James Crowley Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Using 'Tiny' (Infantry only) and taking 'suggested' force gets an Infantry Co. replete with an Co.HQ element. Just so. Using 'automatic' seems to produce a mixture which never seems to have an overall higher HQ. I've seen variations of: three platoons - no Co. HQ; two platoons with a Co. HQ and a non attatched platoon and so on. I'm thinking that any force should have an overall HQ? If my side doesn't presumably the other side, if selected automatically, won't either? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Springelkamp Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Yes, I noticed that when I tried the same thing. I got two infantry platoons, and a mortar platoon, but they were all three independent, and the infantry HQ's didn't have a radio, so the mortar platoon was forced to walk along to near the frontline. With an overall Company HQ I could have probably used that HQ to call mortar support at the front, although I doubt that was a historical function of a Company Commander. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ankh Morpork Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Edit: Now that I re-read this thread...it proberbly was the wrong place for me to post my thoughts on this! So sorry! One thing that totally annihilated me was when I auto selected units for both me and the ai...and the ai started the first round with rockets! Pretty much every unit I had got annihilated or atleast damage. Im glad they gave us the option to buy units - but tbh I'd rather see something more in the line of CMBO/CMBB/CMAK. Atleast I personally thought I had a better overview and easier to select what I wanted. (although there ARE good parts about the new one aswell) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted May 18, 2011 Author Share Posted May 18, 2011 Yes, this seems to be the case with all force choices, for both sides, when you pick a 'Tiny' battle and have the force picked automatically. These are, essentialy, company sized groups and should, IMO, have an overall leader (as per the 'Recommended' choice). Not just for realism but for game play as well. If the platoon HQ element is destoyed, there is no else to fall back on (not that I fully comprehend the C2 system yet). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 If i choose "automatic" for the enemy, where can i set his Quality or fitness ? The manual says it is possible but i see no such options... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 We have made some tweaks to purchase options (internal weights and what not) for Tiny battles work a little smoother. These will be available in v1.01. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I wanted really really tiny. Wound up doing it manually with human selected forces on both sides. My infantry only default probe had enough to buy a full battalion - what's up with that? I made it 300 points of attackers vs. 200 points of defenders. I like to start *small*... (Glad to hear Steve's last comment BTW...) The US took 1 airborne platoon minus its mortar team, with 2 extra M1919A6 LMG teams added. The German defenders got Grenadier "platoon" reduced to HQ plus 1 squad, then an attached crack sniper and a regular 81mm mortar. AI placement left something to be desired - it put all its assets at the very back of the map and did not advance them. AI use of arty similarly - it fired the 81mm on a map coordinate (reasonable one, a road into the position - but not actually occupied or used) and fired off the entire ammo supply there without shifting the point of aim, ever. The sniper was effective - hit 5 men - despite not being too well placed. I loved the correct split of the airborne infantry squads into teams. I was manuevering 5 teams of 4-5 men with SMG and rifles, 1 with scoped and 1 with a bazooka, and 4 2-3 man teams with the M1919A6 LMGs. I also like the graphics, immersion, orders responsiveness and degree of control etc, and after a bit of getting used to the interface, the controls are fine as well. No doubt the AI does better with a human set up in a scenario than in a QB, or using armor. Maybe it also works more naturally with a larger force. I think human fights that small would definitely be of tactical interest, however, and look forward to making some, with smarter defender set up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackcat Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 "AI placement left something to be desired - it put all its assets at the very back of the map and did not advance them." Mr. C, I think you need to address this comment to Mark Ezra, given his post on another thread. Looking forward to seeing your scenarios. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Blackcat - thanks for the tip - done, in another thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.