The reviewers were right, aka, this game is broken.

[Panzer76]

Ok, after a lot of fuss getting the game from Paradox (since they released it sooner, and cheaper (DL only) than BTS, go figure)and played a few games, I can only say,*yawn*.

The TacAI is hopeless, that is, if there is any, cos most of the time, the troops just sit there, doing nothing. No no, not defending troops, but the attacking ones. Typical, the battle starts (scenarios), the enemy forces just sits there, doing *nothing* for a few minutes. Moves a little bit, stops again, does nothing.

If the enemy actually manages to move close enough to me for them to get in range, they come in drib and drabs are easily eliminated.

The poor TacAI also makes for every game being a push over, no matter if your Syrian or US, does not matter.

It could be good if I could play vs humans perhaps, but oh, I cant play WEGO in TCP/IP, great. I dont bother playing WEGO vs the AI, no need, as nothing much happens.

This game seems to have a lot of potential, but as a single player game, this game is almost broken. I really hope this will be improved with later patches, otherwise its money down the toilet.

[ July 28, 2007, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ]

[B00M$LANG]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

Ok, after a lot of fuss getting the game from Paradox (since they released it sooner, and cheaper (DL only) than BTS, go figure)and played a few games, I can only say,*yawn*.

The TacAI is hopeless, that is, if there is any, cos most of the time, the troops just sit there, doing nothing. No no, not defending troops, but the attacking ones. Typical, the battle starts (scenarios), the enemy forces just sits there, doing *nothing* for a few minutes. Moves a little bit, stops again, does nothing.

If the enemy actually manages to move close enough to me for them to get in range, they come in drib and drabs are easily eliminated.

The poor TacAI also makes for every game being a push over, no matter if your Syrian or US, does not matter.

It could be good if I could play vs humans perhaps, but oh, I cant play WEGO in TCP/IP, great. I dont bother playing WEGO vs the AI, no need, as nothing much happens.

This game seems to have a lot of potential, but as a single player game, this game is almost broken. I really hope this will be improved with later patches, otherwise its money down the toilet.

I have quite a bit of experince in creating scenarios using a tactical AI in various games, and I would venture to say that it's likely NOT just the AI, but also the scenario designers.

I'm not trying to dog anyone at all here, (I like the scenarios as delivered for the most part), but even a basic AI , if employed correctly, can seem very detailed and "human". Personally, I like using "time triggers" to start an AI unit on its mission or path. I think too many scenario designers use an "if/then" statement, which leaves too much to chance, because there's always a chance the the "if" never happens.

I've played a few of the various battles within the campaign, and I think it gets a bit more complicated as you get farther in the campaign. I think this is very smart (IF it's intentional, if not, then it's just a lucky benefit!). :cool:

Imagine how many players, especially new to the CM series and casual wargamers, would walk away from the game if it were too hard from the start? :confused:

I'm enjoying CM:SF a great deal, and I'm a person with very limited free time. I like it more than any FPS that's been produced in the last 4 years or so, and better than any 3D RTS game, and I've been involved with some of the "big" beta projects, to include World in Conflict. :eek:

Again, my only gripe is map size. If this game is ever going to have a chance beyond a squad/company-level trainer in the Army or Marines, that's going to have to increase to at least 50km x 50km or even more. I can't help but weigh every modern wargame against certain criteria...it's my job!

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Panzer76,

would you happen to be playing QBs? QB AI seems to have some problems. I do not recognize what you say about regular scenarios, where AI has been pretty good.

[Panzer76]

Here is an example, SS from one scen. Its 90 min long, but I quit after 11 min, after wathcing the "attacking" force not move from their deployment area.

* edit removed the example picures as they were from a scen were you apparently should only play as the attacking side so pretty poor example *

[ July 28, 2007, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ]

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

Panzer76,

would you happen to be playing QBs? QB AI seems to have some problems. I do not recognize what you say about regular scenarios, where AI has been pretty good.

No, I have not played any QBs, only scenarios.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by B00M$LANG:

Again, my only gripe is map size. If this game is ever going to have a chance beyond a squad/company-level trainer in the Army or Marines, that's going to have to increase to at least 50km x 50km or even more.

Errh... 250km is a larger area than Baghdad. That would imply that you want multiple divisions... :eek: In a 4km x 4km area you could easily see multiple battalions in MOUT, so maybe I'm missing something here. Which anyway is quite meaningless, as Combat Mission never was meant for that large scale play.

[tinjaw]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by B00M$LANG:

Again, my only gripe is map size. If this game is ever going to have a chance beyond a squad/company-level trainer in the Army or Marines, that's going to have to increase to at least 50km x 50km or even more.

Errh... 250km is a larger area than Baghdad. That would imply that you want multiple divisions... :eek: In a 4km x 4km area you could easily see multiple battalions in MOUT, so maybe I'm missing something here. Which anyway is quite meaningless, as Combat Mission never was meant for that large scale play. </font>

[Exel]

4km x 4km may be more than adequate for MOUT scenarios, but for maneuvering armored formations 10km x 10km can get really small really quick.

[David Chapuis]

actually that would be 2500km

[Moon]

Panzer76... that screenshot is from Al Amarah. A great scenario! If you follow the advice written in the scenario lead-in: "play as blue only"

Martin

[Sergei]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

actually that would be 2500km

[SuomiKp]

Originally posted by Moon:

Panzer76... that screenshot is from Al Amarah. A great scenario! If you follow the advice written in the scenario lead-in: "play as blue only"

Martin

Damn .... Moon beat me to it (or how you americans say)

I just started to play that scenario

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Moon:

Panzer76... that screenshot is from Al Amarah. A great scenario! If you follow the advice written in the scenario lead-in: "play as blue only"

Martin

Hehe, egg on my face on that one. But Ive played other scenarios also were the attacking force does not do much, and if it does, its in dribs and draps as I said above. So my point still stands.

[tinjaw]

Originally posted by Exel:

4km x 4km may be more than adequate for MOUT scenarios, but for maneuvering armored formations 10km x 10km can get really small really quick.

Exel,

I understand what you are saying about maneuver room, and 100 sq km is small when maneuvering modern day forces. However, maneuvering on that scale would be done before contact. The meat and potatoes of CMSF is the battle at contact. Once an element of the size modeled in CMSF is engaged with the enemy, they would not be maneuvering on such large chunk of terrain.

[JaguarUSF]

I'm curious which scenarios specifically you are talking about. Go into the scenario editor and check the AI plans for the side that doesn't seem to be moving.

[Exel]

Originally posted by Tinjaw:

I understand what you are saying about maneuver room, and 100 sq km is small when maneuvering modern day forces. However, maneuvering on that scale would be done before contact. The meat and potatoes of CMSF is the battle at contact. Once an element of the size modeled in CMSF is engaged with the enemy, they would not be maneuvering on such large chunk of terrain.

Considering that modern MBTs have engagement ranges of up to 4000m, it would not be rare for a company, much less a battalion, to send a platoon or more off a few km's to flank the enemy at contact. Even tactical maneuvers easily expand to several km with modern mechanized forces.

Still, 50x50km is probably pretty much overkill to any tactical level wargame, for which 10x10km or 20x20km would most of the time be plenty. But if we are talking military training applications then larger map sizes will be needed.

Of course the engine is still in its infancy, and I have no doubts that it will continue to serve for years to come. And I would be willing to bet a considerable sum that during those years we will see increasing map sizes as the engine and computer hardware develop.

[tinjaw]

Originally posted by Exel:

Considering that modern MBTs have engagement ranges of up to 4000m, it would not be rare for a company, much less a battalion, to send a platoon or more off a few km's to flank the enemy at contact. Even tactical maneuvers easily expand to several km with modern mechanized forces.

I would consider that the pre-engagement maneuvering. However, I will grant that even post-pre-engagement-maneuvering that would make for an interesting scenario, and would require a bigger battlefield that 4km x 4km. BUT, those 4Km engagements are on pooltables like the open desert, and not the norm. And, yes, CMSF is based in the desert, and some open desert battles are viable, they should not constitute the norm as no defender would accept battle on such terrain, and meeting engagements in the open desert are highly unlikely with today's sensors and other recon assets.

Originally posted by Exel:

Of course the engine is still in its infancy, and I have no doubts that it will continue to serve for years to come. And I would be willing to bet a considerable sum that during those years we will see increasing map sizes as the engine and computer hardware develop.

And I agree! My hardware sucks today, but after Curt give me a big bonus (yeah! right!) I might own a faster computer in two years and want to do larger maps. However, too many units would make the game difficult to enjoy controlling if not outright unplayable. But with Co-operative multi-player in CMSF2...

[InvaderCanuck]

I just played the Al Huqf Engagement meeting engagement scenario.

I played as Red forces. 20:00 time limit.

As far as I can tell, the Blue force did not leave its deployment area until there was about 7:00 left on the clock, and we did not come into contact until 3:00 left. The only reason we did, is I sent one of my squads out to find where they were. They had traveled perhaps 50 meters from their deployment area.

My "recon" element however got absolutely smeared ;p

[JaguarUSF]

I fixed it. The AI plans were set to "Assault" (which will crawl very slowly) instead of "Advance." Silly scenario designer...oh wait, that was me. Although I use "Advance" almost exclusively...maybe something got changed.

In any event, just go into the scenario editor, load the scenario in question, go to the AI drop-down menu, go to Plan 1 Blue, go to Order 2 and change it to Advance instead of Assault. Then do the same thing for Plan 1 Red.

That can go for any scenario. If the AI isn't as aggressive as you are, just go into the editor and change their Orders from Assault to Advance or Quick.

[ July 28, 2007, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: JaguarUSF ]

[Salkin]

When you pick scenarios, there are a number of icons showing if it's a meeting engagement, etc. Where are these icons explained in the manual ?

//Salkin

[Miska]

That is odd, i just played Al Huqf scenario as reds and blue forces acted as they should be, attacked and wipe my forces out of map

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Moon:

Panzer76... that screenshot is from Al Amarah. A great scenario! If you follow the advice written in the scenario lead-in: "play as blue only"

Martin

Hehe, egg on my face on that one. But Ive played other scenarios also were the attacking force does not do much, and if it does, its in dribs and draps as I said above. So my point still stands. </font>

[athkatla]

Jaguar, in some of the scenarios there IS no Order 2 in Setup, either for the Red team or the Blue!

[Sgt.Rock of Easy Company]

Originally posted by JaguarUSF:

I fixed it. The AI plans were set to "Assault" (which will crawl very slowly) instead of "Advance." Silly scenario designer...oh wait, that was me. Although I use "Advance" almost exclusively...maybe something got changed.

In any event, just go into the scenario editor, load the scenario in question, go to the AI drop-down menu, go to Plan 1 Blue, go to Order 2 and change it to Advance instead of Assault. Then do the same thing for Plan 1 Red.

That can go for any scenario. If the AI isn't as aggressive as you are, just go into the editor and change their Orders from Assault to Advance or Quick.

On either side, the AI on this mission will not use its IFV against me, but sits in the set-up area.

[JaguarUSF]

Order 2 is after Setup, which is technically Order 1 (you have to click on Setup to access it).

I still don't know why the AI doesn't use the IFV They are dummies. Maybe the AI plans just need to be rewritten...there could be more paths taken through the city for more alternative plans.

And it is a case of "poor" (or just not aggressive enough) scenario design, which thankfully is easy to fix (you can do it using the process mentioned earlier). Rumor has it the AI plans might get a reworking for a future update.