Feedback needed (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series



Message

Huib -> Feedback needed (7/14/2008 11:06:39 PM)

I'm interested in some feedback on 1 of the new WF scenarios. I made one scenario for play against the AI and if anyone plays it and writes an AAR or something that would be great.

The scenario I mean is called **A Key Position and should be played as Allied. In this scn I tried to ensure that it was both
1. historically correct in OOB an positions of the troops, so no addtional units for the sake of balance or anything.
2. A challenge to play with realistic victory conditions.

Obviously I played it myself a few times, but since I made it, there were few surprises.

I'm also interested in any strange behaviour of the AI, if there is any. I did not fix any units (which is quite uncommon for AI scns) so that it might also be playable Human vs Human, but that I have not tested yet.
Anyhow in the first place I'm interested how t plays out against the computer, to see if it might be rewarding to make more scns for Human vs Computer play in the future.

Thanks in advance

Huib Versloot



osiris_slith -> RE: Feedback needed (7/15/2008 12:05:08 AM)

HI Huib

I primarily make scenarios human versus AI all the time. My main focus in designing these scenarios is to minimize AI losses

In meeting engagements H vs AI I try to keep the force ratios as close as possible to 1-1
I find you need to give the AI a little edge here and there, maybe in placement, reinforcements %s, supply etc, or an extra battalion or 2 of unit like a Heavy SU regiment/heavy tank regiment/recon battalion.

In one scenario I designed (meeting engagement) a Russian tank brigade versus a Panzer brigade (2 small panzer bn+ a pzgbn and support units). That worked well for human to human play but to make it work for AI, I had to add a Heavy Tank regiment and recon battalion to the russian order of battle and than it worked out fine.

In assaults where the human player defends, the AI plays them quite well and you can go with the historic 2-3 attackers for 1 defender makes it very challenging to play.

AI in defence is a bit harder. I usually try to keep it 1-1 since a local numerical superiority will have been established by the attacker (human)..Again a few bunkers, some minfields and a few good ambush positions work well. I would not recommend that you release AI units which are supposed to be defending objectives (like a rifle regiment).

The AI counter attacks with everything on the board so the rifle regiment will attack with everything it has and leave objectives its supposed to be defending empty. So to counter any human attempts to sucker the AI in by taking 1 objective, I found a solution to this particular problem. I give the AI off board reinforcements that act as the counter-attacking force or I place a fixed armor/motorized battlegroup or 2 on the board that will release to act as a counter-attack force and leave the on board defending rifle regiment units fixed for the whole scenario.

I have noticed one thing. The AI tends to play better in scenarios that are between 12 and 20 turns. It seems the shorter time frame forces the AI to act and utilize everything on the board so for my LCG in the works Im keeping all scenarios between 12-20 turns.

In 20+ turn scenarios some AI units sit around and do nothing till the last turn or 2..not so with the 12-20 turn scenarios.

The AI seems to have some difficulty with objective set in great depth.

Finally a smaller AI OOB forces the AI to use everything on the board..sometime it plays better when its smaller.

You have to work within the limits of the AI capabilities..its good to very good if properly set up and really bad if not well set up.

Hope this helps.

Osiris






cw58 -> RE: Feedback needed (7/16/2008 3:03:03 AM)

Hi Huib,

There are 2 scenarios in WF with that name, the file names being nearly identical. Is there any difference? What options did you intend to have selected (armor facing, etc.)?

And do you think the assault rules glitch would skew or adversely effect the results? What I mean is, by playing it before the glitch is fixed, will the outcome be effected enough that you will not get a true measure of the scenario? Or should I wait until the next quick fix?



Huib -> RE: Feedback needed (7/16/2008 2:20:05 PM)

Hi,

You'll need the one where the description starts with this line [North of Tilburg, Holland]:[HIS]:[ALLIED]:[BB] and everything is fine.

An old scn file was accidentally left in the first 1.03 for members release. In the meanwhile it has been taken out, but everyone who has installed the first 1.03 now has a duplicate unfortunately.

Anyhow this one will play out just fine with the new assault rules, even better, since you can't do the disrupt, surround, assault trick which was extremely easy to excecute against AI. There are no trucks, wagons etc that will be in the way. Should you encounter a lone leader or other 0 assault value units: shoot rather than assault. I set individual OP fire for the AI units, so my experience when testing was that the AI put up a much better fight than I expected.
I hope others will have the same challenge. I also tried to put the objecitves in a certain way that will maximize effectivity of the AI, without having to fix units.
Hope it all works out as intended.

Huib




cw58 -> RE: Feedback needed (7/17/2008 2:51:05 PM)

Hi Huib,
I finished your scenario last night. You weren't kidding about it being a challenge; that was one tough nut to crack. The AI did indeed put up a ferocious fight and I only managed a minor victory in the very last turn. I'll start posting an AAR in the AAR folder tonight. I'll post back here when it's done. Thanks for a good scenario.[&o]



Huib -> RE: Feedback needed (7/17/2008 3:14:42 PM)

That was quick. Thanks for playing it. I look forward to reading your AAR.

Huib



simovitch -> RE: Feedback needed (7/18/2008 4:09:05 PM)

Yes, this is a tough one. I had a Draw going into the final turn but the Volksgrenediers counterattacked one of the objectives in the town and took it - Majot Defeat. Another good scenario from Huib.

With the new assault rules, the reduced effectiveness of the Allies lower firepower stands out. You can't rely on the gamey disruption tactics so you have to beat them down before you can assault successfully. This made for a much more tense gaming experience.

Tense = good, or bad? Maybe that's the root of the controversy.



cw58 -> RE: Feedback needed (7/18/2008 7:13:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: simovitch

Yes, this is a tough one. I had a Draw going into the final turn but the Volksgrenediers counterattacked one of the objectives in the town and took it - Majot Defeat. Another good scenario from Huib.

With the new assault rules, the reduced effectiveness of the Allies lower firepower stands out. You can't rely on the gamey disruption tactics so you have to beat them down before you can assault successfully. This made for a much more tense gaming experience.

Tense = good, or bad? Maybe that's the root of the controversy.

You may be right about the "root of the controversy". It all depends on your idea of fun: is it smashing your opponent into mincemeat or is it biting your nails while the battle hangs in the balance? I also would agree that the new assault rules favor the Germans, as they have better firing attacks and longer ranges (e.g., rifle pltns & MGs) than the Allies.

Huib, my AAR is finished now. This was definitely a "nail-biter". [sm=happy0065.gif] Thanks again.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125