Riun T
Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vahauser
FlashFyre wrote:
"A true Challenge Campaign, against the AI, without involving other players, would require the use of the following settings:
AI Advantage - ON
AI Level - 200
Reduced Squads - ON
Reduced Ammo - ON
Weapon Breakdowns - ON
Vehicle Breakdowns - ON
Mines - ON
Command & Control - ON
Use the Hardx2 setting for all battles
Select one of the 6 major nations for your HQ, but then only buy allied equipment (if British, only buy Indian, for example) Set Spotting to 70% for Player 1, 100% for Player 2
Use Historic Ratings as designed
There may be some other settings that would make the Challenge more challenging to veteran players, but these are most of the important ones."
I will address FlashFyre’s statement item by item.
"A true Challenge Campaign, against the AI, without involving other players, would require the use of the following settings:”
The key phrase here is “WITHOUT INVOLVING OTHER PLAYERS”. FlashFyre realizes that as soon as you involve other players, then you open up a whole different level of problems and issues. FlashFyre is saying that he does not necessarily recommend these initial conditions if two or more players are going to try this campaign.
“AI Advantage – ON”
No problem.
“AI Level – 200”
The issue here is that by setting the AI level to 200 from the very beginning, the game will be as hard as it is ever going to get. By this I mean that the game will not get progressively more challenging as the campaign goes on. Players will quickly get used to fighting against AI 200 forces and will develop tactics to deal with it. I personally prefer a progressive increase in the AI Level because that way players get “shocked” over the course of the campaign. (An example would be 1939 = AI50, 1940 = AI75, 1941=AI100, 1942 = AI125, 1943 = AI150, 1944 = AI175, 1945 = AI200.) But I can deal with AI 200 from the beginning, so this is only an issue and not a problem.
“Reduced Squads – ON”
This is a problem and not an issue. The problem is that Reduced Squads ON actually hurts the AI more than it does the players. How so? First, human players typically buy lots of unit types that are not affected by reduced squads, but the AI typically buys LOTS of “infantry type” units. {AI gets almost all of its units AS fresh support right after their HQ and doesn't have change HQ's and lose formationspreminantly reducing its core so doesn't field anymore solid or unsolid reductions in squads than us??} So, proportionally, the AI suffers a greater percentage reduction in combat effectiveness than the human player. Second, the human player can actually make reduced squads work in his favor because the human player can re-assign units to different HQs, he can more efficiently load his transport units (the AI never loads more than one unit per transport), etc. Even if you don’t believe reduced squads hurts the AI more than the human player, it should be clear that reduced squads does not FAVOR the AI. The AI certainly does not gain an advantage with Reduced Squads ON. Reduced Squads should be OFF to (at the very least) give the AI a level playing field against the human player.
“Reduced Ammo – ON”
This is a problem and not an issue. The problem is that reduced ammo always (100% of the time) hurts the AI more than the human player. The AI relies on its airpower and artillery to do the most damage to the human player. But reduced ammo directly hurts the one aspect that the AI most needs. And the human player knows how to use ammo trucks and ammo dumps, but the AI does not. Reduced Ammo ON actually gives the human player a big advantage, which is NOT what FlashFyre intended. Limited Ammo should be ON and Reduced Ammo should be OFF.{ITs whatever their smart enough to want to cart around the field with, limit for me then limit for them.}
“Weapon Breakdowns – ON”
No problem.
“Vehicle Breakdowns – ON”
No problem.
“Mines – ON”
The problem here is that allowing the human player to use mines and barbed wire and dragon’s teeth gives the human player a HUGE advantage over the AI. I recommend leaving Mines ON so that the AI can use them, but that the human player may NEVER use mines, barbed wire, or dragon’s teeth.If long established fortifications where historically present like beach or harbour facilities/maginot line then why not??
“Command & Control – ON”
No problem.
“Use the Hard (x2) setting for all battles.”
No problem.
“Set Spotting to 70% for Player 1, 100% for Player 2”
No problem.
“Use Historic Ratings as designed.”
Even though I am opposed to these ratings on many different levels (mostly opposed to their being called “historical”, since they are not, when they should actually be called something like “standard”). But as a simple (though not the best in my opinion) mechanism to create a base-line starting point for all participants, I can reluctantly go along with this (but never forgetting my fundamental opposition to the ratings being called “historical”). Also - see Problem C below…
“Select one of the 6 major nations for your HQ, but then only buy allied equipment (if British, only buy Indian, for example)”
LOTS of problems here. I don’t know if I can even list all them all.
Remember where FlashFyre said these initial conditions were for campaigns NOT INVOLVING OTHER PLAYERS? Well this is one of the BIG reasons why he said that.
Problem A – Two of the six major nations don’t HAVE allies (Japan and the USSR). So do you exclude them from the list? Do you do something else with them? This is a problem.
Problem B – What does FlashFyre mean when he says “only buy allied equipment”? Does he mean that you can mix and match all sorts of nations that were allied to the nation selected?
Does he mean that if you choose a major nation that had minor allies, that you must only choose one of the nations that was historically equipped and supplied by that major nation? (For instance, Britain equipped and supplied India, Canada, ANZAC, Poland, etc.; USA equipped and supplied Philippines, Free French, China, etc.; Germany equipped and supplied Romania, Hungary, Finland, etc.).Does he mean something else entirely? This is a problem.{ we can go with this and consider japan,germany,and italy/and any other MINOR to what I'm playin as allies also could include early russian with the late war italians and sortta follow history?? I am!!}
Problem C – Can a player playing this campaign gain an advantage by choosing one nation instead of another? By this I mean that if the participants don’t agree to play the same nation (and the same allies), then are the participants on a fair and level playing field? For instance, if you choose US Army (shorter campaign) and I choose Britain (longer campaign), are both participants on a fair and level playing field? Also, since the “historical” ratings are different for the various nations, if the participants are allowed to choose different nations and allies, then is this a fair and level playing field? This is a problem.
Other Issues and Problems not covered by FlashFyre’s initial conditions:
1. True Troop ON/Rarity ON? True Troop OFF/Rarity ON? True Troop ON/Rarity OFF? True Troop OFF/Rarity OFF?
2. Initial points for core. 2500? 3000? 3500? Something else?
3. Core composition. Limits to artillery? Armor? Something else?
4. Reinforcements. Allowed? Not allowed? Something else?
5. Standard 8.4? Enhanced FV? Something else?
6. Other conditions I haven’t listed here?
Point 5,,, yes to reinforcements and no limits to ARRTY or anything,, just see how far we can get with the battles fought as randomly as there genorated till we finish the campaign or die tryin point one,mines true troop on/rarity on.
< Message edited by Riun T -- 9/21/2006 3:52:57 AM >
|
Printable Version
RE: FlashFyre Demonstration Long Campaign - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread