map. Then I buttoned up my half-tracks and sent them up to the house with the cornfield and the stone wall. There they sat for a bunch of turns, flushing out the us troops with their 50 cal guns. And the AI decided to fire back, revealing it's postions. Then I'd move a tank a few yards to the left or right to get good firing positions at the known US infantry locations. The return fire from the infantry on the half-tracks was constant. Soon I knew the machine gun locations and I had a good sense of where the AI had positioned the US troops. So I used up one of my 81mm spotters on the area with the largest concentration of US infantry. The tiger was in hiding mode behind the house and had not seen any action yet.

Then, of course, the us Hellcats show up and with two turns my halftracks are history. Fine. My other 81mm spotter can see the US tanks exposed up on the hill. Goodbye one Hellcat. Two US tanks left. One sits there, totally exposed up on the hill. Cleary visible by my spotters. So I back up my Tiger a few yards - bye bye US tank. At this point I move ALL of the German infantry out of the woods in a huge rush to the wall, the little farm house, and across the corn field. I'd use two squads to cover the others running, then move them up, etc. During all of this, my Tiger was sitting there, and I was letting it fire at will. Then the last US tank exposed itself on the right hand side of the map, up on the hill. One of my tanks on the left hand side of the map, on the dirt road, immediately took it out. Within the next few turns I had routed all of the US troops - they were on the run and I was literrally running (move fast) my German infantry squads from house to house, cleaning them out. The tanks were having a field day. (OH THAT REMINDS ME - and I will stand by this nest comment, too - the AI wastes it's bazooka teams with low percentage shots. I have never lost a tank to an AI bazooka. (although I have lost one to a grenade!) When I use my bazooka teams, I hide them and sneak/crawl them as close to the side/rear of a tank as possible. The AI doesn't.)

In any case, in the above scenario, I noticed that the US infantry was moving through the rows of houses on the left hand side of the map, trying to get to the victory location there. Which was nuts, because clearly I had two tank sitting there. There was one insane moment when the AI sent a HQ squad dashing across exposed ground, without using smoke, to try to get to the "Victory Location" house. Needless to say, my tanks cut it down. Why was the AI spreading it's force thin, going on the offensive to get that victory location? That meant that it's fields of fire were all messed up and my mass of German troops could dash across the corn field almost unscathed.

Well, the result was a true total victory. I actually messed up and exposed some of my troops that were hiding in the woods and fire was exchanged before I could pull them back and Hide them. That should have tipped off the US AI to drop some arty into those woods. That would have seriously messed up my plan - considering 90% of my infantry was in the woods across from the cornfield. But it never happened. And guess what? I never used my 105mm until the end, when it was more just for the fun of it. I dropped it all into the center of town to see if the buildings would catch fire or blow up or something. Nope.

I have the saved games from that scenario if anyone wants to play it out and see if they can lose it.

I know for a fact that I am going to love playing other humans, though.

This game is truly awesome for that purpose. But the AI needs some help. My reaction to it is that it is not cunning or organized and it totally reactive. Yes, it may have been acting "cautious" by leaving its Hellcat sitting there up on the hill, doing nothing, but it was not the right time for it to be cautious! It had just helped to take out my halftracks and the guys down in town needed it's help! It was useless sitting up there on the hill exposed like that. And exposed it was. I backed up my tiger a few feet and it was history.

The AI is just not playing a smart game. Its reactions to the situations I present it with are totally ineffective and it just gets its ass kicked every time.

There is something missing. I don't know enough about war/coputer programming/tactics to tell you what it is, but I KNOW something is missing. I am convinced that this AI can be improved.

Isn't there anyone out there who agrees with me who can better explain why? I'd appreciate it becuase I want this game to be the best it can be and I want the AI to be a real challenge.

[Guest Big Time Software]

BDW, I think you should cut the game some slack and at least temporarily retract your "confirmation" that the AI is weak. You simply have NOT played it enough to rush to such a total and absolute conviction. Any good scientist and/or reseacher would know that two samples, one from each scenario, is not a very good basis to conclude anything. Especially since other learned players are getting defeated. It is possible that you are the best player out of the whole bunch posting, or it could be that you were very lucky, or it could be a combo. I'll assume it was a combo

LUCK has a lot to do with how the battle goes. The description of your Last Defense battle was VERY lucky. If you keep your heavy stuff, and don't screw up, you are likely to win no matter what. If you lose your heavy stuff, all bets are off. There are *plenty* of people that lose all their armor to the Hellcats (have you been reading the threads? Most think the Hellcats are TOO powerfull...) This has less to do with skill, more with luck in Last Defense.

One of our testers beat the AI while defending in Riesberg. He came to the same "confirmed" conclusions that you did. I challanged him to play the same way a second time. Know what happened? He had to surrender. The AI pasted him. One of the crucial differences was he had very good luck and placement vs. the AI the first time, very bad luck and placement the second. He was also playing from the Defensive.

It also looks like you played on the attack for both of your games. If you keep your armor, you will win. There is pretty much no doubt about that. Never lost a tank to bazooka schreck fire? Lucky, and somewhat skill related. If you stay out of effective bazooka range you can't be killed by one

Overall, I think you *really* need to wait for a larger sampling of scenarios before you become so convinced. The AI is dynamic, it is proactive, it is also fairly smart about deployment and the use of support weapons. But if you get lucky, are on the attack, and are a good player you will beat it EVERY time. I can assure you of that. And there is nothing we can do to change that (cheating might if it were horribly in favor of the AI). The AI will *never* be good enough to beat that combo. Never. So, please keep in mind that what you are asking for is impossible, not just from us, but from any game developer there ever was or will be in the forseeable future. Again, I ask you to name an AI that is better than CMs? Me thinks you can't, so we should feel pretty good about that Is CM's AI as good as it can be? Naw, we could do better. But you do want the game to ship sometime, right?

Steve

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

BDW, how about a game? You be the americans in last defence and show me how to defend the town.

[BDW]

Steve - just for the record, I have played both scenarios from all sides. My total games is 6 and I have had unequivocal total victories every time. (Only one of those games did I do a reload becuase I literally forgot to give my Tiger an order and it got iced for no good reason, so I quit and restarted to be fair to myself.)

I guess I have been pretty lucky, if what you say is true. I hope that is the case, as I like a good challenge! And PLEASE don't get me wrong - this game is absolutely the finest wargame I have ever played. I turned my roomate onto it tonight. He is sitting here as we speak learning the interface. The spotting system confused him: "Hey that thing just changed into a flak gun!" So I had to explain...

In any case, I guess I will have to play a few more games to see if the AI can beat me. I think I will be the defender a few times so they will go faster (less moves to coordinate). But Steve, if I get into the teens and still haven't lost then you'll have some explaining to do. : )

At this point I will withhold judgment and trust your wisdom in these matters. I will report back the results. So far: ME v. AI = 6-0.

I am also getting request for PBEM - there is a good chance I will be humbled soon. But we shall see...

[This message has been edited by BDW (edited 11-14-99).]

[Fionn]

BDW,

I don't have time to go into too much detail but I think you should look at some Hellcat posts on the forum. MOST people are losing 2 and even 3 German tanks to the Hellcats.

If you lost NONE to the Hellcats I'd EXPECT you to win by a huge margin. Hell, you'd have to be totally incompetent to lose if you have 3 German tanks left

As for the AI not dropping arty in the wood..

Are you seriously complaining that the AI isn't dropping arty into woods where it sees NO enemy infantry?

See my point?

My point is that the AI only drops arty on positions it knows. if you keep your men hidden then obviously it isn't going to drop arty on them.

SPECIFICALLY in Last Defence if you hide your guys in the woods, given that the US have NO FOs you are immune to arty fire simply because the mortars need LOS to fire.

See, when you actually look a little beyond the action you will see why the action is perfectly understandable. I think you should look a little deeper before criticising since virtually everything you say can be explained through use of good SOP.

As for the zooks, the AI use of them has been changed since the beta demo.

As for playing people ... Send me a setup of your German Riesburg defence and I'll be the Americans and play you ok?

Choose a non-secure password and we can post the movies as an after action report as we go ok?

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[M Hofbauer]

as a preface, I am still fighting my computer system, but after repeated BIOS fumbling, several different sound-card trials (I now ended up having to buy a SB Live! card), reinstalls etc. right now (this may change again) I can play the game.

During the time when under different and mostly unfavorable performance conditions I nevertheless played CM every now and then in all scenarios from both sides, I too have yet to lose a battle. I do realize though that things can indeed go very wrong, and you can lose against the AI, it just hasn't happened yet. I might have lost one of my first battles where on Last Defense my german tanks were surprised by the sudden arrival of the US tanks if the game hadn't crashed then.

Nevertheless, some notes:

Fionn, you wrote:

"7. Your usage of tanks vs the US Hellcats and using HTs to target-fixated them is a bit

gamey BUT it does illustrate that the game DOES model target fixation. Target fixation is

what kills most tank crews and most pilots and in WW2 quite a lot of fighter-bomber

pilots died from flying into the ground due to being target fixated.

So, when the Hellcats see your HTs they fire at them. How STUPID would you say the AI

was if it WOULDN'T fire at HTs? Like any good commander the AI wants its tanks to kill

whatever they can see. If your tanks come out of woods and kill the AI then that's just

bad luck AND something that happened more times than you or I can count in WW2."

Target fixiation ok, but only for the guner, please. Because - that's what makes all the difference between a poorly designed tank (early WW II british and french) where the commander also has to double-act as loader and maybe even gunner in that cramped turret as aopposed to a properly laid-out tank where the commander can concentrate on his job, which is exactly the opposite of "target-fixiation": he has to keep situational, tactical awareness and be on the lookout for other threats/targets (among other things). He assigns certain targets to the gunner. Then maybe indeed that gunner will get fixiated to that HT he wants to blow up, but not if the commander which noticed a Tiger coming up had told him of that (I don't think target fixiation of a gunner goes so far as to override a Walther P-38 or a Luger P 08 / an M1911 Colt stuck to your head).

you also wrote that:

"1. YES the tanks in a tank platoons only had ONE radio which was set on the tank platoon

frequency. Command tanks are special and rare. (company commander toys basically ) The

ONLY ways infantry could communicate with the tank were as follows:

a) shouting to the tank commander."

Indeed, which is exactly what is reasonable to happen between a squad located besides an unbuttoned StuG waiting behind a street corner. Not likely to happen all the time, but not far out.

One thing that puzzled me was an incident where the AI Hellcats (which btw never crossed the river in any of my games) who were *buttoned* and facing 90° aquired my unbuttoned StuG that I had advancing out of cover faster than the StuG, which was pointing in their direction and *was unbuttoned* and not engaging any infantry or anything. Happened twice (I was lucky with the first Hellcat).

It seems those Ami tank commanders did their job well in aquiring new targets in contrast to that StuG TC/crew.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

[Fionn]

Markus said:

"Then maybe indeed that gunner will get fixiated to that HT he wants to blow up, but not if the commander which noticed a Tiger coming up had told him of that"

Agreed BUT remember that we can't be sure the Hellcat's commander saw the Tiger. Remember just because YOU can see it and some of the AI's infantry can see it doesn't mean the Hellcars see it.

If you look at the example you will see that BDW talks of the Tigers moving from BEHIND woods and houses to get their shots. In those situations it is quite possible that the Hellcats just got unlucky and didn't spot them till they opened fire.

Yes they did. I think the buttoned Hellcats have better buttoned visibility than StuGs. I've noticed this a lot with open-topped vehicles.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[dalem]

"Too Easy"? I have to disagree completely. I'm a pretty bright and knowledgeable guy with oodles of game experience, but I got my butt kicked the first times I played the demo scenarios. Admittedly I was being more experimental than cautious or 'realistic', but things worked pretty much the way I'd HOPED they would: I charged a tank at a squad, it RAN. I charged a squad at a tank, it HID instead. (I swear I thought I saw the little guys giving me the bird, too...)

Etc., etc.; lots of examples where the AI wouldn't do (or let me do) ridiculous things.

And my Tiger commander sat back and pounded Allied positions from long range, just like his vehicle was designed to do. When I was a moron and drove my HTs around a flank without scouting ahead and they started turning into Hellcat Yummies, the remainder pulled back into cover without me needing to babysit them!

All in all I was stunned and captivated by the quality of the DEMO, guys. Is it perfect? No, of course not. Is it the best WWII sim I've ever seen? Sure is.

And if the AI is bright enough to not play 'the rules' like oh so many ASL players do. then again, I'm a HAPPY guy! Maybe I know that there's only a 7.4% chance that the heavy tank will win a Gun Duel against my TD, but I doubt that a real TD crew would care about those odds!

And I have to admit that, as FRUSTRATING as it was, watching as my Hellcat got stuck on a too-steep grade I sent it up was a thing of beauty...

-dale

[MarkEzra]

I don't know about youall... but I think the AI hasn't been made that I can't beat on even terms. Consider the last defense. Matched units. German tanks and Arm/Inf ATTACK with similar fire/manpower. Not the best thing to do but it is late war '45. The german attack into fixed position without a completely clear view of the battlefield. In fact it becomes two battles on the corners. Us Forces lack the men but are guaranteed the fire power (do in large to LOCATION... Nearly unobstructed view of the battlefield. So this is a very balanced scenario designed, it seems to me, to showcase the game features more that the AI ability to out think the human brain. This AI is the best I've played against. Playing Human to human generally needs a fairness cheat of balanced forces. Human vs AI requires an imbalance. Try this out for size. Play the US, fight with all you might...on turn 10 run those hellcats down the hill and park 'um...

[Pirate Bill]

I really love this game, and it unquestionably has the best AI I've ever seen, but I have to agree with BDW (even though I have a feeling there's nothing to be done about it.) So far my record is 11-0, 10 of those wins being Total Victories. Now, about half of those really didn't deserve to be called total, but the others were complete routs.

The AI is smart enough to usually do manuevers with a minimum of a platoon, instead of the CC 'every man for himself' philosophy, and is usually pretty good about following up on breakthroughs. But that's about all I've seen it do, strategically. Its attacks seem to amount to a mass charge, of which all but one or two squads will stop halfway or panic. Its squads don't seem to have any goal other than 'walk around and shoot anything that moves.'

The AI is also incredibly cautious. For instance, in the 4 times I played Last Defense as the Allies, the Germans only reached the town once, and that was on the right flank (looking from the Allies' side) with one squad. Almost all their men set up in the woods and blazed away until they ran out of ammo.

Third, the tacAI on both sides seems to drastically underestimate the threat of enemy tanks. I've had German squads with 2 or 3 panzerfausts and a Sherman about 20-30 meters away (and in LOS) decide to fire at a rifle squad at 200 meters instead, even when I specifically targeted the tank. Tanks and AT guns also seem much more willing to fire at infantry than tanks, if they have the option.

Anyway, that's my take on it. I still think CM is the best tactical wargame I've ever seen. I know my victories were largely luck (especially since Panzer General usually beats me in the later levels,) but these were just a few things I noticed.

[This message has been edited by Pirate Bill (edited 11-14-99).]