What's actually worth playing

[Adaephon]

Okay, so I know there's a lot of flaming hot rage flying around these forums at the moment. I've launched a tiny bit myself. But against the spirit of the moment I thought I'd propose a more helpful post.

Long story short, QBs aren't worth playing. It doesn't take much digging on here to find that out, takes less time of actually playing a QB to discover this fact for yourself. So, that leaves the Battles and Campaign. Campaign is straight forward-ish, at least the enemy is deployed, which is a step forward from QBs. So that leaves Battles which I thought I'd dedicate this little post to.

I realise there are Battles which ask that you play as a particular side only when facing off against the AI, but there are some where this is not stated and the AI I've faced persists in its lack of AI. So what I propose is that we co-operate to highlight these Battles so that others may know what to avoid.

Other than QBs.

So, I'll start the ball rolling.

Abu Susah, the first on the list, can not be played against the AI as Syrians. I've yet to try it as US, but against them they don't attack, just sit in the deployment zone. (Also have a fair issuse with the deployment options as Syrians, in that they're very limited. It's almost as though the design was to force the AI to deploy correctly, should they be Syrian, which isn't something I've seen the AI be capable of alone as yet.)

[jomni]

Create your own battles using the editor.

Actually i have lots of fun building a mission more than playing it.

Brings back memories of my childhood when i create stuff from Lego bricks. The building is more fun than destroying. Not a lot of strategy games have this sort of editor. Too bad I can't save my creations as I'm still using the demo.

[M1A1TC]

Yeah, the editor is the saving grace of this game

[Panzer76]

Lol, "no body" is actually playing the game, just creating scenarios. Sucks for us that want to play the game.

Answer to the original Q, some of the scenarios where you play as a attacker. AS a defender, you dont even have to do anything to win, you can watch TV and come back to a total vic.

[konstantine]

Originally posted by Adaephon:

Okay, so I know there's a lot of flaming hot rage flying around these forums at the moment. I've launched a tiny bit myself. But against the spirit of the moment I thought I'd propose a more helpful post.

Long story short, QBs aren't worth playing. It doesn't take much digging on here to find that out, takes less time of actually playing a QB to discover this fact for yourself. So, that leaves the Battles and Campaign. Campaign is straight forward-ish, at least the enemy is deployed, which is a step forward from QBs. So that leaves Battles which I thought I'd dedicate this little post to.

I realise there are Battles which ask that you play as a particular side only when facing off against the AI, but there are some where this is not stated and the AI I've faced persists in its lack of AI. So what I propose is that we co-operate to highlight these Battles so that others may know what to avoid.

Other than QBs.

So, I'll start the ball rolling.

Abu Susah, the first on the list, can not be played against the AI as Syrians. I've yet to try it as US, but against them they don't attack, just sit in the deployment zone. (Also have a fair issuse with the deployment options as Syrians, in that they're very limited. It's almost as though the design was to force the AI to deploy correctly, should they be Syrian, which isn't something I've seen the AI be capable of alone as yet.)

Weird, I played this one last night, and while I easily beat the AI, the Strykers made it half way across the map. The AI sent single Strykers out as recon, then the rest in groups. It area fired an RPG to death with 40mm grenades.

Then they all died.

I don't mind the Syrian deployment in this one. Although I wish I'd known that radio IEDs require LOS to target. Anyway should be good as PBEM.