Desert Dave Posted September 10, 2002 Share Posted September 10, 2002 In a recent game playing the Allied side (v.s. the AI) I had successfully taken Sicily and was approaching Rome -- from north and south, since I had landed a force behind the lines, BUT the German did NOT respond, except for one unsupported Corps. Sure, they had their hands full trying to contain a beserker breakout on east front, BUT I also noticed that the Germans responded with 4! corps AND an army to just one! pitiful partisan thumbing its nose in the Yugo mountains. :eek: As well, the invasion of France was given up for a lost cause, since there was NO support for the few garrisons there, even when Paris was threatened. FOW was on, so I don't know how many reserves were available, but it seems there needs be some sort of response to greater threats (Italy near to surrendering; France in the dying throes)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les the Sarge 9-1b Posted September 11, 2002 Share Posted September 11, 2002 But what are you saying exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted September 11, 2002 Share Posted September 11, 2002 I suspect the question is about how the AI prioritiezes threats and allocates resources. I don't think it handles multiple threats very well, but I'm not sure how many PC game AI's do with that challenge, either. After all, it's a bit more complex than chess. I plan to check this out myself in future games and am curious what other folks post about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doomsday1 Posted September 11, 2002 Share Posted September 11, 2002 Along those lines the AI Allies tried to land in France starting in early '42 and kept attempting this foolishness until I finally made a mistake and allowed them a toehold in '44. (but it was back into the sea with you). Seems the A.I couldn't think past that plan. Like an invasion further North. Also, AI would have been more sucessful if it had moved off of bombarding so transports could have access to the beaches, and it failed to exploit its initial toehold because there were no units poised to land once a sector had been cleared around the landed unit. I think that an arguement can be made that ships should be allowed to move in fire, and move off, so transorts can land or have a greater range. (Ships lie offshore, softening up the defense, providing firepower, while transports land men to invade). I think the new patch may addresses some of this...Thanks Cater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted September 11, 2002 Author Share Posted September 11, 2002 As originally posted by Les the Sarge: But what are you saying exactly? Well, I never really know for certain sure, but here I was trying a new code-talk (adapted from Hopi idiom and ideals -- these peaceful natives live nearby) So to! Delight my friends -- Heads, Yippies, Diggers, Outcasts, Freaks, Degenerates and Malcontents mostly, though, the few odd old soldiers thrown in for good measure, And! Confound any foes -- ALL! opposed to free thought, free & open exchange of ideas (... we used to have "Free Universities" when I was young and a citizen-soldier no longer) and FREE! healing & helping hands to ANY in need... well, I guess this leaves out the current administration and all but 1 or 2 US politicians, oh, too bad for plain old us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts