Ekaton
Posts: 254
Joined: 9/30/2013 From: The War Room Status: offline
|
I always play with advantage set for the enemy, usually around 30-50% range, depending on the game/scenario. This is a must for the AI to be a challenge, but it doesn't fix the more blatantly stupid things, like HQs on the front line. Advantage makes the game better, but doesn't improve the feeling of playing against dumb AI rather than simulating warfare. This is not the feeling I have in many other wargames. Shadow Empire, which I'm binging at the moment, is really good vs AI. It's not perfect, but it doesn't behave like an idiot - it won't put HQs on the front line, usually manages to avoid exposing fragile units like artillery, and maintains a proper, continuous line of defence. It is also capable of retreating, trading land for time when it's hopeless, which to me is a mark of quality in itself - few games do that properly, with most just stubbornly holding onto meaningless ground, provoking excessive losses. JTS games never do it right. Decisive Campaigns and Gary Grigsby are other examples of quality - AI won't defend France or Italy till the end in WitW - it will retreat to more defensible positions, shortening the line. Sure, it's pre-programmed, but it's pre-programmed in a way that makes sense and seems plausible. You feel like you're playing a proper simulation of warfare, with the enemy making decisions that are, for the most part, understandable. And when it makes mistakes, real commanders also made mistakes, but no sane man would put an army or corps HQ on the front line - that's the main difference.
_____________________________
I need ten females for each male...
|