Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade



Message

altipueri -> Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/4/2018 9:54:41 PM)

I know some people like to show off their reflexes rushing around clicking and blowing stuff up as soon as it appears. But they miss the dread you get when you've just sent some pixel troops off across an open field and they get spotted.

Sun Tzu wrote: "To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."



wodin -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/5/2018 12:36:32 AM)

Well great thing is we have the option to play how we like. A big bonus in my opinion.



JiminyJickers -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/5/2018 5:34:06 AM)

Well the rounds are just timed pauses. You can still issue orders at any time, you just can't manually pause the game.



altipueri -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/5/2018 9:09:03 AM)

The AI performs better using rounds rather than continuous play with pauses.

I'm enjoying this game even though I only touch the surface of what it can do. I overrode my rule to never buy a new game on release but this time I am happy and I hope there will be patches and improvements soon.



Lowlaner2012 -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/5/2018 9:53:15 AM)

Really?

Will have to try the turns option tonight...

Cheers



mekanopsis -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/5/2018 11:01:00 AM)

quote:

Sun Tzu wrote: "To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."


Which is why the Fulda Gap theatre is so cool; the war never even happened partly because the war-gaming of operational art like AirLand Battle and tactics based on superior tech was so dissuasive to the WP.

Re clicky-pointy play style; the command delay frustrates all but minor thinking ahead surely



varangy -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/5/2018 11:29:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: altipueri

The AI performs better using rounds rather than continuous play with pauses.



From where did you get this? I think it has absolutely no effect on the AI.



kevinkins -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/5/2018 11:53:54 AM)

I started with 3 min rounds for a week and now on continuous play. Don't see much of a difference. However, the observation that the AI plays better within rounds is interesting. Could the developer comment on that?

Thanks

Kevin



altipueri -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/5/2018 11:56:56 AM)

I think he did on another thread on AI.


Quote from Veitikka: "

A couple of recommendations: Do not give orders to individual units, but always to formations. Use the 'round' mode, to prevent the player from pausing the game all the time. "


Actually this was in a thread you contributed to.




Phoenix100 -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/5/2018 12:32:19 PM)

Mmm. But he didn't say the AI plays better with rounds, did he? I took his comments, actually, as a way of handicapping the player.



altipueri -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/5/2018 1:25:38 PM)

Blimey, it's a computer game forum not a court of law.

If the player is handicapped it gives the AI a better chance against the player.



Phoenix100 -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/5/2018 3:03:33 PM)

Lol. Well, I am a lawyer, so, yes...

But it's an interesting fact if playing in rounds actually boosts the AI, as a matter of coding, and not very interesting if all it does is handicaps the player. After all, there are many ways I could handicap my play to mitigate a poor AI opponent - I could abstain from using the los tool, for example, I could choose force strengths one third of the AI force strength, I could play in 10 minute rounds and abstain from making any commands at all during the command intervals, etc etc....any random choice will do it.

So it's a good question to Vietikka, I think - on what basis he recommends playing in rounds?

Another good question to Vietikka is why there is a comprehensive ability to command individual units in a non-multiplayer game, if he thinks to do so renders the AI a poor opponent? A nice answer would be that future development will render the AI a decent opponent, even if the player doesn't handicap himself in this rather random way. Another good answer would be - because there will be multiplayer in future.



Veitikka -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/5/2018 3:56:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phoenix100

So it's a good question to Vietikka, I think - on what basis he recommends playing in rounds?


Like I said, it prevents the player from pausing the game all the time, so he can't stop the time and start micromanaging his units to find the positions with a perfect LOS for every unit. I think this game mode can encourage using formation movement. Another thing that I personally like is that if you have the player character option enabled and any moment there can come a situation where you life is at stakes, and you can't pause the game, that will make you more cautious.

quote:



Another good question to Vietikka is why there is a comprehensive ability to command individual units in a non-multiplayer game, if he thinks to do so renders the AI a poor opponent? A nice answer would be that future development will render the AI a decent opponent, even if the player doesn't handicap himself in this rather random way. Another good answer would be - because there will be multiplayer in future.


The design philosophy has always been to give the player lots of options. Many different styles to play, the freedom of setting up any battle anywhere, the open data format, maps etc. It's up to the player how he wants to use the features, even if they might make a scenario unplayable. Of course there's the risk that the players indeed make the game unplayable, and then say the game is broken, because they don't know how it works. I don't think that can really be avoided in an open system like this. Of course I could use my time to implement more restrictions, instead of giving the responsibility to the players.

There have been some very good posts on the forum about how the players abuse the game system to win, instead of using the system's strengths to produce realistic scenarios.



Phoenix100 -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/5/2018 4:49:26 PM)

Thanks Vietikka. If you command at formation level the game is indeed more challenging! That doesn't necessarilly mean the AI behaviour is any more realistic, but it's very useful to know how we should go about commanding in order to level the playing field vis a vis the AI. So, thanks.

That said, I do hope the AI will get progressively more complex. Specifically, I would like to see more recon, and not just throwing units across open ground or down roads, or breaking cover en masse into obvious kill zones. More cautious to detect threats, then more crafty in approaching them. That sort of thing.



CCIP-subsim -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/7/2018 8:30:06 PM)

I have to say that after trying the 3-minute rounds, I definitely do find that I prefer it as far as actual gameplay challenge goes [:)] It adds a bit of an element of tension, and also gives you a point of reference in terms of time passing (something I sometimes totally miss when playing real time!) I might even up it to 5 minutes - I mean, it's not an issue of control since you can still give orders as the game is playing, and a 5-minute check-in seems pretty reasonable by me. Mind you, this is while trying relatively small scenarios so far.



Veitikka -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/7/2018 8:43:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phoenix100

That said, I do hope the AI will get progressively more complex. Specifically, I would like to see more recon, and not just throwing units across open ground or down roads, or breaking cover en masse into obvious kill zones. More cautious to detect threats, then more crafty in approaching them. That sort of thing.


We will see how this will develop. A more sophisticated approach is needed than throwing me a military field manual and saying 'make the AI work like that'.

I think if early next year we will get the 'seek cover' SOP option and will be able to remove the one-unit-per-cell limit then that's a good start.



CCIP-subsim -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/7/2018 8:59:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veitikka


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phoenix100

That said, I do hope the AI will get progressively more complex. Specifically, I would like to see more recon, and not just throwing units across open ground or down roads, or breaking cover en masse into obvious kill zones. More cautious to detect threats, then more crafty in approaching them. That sort of thing.


We will see how this will develop. A more sophisticated approach is needed than throwing me a military field manual and saying 'make the AI work like that'.

I think if early next year we will get the 'seek cover' SOP option and will be able to remove the one-unit-per-cell limit then that's a good start.



Both of those sound intriguing! I think the 'seek cover' would definitely help the AI, while the stacking limit could be interesting as well (though I'd encourage a more nuanced approach to it based on size - so that the number of units in the same cell slows down movement, and units still avoid 'overstacking')



demyansk -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/9/2018 3:53:40 PM)

I have 1 minute rounds now and I can't figure how to turn this off and maybe make longer rounds or continuous?



kevinkins -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/9/2018 4:19:14 PM)

The Mission Options screen right before you start the generated scenario has a section called Round Length. You can adjust it there if I recall.

Kevin



Phoenix100 -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/11/2018 11:26:10 AM)

Well, it's all very interesting looking for ways to handicap the player, but it's not the the thing that needs doing. There are lots of great things about this game, but so far I would think that the AI performance isn't one of them, and it's not an MP game, so the AI performance is crucial. As I said above, I would hope for improvements and hope the game has a long development life to facilitate that. As for throwing Vietikka studios a military manual and saying - 'make it do that' - as suggested above by Vietikka - well, it doesn't even have to be that sophisticated. At present the worst thing I see the AI doing is throwing units across open spaces en masse. And yes, no other game (except Command Ops, when it's working well, and the scale there makes it easier) does good attacking AI, and, yes, this behaviour is all too familiar, sadly, from less 'serious' games. Picture below. All I would ask is would that happen in real life? Really? I'm no military expert, so I don't know. Maybe soviet doctrine of this period still included the 'human wave' type attack. If I were the AI in this case, though, I would be approaching much more cautiously, using covered lines of approach. I'm afraid seeing this kind of thing is quite off-putting. Maybe others are not so bothered, in which case I'd be interested to know why.



[image]local://upfiles/36260/BA93D554EF1C4CA89BB3A93A54D59E96.gif[/image]



blackcloud6 -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/11/2018 11:56:26 AM)

Soviet doctrine of the time was to attack in mass support by lots of artillery. Give the AI mass and watch what it will do to your human NATO force. And make sure you give it a good amount of recon forces too. That was also Soviet doctrine: leading with robust combat recon patrols (that is why in the troops selection portion there are tanks platoons in the recon section.)

The Soviets were going to attack in echelon knowing that the first echelon will take heavy losses but cause enough attrition to make the second echelon able to make the breach in NATO lines and third echelon to exploit the breach.



Phoenix100 -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/11/2018 12:16:44 PM)

Thanks, blackcoud6. And whilst doing all that they made no attempts whatsoever to use covered approach routes etc? They simply charged out and took needless losses? Really? Why not use the obvious covered approaches, if they're there? In the game above the recon elements had already spotted enough to realise, I would have thought, that for the follow on elements to charge across open space as they are doing they will take completely unecessary losses. In the game above my forces are Finnish, not Nato, by the way, using, I guess, mostly Soviet kit. I lost, of course, because I gave the AI a 30% force advantage, because I've learned that if I don't do that then I will win easily by simply using ambush tactics, even playing as Finns with the same - or less good - kit. Fair enough - you might think - the AI attacks with odds in its favour (as you should) and wins, so what's the issue? Well, that attack looks like WW1, no? And I was actually thinking that maybe the AI right now would be good for WW1, or even Napoleonic combat?

Of course, if what you are saying is that, yes, really, the soviets did plan to attack just like that, then I take it all back. BUt I'm guessing that if I switch sides then the US AI will do the same, no? Will have to try that.



blackcloud6 -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/11/2018 12:34:46 PM)

Well, the only evidence of actual Soviet doctrine used in combat was the Arab Israeli wars and in 1973 in the Golan, the Syrians attacked in mass across open terrain. They got hammered but almost broke through. The Egyptian got across the canal and achieved their objective of planting themselves in the Sinai.

Looking at your map example, the Red forces don't have much of a choice but to cross the open ground at the road. So the AI is going to do so. Yes, it could try to go through the southern woods, and it might if you replay it. But then, I would have that covered by a TRP and make it real slow go for them...plus they couldn't put their whole force there anyhow. And it looks like the AI tried to use the more covered approach in the north and got hammered but used the center and had more success.

Please understand, that in modern combat, the attacker is always going to take casualties as there systems are too lethal. Numbers may well matter. This is why the Sherman tank in WWII has an apparent bad rap due to losses, but it was on the offensive for almost all of its combat life. The attacker has to move, exposed at time against well emplaced, dug in and hidden defenders who usually know the terrain better.

The only thin the game might add for a scenario designer is "pace of attack" where the AI is told to go a certain speed. A lower speed may allow them to stop and find cover and fight which sounds like what you really want it to do.


Oh, and by the way, if you going to design and play scenario where the player is the Soviet, or Soviet trained and equipped forces, I would say keep most of the forces as company sized units as this will force the player to try to stick to Soviet doctrine.



CapnDarwin -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/11/2018 12:38:49 PM)

Phoenix, in the picture above, granted it's hard to see elevation, how would you have moved your forces forward through that open gap knowing that you are in enemy contact? The only issue I see, is maybe a lack of smoke and HE being dropped to take away some of the obvious Blue fire lanes/positions.



blackcloud6 -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/11/2018 12:39:44 PM)

"Thanks, blackcoud6. And whilst doing all that they made no attempts whatsoever to use covered approach routes etc? They simply charged out and took needless losses? Really?"

The Soviets during the Cold War were about mass and speed. The idea was to pressure NATO across the line with quick drives to break the line knowing that somewhere they will get through. The would stay in March Formation as long as possible. With just 60 miles to Frankfurt, the idea was to "go for the Rhine" and try to do so before NATO could dig in and reinforce. Losses be damned...

NATO doctrine actually was to force the WP forces to deploy out of march and thus slow their pace, channel them into kill zones and hammer them with airtlley, air and direct fires. Then when weakened, NATO would counterattack that weakness in Corps strength.






CapnDarwin -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/11/2018 12:48:37 PM)

@blackcloud6, how much time or effort would the Soviets invested in city fighting in the opening few weeks of WW3?



kevinkins -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/11/2018 1:23:43 PM)

quote:

the game might add for a scenario designer is "pace of attack"


I was thinking along similar lines using rudimentary waypoints. I remember a game from the 90's called "Wargame Construction Set - Tanks" and "Age of Rifles" used objectives to coax the AI along the map. Not a highly, but a very lightly scripted AI. I believe the objectives were very simple i.e. attack, defend and hold. If I recall, the designer could release formations from the hold objective after a certain length of time. This might work well to sim a Soviet style attack. I think a credible bounding overwatch could be programed. If anyone has the manual, I would love to confirm my memory.



Veitikka -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/11/2018 1:37:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phoenix100

Picture below. All I would ask is would that happen in real life? Really? I'm no military expert, so I don't know. Maybe soviet doctrine of this period still included the 'human wave' type attack. If I were the AI in this case, though, I would be approaching much more cautiously, using covered lines of approach. I'm afraid seeing this kind of thing is quite off-putting. Maybe others are not so bothered, in which case I'd be interested to know why.


Perhaps if you zoomed it out so we could see the big picture, and also terrain elevation, we could perhaps understand why the AI picked that approach.

If you mean that these mech companies should have advanced in forest, well, in many cases that's definitely not the best option. In forest the vehicles can be ambushed or immobilized and move much slower than in open, or when following a road.



Veitikka -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/11/2018 1:43:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phoenix100

And whilst doing all that they made no attempts whatsoever to use covered approach routes etc?


If the AI opponent has the 'infantry' force type selected then it favors covered routes.



Phoenix100 -> RE: Is this game not best played in 3 minute rounds? (12/11/2018 2:21:19 PM)

Mmm. Maybe I'm being unfair. It's true that the AI tried approaches (with armoured recon, I think - tanks, at any rate) down both flanks, and, as you point out, blackcloud6, were hammered in tank ambushes. So maybe I'm criticising the AI for doing what my defence tried to get it to do - be funnelled into the open. That wouldn't be very fair.

What would I have done, Capn Darwin? Got killed. Lost the battle hands down (in real life, or even in real life gaming, as I'm not much good...), but, being ideal, I would have stuck to the forest and least open routes to get recon elemnts slowly into place (after all, there's no time limit, as such) in positions where they could detect my forward recon, then bring up limited assets to eliminate my forward recon and try as much as possible to assure myself of a more covered approach to the belt of town/forest/undergrowth in the middle of the map. Then so on further down the map. Try to detect him first, then do something about it. Slower, I guess. Which is what people are saying might be good. But what people are also saying is that is not soviet doctrine. What the AI may have done in that game is detected both forward recon that I had, eliminated one of them, flanked the other, ran into an ambush, retreated. Then came down the middle anyway. I had an HQ further back with eyes on that middle ground, and hence there were many AI losses to arty.

But these are all great and interesting points people are making. That said, I believe from Vietikka's points, made more than once, in this thread and elsewhere, that the AI is perhaps not so capable of finesse. I believe Vietikka is saying that 'if Infantry then cover', 'if Armour then out into the open'. Which would suggest it doesn't do anything as sophisticated as assess and reassess then choose between trees and fields. Sounds like he means if it's tanks it goes for fields, if it's feet they go for trees. Regardless? Though, in my example above I have - as you can see - lots of infantry caught out in the open too.

I realise these things are complicated. I will mess around more. I'm assuming that it's nothing to do with soviet doctrine, in fact, but that the US AI will behave the same. I will have to try that out.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.382813