berto
Posts: 20708
Joined: 3/13/2002 From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA Status: offline
|
POSTMORTEM For the Israelis, this is one tough scenario. Is it winnable? Yes, I think so. One winning strategy might entail: Send a tank company up the slopes to the east, around the Syrian far left. To hunt down and kill the HQs and artillery pieces in the Syrian rear areas. For the remainder of the Israeli force: Ignore the center. Steer clear of the Syrian gun emplacements between and to the south of Tel Fakhar and Zaoura. Attack Tel Aziziat from the south and west. After it falls, Attack Tel Fakhar from the west and northwest. In my game, I made a fundamental blunder by, initially, thrusting up the center. Worse, by taking on those BunKers and gun emplacements south of Tel Fakhar and Zaoura. Needless. At scenario's beginning, I had written: quote:
ORIGINAL: berto Later this year, as Lead Coder for the Campaign Series, it's on my to-do list to review and revamp the games' A/I. To begin with, I want to select a small-map, mid Complexity scenario where one side is static, and defending, while the attacking side has a good mix of mobile and static combined arms. I then intend to teach (code) the A/I to do better, both sides. Learning from that experience, I will then generalize my discoveries, and code, to apply as widely to other situations and scenarios as best I can. After all, is this a good A/I testbed? I have my doubts. Given the initial deployments and arrival hexes, it would be difficult to "teach" the Israeli A/I to ignore the center and instead to attack both flanks. This scenario is an advanced study. I need something simpler and more straightforward to begin with. The search for a good initial A/I testbed scenario continues. Still, even if it didn't suit my needs as a game developer, as a player I had fun. That matters too!
_____________________________
|