Success at Quick Battles?

[javelin]

Question from a rabid Newbie...... I just found CMBB and am truly in love with the game. I have a long military background, solid knowledge of the time period, and I have even read Mark Walkers "Strategy Guide" (for what that was worth.) I have found over the last few months, that playing the Axis, during Quick Battles (300-600 points) and using the default TOE that is given to me by the computer, I can only win about 50% of the battles. If I play the Allies I when about 85% of the time. I am a bit perplexed.....Even when I am drastically out “Teched” by my computer opponent I still should be able to handle the AI. However the AI seems to "Out Think" me on a regular basis. I still love the game, but does it cheat?.....Or do I just suck or are these percentages acceptable?

Thanks

John

[javelin]

When I say "Cheat" I don't mean a change in penetration tables or a flat out mathematical cheat. The computer simply has an uncanny ability to know where units are located even if tactically there is no real merit.

[JasonC]

It doesn't cheat and can't.

You haven't fully specified your game settings. From what you describe, I would guess that you tend to play "combined arms" with infantry unit parents (or randomize the unit type, perhaps), and then let the computer pick forces for both sides.

This will give the AI a considerably larger point budget for armor, specifically, when it has the allies. Combined arms isn't "vanilla", and it has different effects on the force composition of the different national armies.

German panzer forces would generally be the "armor" force type with parent unit type "mechanized". When instead you say "combined arms" with "infantry", you get only the level of armor support of a typical German infantry division - which means very little, just a StuG or Marder, single, at the size of fight you are talking about. As a maximum - when the computer picks the forces, it may easily give you no capable armor at all (panzer IIs or nothing e.g.).

The AI is pretty weak overall, and especially weak with infantry on the attack. It helps to know its weaknesses and to have a few weapons good at "stressing" them, but that is the basic story. It is at its best when it has several items of armor that are thicker than you can easily KO.

It is likely you are simply running into that mix of situations more often when it has the allies, simply due to the point budget settings.

I would say, though, that the bar gets considerably higher once you know how to play well. When I fight the AI in a QB, my goals are things like "don't take any KIA", because just winning is already baked in when I hit "go". I do, however, typically let myself pick my force to ensure I have a suitable mix of weapons...

[dieseltaylor]

Try joining one of the clubs. The AI can be pretty stupid and once you , perhaps subconsciously, start playing to expose its deficiencies it will cease to be fun. Not to say that some good designers have made scenarios where the AI weaknesses are factored in so as to still make it a challenge.

I generally would not play the AI at all but at WeBoB we have a game of the Month to play the AI and many of the club take up the challenge. The current one is "A Present for Guderian" which I believe I am the third lowest scorer with only about 20% separating me from the leader : )

The feedback hopefully goes back to the Scenario Depot.

[Lt Belenko]

Forget QBs, there are 1500 Scenarios available for CMBB.

[JoMac]

Javelin,

I use to play small Combined Arms QBs of around 300-600 points ( I still like them from from time to time for play test reasons...Now at around 600-1000 points, or up to reinforced Company size engagements ).

I dont like the terrain that QBs offer, Scenario or Map designers tend to make more realistic maps. If you are able to import QB forces on a designer Map, that would be nice.

I to remember playing 300-600 point Combined Arms, and many times the Ruskies get a T-34 vs a PZII or possibly a Marder...not pretty.

If you think playing this way against a computer AI is hard, just try it against a human opponent.

[JasonC]

Marder vs. T-34 is an even match up. The T-34 is better at killing infantry, to be sure, and a bit more mobile. But either one kills the other if it gets the first shot, so the duel is mostly a matter of preparation and driving skill.

A Panzer II is another matter, and hopeless.

[Flying Column]

Yeah, the maps are not brilliant on QB's

It is nice being able to pick your own mix of troops though

[undead reindeer cavalry]

don't let computer choose her units, if you play combined arms or similar type, because she is programmed to cherry pick her armor. it destroys all the fun for battles with tanks, other than 1944/45, because you face the best armor available. for example for me the true fun for 1941 is playing with BTs, T-26s, 38Ts, 37mm Panzer-IIIs, short Panzer-IVs and such what comes to tanks.

if you still want the uncertainty of the forces you meet, create a number of quick battles and save them without playing them. name the save game files so that they tell the general battle type. then after some time (during which you forget which game had what troops), play those games in random order.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Yeah, the maps are not brilliant on QB's

It is nice being able to pick your own mix of troops though

you don't have to use random maps in QBs. you can choose a human designed map that will be used in the QB.

[Lt Belenko]

UDC,

So if you don't let the computer pick the troops and you don't use a random map...

Hmmm...this sounds like a scenario to me.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

UDC,

So if you don't let the computer pick the troops and you don't use a random map...

Hmmm...this sounds like a scenario to me.

these suggestions were on two separate posts.

if you combine them, you still won't have a proper scenario, because there's no play testing etc., tho the end result may be OK anyway.