Long spells of inactivity (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem



Message

Renato -> Long spells of inactivity (11/20/2010 12:09:30 PM)

I'm playing a Grand Campaign as Allies with patch 5.60.021b (Elite vs Recruit AI).

In my opinion, the main drawbacks of this good game are the long spells of complete inactivity, wich last from 10 to 15 minutes when the human player doesn't want to attack.

It should not be necessarily like that.

IF AI has no intention to attack AND human player offers a truce THEN AI should immediately accept it.

What do you think?



Finfan -> RE: Long spells of inactivity (11/20/2010 7:06:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Renato

I'm playing a Grand Campaign as Allies with patch 5.60.021b (Elite vs Recruit AI).

In my opinion, the main drawbacks of this good game are the long spells of complete inactivity, wich last from 10 to 15 minutes when the human player don't want to attack.

It should not be necessarily like that.

IF AI has no intention to attack AND human player offers a truce THEN AI should immediately accept it.

What do you think?

I agree, there should be some more options, mainly:


  • a) retreat: Side A doesn't want to continue fighting but neither side has lost enough men to call a truce.
  • b) truce due to inactivity: neither the human player nor the AI feel that they're in a favorable position to attack, so truce.



boldrobot -> RE: Long spells of inactivity (11/21/2010 9:00:30 PM)

The most recent patch supposedly adds something like this, where if no victory points have changed hands in a few minutes the AI will accept a truce due to inactivity. Maybe I am remembering wrong, but I feel like the difference is noticeable. It seems like if not much has happened in ten minutes or so, the AI will accept a truce even if it has high enough morale that it normally wouldn't.



Tejszd -> RE: Long spells of inactivity (11/21/2010 9:39:03 PM)

You are right boldrobot;

v5.60.02 beta patch had this line for cease fire/truce;

"The AI is more likely to offer a cease fire when close to a Force Morale failure."



xe5 -> RE: Long spells of inactivity (11/22/2010 12:32:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Renato
IF AI has no intention to attack AND human player offers a truce THEN AI should immediately accept it.

What do you think?


So if the truce offer isn't accepted the player then knows that the AI will attack. If only tactical intelligence was really that easy to obtain [:-]

I deal with those "long spells of inactivity" by opening a browser window over the game screen, so that I can still see the mini map, and engage in online activity. I do so more frequently when playing the Axis as my strategy often involves choking off Allied Supply just by keeping my fascist BGs alive for as long as possible.

The bigger problem I find with the truce function is the AI's inability to withdraw a truce offer when using the 'two minute warning' option and its down to its last VL. When truce is offered the player only needs to take the VL and immediately accept the truce to win total victory.



Tejszd -> RE: Long spells of inactivity (11/22/2010 12:51:56 AM)

I understand the long periods of inactivity can be a bit boring but why should the AI have to attack you in your prepared positions???



xe5 -> RE: Long spells of inactivity (11/22/2010 1:28:05 AM)

I didnt say the AI should "have to attack". If Renato's suggestion were implemented, the only reason the AI wouldnt accept a truce would be that it was going to attack. A truce offer thus rejected would function as an important, yet unrealistic bit of battlefield intelligence.



Dundradal -> RE: Long spells of inactivity (11/22/2010 2:34:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5
The bigger problem I find with the truce function is the AI's inability to withdraw a truce offer when using the 'two minute warning' option and its down to its last VL. When truce is offered the player only needs to take the VL and immediately accept the truce to win total victory.



I use this exploit all the time to achieve total victory on a map.



xe5 -> RE: Long spells of inactivity (11/22/2010 2:00:02 PM)

Accepting a truce after grabbing the last VL guarantees total victory (inc. disbanding of enemy BGs) regardless of which battle end options are selected. Its almost as sleazy an 'exploit' as snatching a VL (especially those verdammte exposed road VLs) in the closing few seconds of battle.

To prevent such 'buzzer beaters' I would prefer that:
1. Force morale bars werent shown.
2. The game clock randomized the time limit by +/- 3 minutes.
3. VL icons did not indicate nationality. That way you could only be sure you controlled a VL if you has a 'garrison' on it.



topper6 -> RE: Long spells of inactivity (11/22/2010 2:43:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

Accepting a truce after grabbing the last VL guarantees total victory (inc. disbanding of enemy BGs) regardless of which battle end options are selected. Its almost as sleazy an 'exploit' as snatching a VL (especially those verdammte exposed road VLs) in the closing few seconds of battle.

To prevent such 'buzzer beaters' I would prefer that:
1. Force morale bars werent shown.
2. The game clock randomized the time limit by +/- 3 minutes.
3. VL icons did not indicate nationality. That way you could only be sure you controlled a VL if you has a 'garrison' on it.


I don't agree on that.
If changes you propose would be made, i would suggest that you see your own force morale though, but not the opponents force morale.
On the VL's i would say the same then, if your suggestion would be enforced, that it would be as you see which VL's you have taken, but not if the neutral one's have been secured by the enemy. I.E they still show as neutral for you, but not for the AI/opponent.



xe5 -> RE: Long spells of inactivity (11/22/2010 4:02:14 PM)

Why should you see your own FM? You get the "We're losing a lot of men!" warning when it drops below 50% (although this voice cue could be easily replaced with silence) and your toolbars keep a perfect running tally of your own casualties. If the player didnt know his own FM status to the nearest 10% it would be more realistic by making him more cautious about incurring casualties.

As for the VLs, if you know which ones you control then youll also know whenever the enemy takes one of yours, even if your nearest unit is half a kilometer away! This 'recon by VL' isnt realistic.

And as long as Im on the realism soapbox, lets also have the option to get rid of 'recon by death cry' where you can tell when youre causing enemy casualties even when you cant see them (eg. inside bldgs)



Andrew Williams -> RE: Long spells of inactivity (11/22/2010 7:19:58 PM)

Yeh we have logged an improvement to realism settings.

At full realism in current settings it would revert to approx 50% when further tick boxes are added  eg.Display FM tickbox etc.



xe5 -> RE: Long spells of inactivity (11/22/2010 8:18:56 PM)

Any specific improvement(s) in particular or just some nonchalant mumbling round and about the topic in the general direction of the code monkey?



Andrew Williams -> RE: Long spells of inactivity (11/22/2010 8:57:46 PM)

just some nonchalant mumbling



Renato -> RE: Long spells of inactivity (11/23/2010 5:25:46 AM)

Thanks to everybody for the posts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Finfan

I agree, there should be some more options, mainly:


  • a) retreat: Side A doesn't want to continue fighting but neither side has lost enough men to call a truce.
  • b) truce due to inactivity: neither the human player nor the AI feel that they're in a favorable position to attack, so truce.



I can agree on anything that could reduce the wait.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: boldrobot

The most recent patch supposedly adds something like this, where if no victory points have changed hands in a few minutes the AI will accept a truce due to inactivity. Maybe I am remembering wrong, but I feel like the difference is noticeable. It seems like if not much has happened in ten minutes or so, the AI will accept a truce even if it has high enough morale that it normally wouldn't.



Yes, it does, but after 10-15 minutes.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

I didnt say the AI should "have to attack". If Renato's suggestion were implemented, the only reason the AI wouldnt accept a truce would be that it was going to attack. A truce offer thus rejected would function as an important, yet unrealistic bit of battlefield intelligence.



Admittedly, but is this a big issue?

When I'm locked up to my computer for 10-15 minutes on end, I'd expect that something happens, even to be attacked; otherwise I'd prefer to go on.
After all it is a game, not a pain.[:)]

Thanks again.



xe5 -> RE: Long spells of inactivity (11/23/2010 6:28:30 PM)

When playing a GC as the Allies, its usually expected that the player (Allies) will attack. When all Allied BGs are given Rest orders on the first turn of a GC, 8 out of 9 Axis BGs on contested maps will also choose to Rest. Only north of the Rijn (Wolfheze) will the Axis AI attack. Therefor, when the player "doesnt want to attack", and also doesnt want the pain of being locked up to his computer for 10-15 minutes on end, perhaps that player should choose to Rest that BG on the assumption that, time being an Axis ally, the AI will also Rest and that battle can be avoided.

From the AIs perspective, when it attempts to Rest but the player chooses to attack, perhaps it then refuses truce offers out of spite.

Not a big issue. There are always other options. Windowed mode allows other PC activity while the game runs in the background. Or one can walk the dog and make a snack while the battle plays out.



Renato -> RE: Long spells of inactivity (11/23/2010 9:29:09 PM)

I use very often the Rest order, and actually the AI often chooses to rest.

I should get a dog and try with some walk. [:)]



CSO_Talorgan -> RE: Long spells of inactivity (12/1/2010 10:52:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

The game clock randomized the time limit by +/- 3 minutes.


... or is removed altogether.



Renato -> RE: Long spells of inactivity (3/29/2011 4:29:26 PM)

In 5.60.51b this problem seems worse.

Apparently, AI almost never rests, even when it has no cohesion. This leads to a great number of non-eventful battles where AI would like to fight but is unable to.

These battles are frankly boring and it's a pity, because this game is in many ways the best of the Close Combat series.



emperor peter -> RE: Long spells of inactivity (3/29/2011 11:41:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Renato

In 5.60.51b this problem seems worse.

Apparently, AI almost never rests, even when it has no cohesion. This leads to a great number of non-eventful battles where AI would like to fight but is unable to.

These battles are frankly boring and it's a pity, because this game is in many ways the best of the Close Combat series.

I agree here, except the AI does rest the turn after you kick it off a map. But this is not enough to recover cohesion. It should either rest more or gain more cohesion when it does rest.



STIENER -> RE: Long spells of inactivity (3/31/2011 7:48:43 AM)

i agree...playing the AI can be really boring. i just started a GC against the AI....the AI being allied....not only does the AI make stupid strat moves but yes its does a poor job of attacking and often sits a round having tea, so i quit playing the AI.
but we do know the best playing is H2H..hands down, so to speak.

i like the idea of the timer being a bit random and i think there should be a retreat button. i even like the idea of the opponents FM bar not being visible.

it will be interesting to see what the next patch has in it.



Renato -> RE: Long spells of inactivity (3/31/2011 12:01:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: STIENER

i agree...playing the AI can be really boring. i just started a GC against the AI....the AI being allied....not only does the AI make stupid strat moves but yes its does a poor job of attacking and often sits a round having tea, so i quit playing the AI.
but we do know the best playing is H2H..hands down, so to speak.

.....


H2H is surely better, but this is the only game in the Close Combat series to experience this inconvenience.

It should not be too difficult:
- when the AI needs rest, it should rest;
- when the AI chooses not to attack, it should accept a truce offer.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.71875