Do the Brits cease fighting for tea?

[Guest Watson & Crick]

In a QB against the AI, I was defending as the Germans (mostly Regs) & the AI was the attacking Brits (all Vets). The map was a village w/ heavy woods & moderate hills on a clear day in march with 30 turns. There were three large flags & one small flag. I had infantry defending all but one major flag atop one hill. On a nearby hill with a major flag was my hetzer & a hull down wespe. The computer had one flamethrower croc, no other tanks. This croc advanced, shot a few smoke rounds at my hetzer, my wespe retreated. Croc advanced out of LOS from wespe & hetzer.

The only other shots fired by the computer was a volley of heavy artillery directed at my hetzer. The computer then used up all of his artillery as smoke on my hetzer & wespe. I had a few shots at advancing infantry w/ the wespe & hetzer until they hid in a valley near a large undefended flag. All this happens before round 25. Round 26, nothing happens. Round 27 nothing happens so I target 120 mm & 81 mm on the hill, hoping to knock out the croc, a mmg carrier & possible some unspotted infantry. Round 29-30 artillery barrage then the game ends. I ended up killing 15 of the brits, knocked out a mortar & mmg carrier. My losses-none! Net result Axis minor victory.

Over 4 months of playing I have never seen the computer get cold feet. In fact, it usually is too aggressive. I even had the AI setting at +3 experience. Has anyone seen anything like this? I am using v 1.1. Do the Brits cease fighting for tea?

[GriffinCheng+]

Hello,

First, iirc, CMBO does not characterise "habbits" of different nationalities, only TO&E matters.

From my little experiences with CAME-type games in 1.1, TacAI usually presses all its weights into one VL, and if it goes fubar, it moves all to another VL instead. Also, they never rush to VL. The TacAI tends to moves slowly concealed Since the terrian, heavy woods + hills, is quite slow to trepass, appearently, 30 turns is too short for the TacAI.

Griffin.

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

"When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI."

"Can't get enough Tank?"

[This message has been edited by GriffinCheng+ (edited 02-06-2001).]

[The Commissar]

This is an actual reported case of AI behaviour. Its a bug of a sort - attacking in the last few turns.

It happens rarely, fortunately. Someone posted an example somewhat like your own, but was then severely flamed said person presented his argument in an offensive way.

Cheers!

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

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[Guest Watson & Crick]

Griffen,

"The TacAI tends to moves slowly concealed Since the terrian, heavy woods + hills, is quite slow to trepass, appearently, 30 turns is too short for the TacAI."

I usually play conditions similar to what i described & the AI had no trouble finding & attacking. I'm not complaining, just surprised. i guess i should have attacked but i was too busy watching the Illini kick Michigan St A**

GO ILLINI

[GriffinCheng+]

Whew! Fortunately, I don't sound like flaming!

BTW, why do ppl spell my callsign as "Griffen"? It is "Griffin"! No offense.

"Griffin"

Originally posted by The Commissar:

It happens rarely, fortunately. Someone posted an example somewhat like your own, but was then severely flamed said person presented his argument in an offensive way.

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

"When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI."

"Can't get enough Tank?"

[Guest Watson & Crick]

Whoops! :! Sorry Griffin. Not used to the BB.

[Apache]

Offence can be unintentional. Try doing 6 months in the Parachute Regiment. You'll soon see if they stop for tea, (if you get past day one that is!

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

I have noticed that the AI on the attack sometimes fails to act aggressively or to use all of its forces in situations with limited LOS, and especially in situations in which it can't see many enemy, or see them anymore. I've seen half of the AI's force sitting at the jump-off line doing nothing at the end of a 30 turn battle, on some such occasions.

It also seems to get very cautious when it can't see anything and its forward units have been decimated. This version might be tied to global morale, just as a guess. It is at any rate less laughable than the previous - a plan gone fubar and the show called off.

[David Aitken]

The Commissar wrote:

> Someone posted an example somewhat like your own, but was then severely flamed said person presented his argument in an offensive way.

I assume you are referring to CPT STRANSKY. W&C, you might want to take a look at this thread:

CRAP AI, Other BUGS ,Fix Or implement IPX/TCP!!

[BK6583]

With some exceptions, if you're going to play against the AI, you're almost always better off playing against an AI defender. My overall experience against the AI as attacker is that the game is too complex for it to mount any kind of coordinated attack. I've seen platoon HQ's leading attacks; I've seen tanks leading attacks with nary a soldier in support; as stated above, when the AI can spot only opposing tanks, it fires arty smoke and not HE; and even when I've increased the AI by 50% or higher, the AI attacks invariably come piecmeal, which has allowed me to pick off AI attackers one by one. As was also stated above, if the AI has to move infantry thru rough/wooded/scattered tree type terrain, it can take forever to move even just a 100 meters or so. So in short, if you play against an AI attacker, expect to be disappointed more often than not.

[Guest Watson & Crick]

Apache, David & Commissar,

I'm not complaining about the AI and certainly don't want the Parachute Regiment to drop in! My humour tends to be sarcastic, which unfortunately makes me look like I'm pissed. I guess i should have put a big fat smilie or had a different topic for the thread. My intention was just to see if anyone else had this same experience with the AI attacking. Me bad.

Jason, I agree the AI has more limitations attacking, but one gets bored attacking all the time. I guess its time to learn how to PBEM or TCIP.

[Robert Mayer]

The AI seems pretty variable. If you play custom-built scenarios as opposed to Quick Battles, it does better, if the scenario designer did a good job.

I've had games where the AI has mounted a well-executed combined arms attack, with armor supported by infantry. I've had the AI hit multiple points on my front and reinforce where it broke through.

Of course, I've also had the AI sit there and pick its nose, too. This is especially bad in operations where the current situation isn't what the designer really anticipated. For instance, in the McKinley's Battalion operation, I played the Americans and because I had one immobile M-10 alive near the front line after the first battle, the entire front line boundary situation was fried for the rest of the game. The AI in that case couldn't tell which way was up, and pretty much just sat there.

Overall, though, I find the AI to be fun to play against, particularly as I like historical scenarios and operations more than QBs.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Apache:

Offence can be unintentional. Try doing 6 months in the Parachute Regiment. You'll soon see if they stop for tea, (if you get past day one that is!

Blah blah blah. British XXX Corps was heavily criticized for stopping to laager at night on their way to Arnhem; American paras were astounded - "if it was our boys up there" they remarked later "nothing would have stopped us."

References to drinking tea are not altogether insulting - most historians (and game designers) give the British a lot of credit for cool resolve under fire, or during war in general. The picture of the unflappable Brit drinking tea is not altogether a negative stereotype - just a stereotype.

I've talked to Brit soldiers many times at British Army Training Unit Suffield, and in Wainwright. I still remember the Falklands vet who told us Canadians, upon being asked if he went to the Falklands, "Good little exercise, that was."

I think the British have one of the best armies in the world - but my one month loan to the Scottish Division showed me their rations are dogfood (and we ate on base!), their uniforms were for the most part cheap (things have changed since 1990, though), and the officers were almost all pompous double-named twits, though we only met a few of them. For all that we respected them all the more.

Canadians and Americans in World War Two came to pretty much the same conclusions about their British cousins. The Germans regarded all three as overly cautious, amateurish, and not aggressive, generally speaking, and saw the war in Russia as the "main feature."

[Apache]

You are more than entitled to your point of view and I to mine. I usually don't sucumb to this 'flaming' garbage, or petty arguments for that matter, but as you mention it, my father served in the Scots Guards (Churchills) in WWII and I can assure you there were plenty of similar anecdotes quoted regarding 'allies' pulling out of flanking positions overnight without warning etc. etc. (Blah Blah Blah indeed).

Politely telling someone who considers comments mildly insulting that it is just stereotyping doesn't really hold up as an argument, as I am sure those involved with race and sex discrimination tribunals will point out.

Having served in Special Forces as well I am sure we can all take a walk down memory lane and site further anecdotes. I had the pleasure of working with armed forces from all over the world and they were all different, officers too. Like many other 'professionals' I refrain from 'slagging' other nations off. If we all did it NATO would be in a mess wouldn't it.

AFAIAC - subject closed

[Michael Dorosh]

I'm happy to leave it there - my main point is people shouldn't go out of their way to be offended; the tea remark was clearly meant in a jocular manner. Stereotypes usually have a grain of truth in them, anyhow - and the British Army lived on char - as you no doubt already know. So did the Canadian Army, for that matter - and the compo tea was as bad as the M and V. Your dad should have gotten a medal just for having to drink it.

Really, the original post was intended to express dissatisfaction with his pretend squaddies - yours was merely intended to be provocative.

[Apache]

Actually, 'I' took offence, whether you did or not doesn't bother me. I also, know what my intention was (seeing as I posted it).

Indeed, if I take offence at other posts I shall indiacte so. If you choose not to it is a matter for you. But kindly refrain from telling ME what my intentions were.

[BK6583]

"I've had games where the AI has mounted a well-executed combined arms attack, with armor supported by infantry. I've had the AI hit multiple points on my front and where it broke through."

I haven't played all of the CM scenarios and/or operations by any means, but what I have played has certainly not shown me an AI attacker that you describe above. What scenarios/ops did you play where the AI actually attacked in a reasonably coordinated manner?

[Henri]

To answer your question, I read that at some point in Africa, the British had an agreement with the Germans that there would be no hostilities after dark.This was to avoid the hassle of patrols bumping into each other in the pitch dark desert night.

At one point, a new British officer on his way to his unit captured a German truck and was proud to display it upon his arrival.

His horrified superiors immediately sent it back to the Germans with profuse apologies.

Unfortunately I don't remember the source for this anecdote.

Henri

[Guest Germanboy]

I guess the question is the wrong way round - it should be:

'What do the Brits do when they cease fighting?' - 'Have a cuppa'

Cassino area, February 1944 (could as well be New Zealanders, BTW)

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 02-08-2001).]

[Guest Watson & Crick]

Good one Andreas!

[gredeker]

Originally posted by Henri:

To answer your question, I read that at some point in Africa, the British had an agreement with the Germans that there would be no hostilities after dark.This was to avoid the hassle of patrols bumping into each other in the pitch dark desert night.

The episode you're referring to was described in the book "Panzer Commander" by Col. Hans von Luck. After they encamped for the night (often in sight of each other) they would contact each other on the radio to exchange news of prisoners and whatnot. And yes, they called the ritual "Tea time".

[BK6583]

I also saw reference to this story on some History channel show. The way the story was described, it was too late to return the stolen British truck b/c the German soldiers had already "off loaded" its cargo. The next morning von Luck requested permission to have a battalion replace his on the line while he conducted a recon further south. von Luck's request was somewhat of a ruse b/c he knew what was coming next. That night, the battalion that replaced von Luck's had two of their trucks stolen!

[Michael Dorosh]

If finally occurs to me that the Combat Mission manual makes reference to British troops drinking tea in a humourous manner, as well.

[Guest Michael emrys]

I take advantage of the somewhat limp AI on attack to practice counter-attack. Not too long ago I set up a QB where I was defending on a very large map that had about 5 VLs with only a company of infantry and a platoon each of Greyhounds, Stuarts, and M10s, plus a little OBA. The Germans had about a battalion of mech inf in halftracks that they set up in two main attacks. Since I had way too much front to defend with a static defense, I had to shift forces almost constantly to whatever sector was currently under attack. Made for an interesting situation.

Michael