Suicidal attacks? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865



Message

Kielec -> Suicidal attacks? (2/16/2009 8:54:42 PM)

It's an End Spiel for me on this one, playing CSA vs AI on Major or whatever Lt.Col level. Late April 1863 ant the Yanks are down to nothng in terms of troops - the West is about my finishing the sieges and mopping up, the East - well, I'll be to the same scenario soon enough. Now, I kept the Dept of N. Virginia in Fredericksburg, as it were, since the beginning of the campaign. And for a while it made sense for the Yanks to come at me. Yep, I did my best at encicling them and capturing their artillery - the usual, and then the spring of 1863 comes and here's how they come at me:

[image]local://upfiles/31040/9E92466D779B490BACEEA82D9D6AA322.jpg[/image]

Now - that one made no sense, did it? And no, no strategical diversion can be counted in. As a result I have surrounded all of them Yanks, took two arty Bdes and - yes, I did - annihilated the whole bunch. Hmm... Why attack? My troops were better in any respect - ze same boyz since the start of the campaign, and just about 7:1 in numbers. I know AI is not supposed to be too clever, but this?



Hard Sarge -> RE: Suicidal attacks? (2/16/2009 8:56:29 PM)

the rest of the attack didn't show up



Kielec -> RE: Suicidal attacks? (2/16/2009 9:03:32 PM)

Nope, HARD,

There is NO reinforcements thay can get... - all wiped out, sorry...



Kielec -> RE: Suicidal attacks? (2/16/2009 9:09:35 PM)

Right, now that I see their sorry condition the next turn, there is an (alleged) 37k infantry at Potomac River - but the scouting report reliability is just "Normal"... and then - what could have they (more likely a 12k, given the report reliability and the reinforcements already counted on the next turn etc.) changed? Win? Excuse moi! No chance for that. They should have all stayed put where they were and pray for me not to stirr...



Kielec -> RE: Suicidal attacks? (2/16/2009 11:20:45 PM)

Funny, as it is, I got another one of those - really desperate, half a year later:

[image]local://upfiles/31040/0AED1F2C94674A0996A000AA6311625D.jpg[/image]

I don't even have the heart to have them zeroed again...



ericbabe -> RE: Suicidal attacks? (2/17/2009 2:39:42 PM)

The AI normally doesn't attack targets when the odds are this low. The AI does have a "desperation chance" each turn, a small chance by which it will launch an attack without regard to the odds -- we had enough players who didn't like the fact that the AI stopped doing *anything* once it was losing that we thought it was worthwhile to add this. Doesn't sound as though it was going to change the outcome any, and, on the whole, it does seem that players prefer that the AI try *something* as opposed to just sit there like a stone for the last two years of the war.



Sabotteur -> RE: Suicidal attacks? (2/18/2009 11:24:34 AM)

Looking at the map, it looks like there are several garrisons that are doubled or trippled up. What about coding the AI to pull forces from Garrisons to plug holes? Especially where they are doubled and trippled up? I think it safe to say that most human players would do this unless they have a govenor screaming for a certain number of brigades in the state.

The other thing, and not even sure this is possible, but have a point where the AI looks at the force ratio and switches from an offensive setting to a defensive one? Meaning, that instead of conducting offensive ops, it converts to building and improving forts, adding detachments and improving weapons.

Just my two cents...

Sabo



Kielec -> RE: Suicidal attacks? (2/18/2009 10:30:55 PM)

Sabo!
Exactly my point!
I'm not sure what loosing players (PvP) do when it comes to "Alamo" for them, but the AI does not seem to be behaving in any way I'd see a loosing side should behave in. Not that I have read all of them Civil War history books (as some on the Forum claim to have done) but I do think the stuff of Ivo-Jima and Okinawa came just about a hundred years later, and from people with a completely different set of mind, while they were at it (clearly - no offence meant to anybody who'd read this post).
I did read a number of posts where posters claimed that there would be little, or no, pursuits in the days of the Civil War (for whatever reasons). Some others claimed some CSA generals would not go North, or West, no matter what... etc. Most of that could be questioned in the context of a computer game (and I "spoke" my mind in this regard on the Forum already), but, really, I do not see how a loosing side could ask for several thousands of dead/captured just like that...
Sabo's concept sounds GOOD to me here. The loosing side should call for desperate measures - clearly - but these should be more to the tune of massive impressions/drafts and digging in (as in: building/upgrading forts) than suicidal attacks...



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.5776367