Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Long spells of inactivity

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> Long spells of inactivity Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Long spells of inactivity - 11/20/2010 12:09:30 PM   
Renato

 

Posts: 194
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Milano, Italy
Status: offline 		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?

< Message edited by Renato -- 11/20/2010 9:28:02 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Long spells of inactivity - 11/20/2010 7:06:35 PM   
Finfan

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 11/16/2010
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Renato)
Post #: 2
RE: Long spells of inactivity - 11/21/2010 9:00:30 PM   
boldrobot

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 7/12/2010
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Finfan)
Post #: 3
RE: Long spells of inactivity - 11/21/2010 9:39:03 PM   
Tejszd

 

Posts: 3437
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline 		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."

(in reply to boldrobot)
Post #: 4
RE: Long spells of inactivity - 11/22/2010 12:32:12 AM   
xe5

 

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Renato)
Post #: 5
RE: Long spells of inactivity - 11/22/2010 12:51:56 AM   
Tejszd

 

Posts: 3437
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline 		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???

(in reply to xe5)
Post #: 6
RE: Long spells of inactivity - 11/22/2010 1:28:05 AM   
xe5

 

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Tejszd)
Post #: 7
RE: Long spells of inactivity - 11/22/2010 2:34:51 AM   
Dundradal


Posts: 753
Joined: 6/9/2007
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

"To you, we are deeply grateful, and release what little hold we might, as Durandal, have had on your soul.
Go."
- Final Terminal Message Marathon Infinity

(in reply to xe5)
Post #: 8
RE: Long spells of inactivity - 11/22/2010 2:00:02 PM   
xe5

 

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Dundradal)
Post #: 9
RE: Long spells of inactivity - 11/22/2010 2:43:09 PM   
topper6

 

Posts: 66
Joined: 1/21/2009
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by topper6 -- 11/22/2010 2:59:17 PM >

(in reply to xe5)
Post #: 10
RE: Long spells of inactivity - 11/22/2010 4:02:14 PM   
xe5

 

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline 		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)

(in reply to topper6)
Post #: 11
RE: Long spells of inactivity - 11/22/2010 7:19:58 PM   
Andrew Williams


Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline 		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.


_____________________________


(in reply to xe5)
Post #: 12
RE: Long spells of inactivity - 11/22/2010 8:18:56 PM   
xe5

 

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline 		Any specific improvement(s) in particular or just some nonchalant mumbling round and about the topic in the general direction of the code monkey?

(in reply to Andrew Williams)
Post #: 13
RE: Long spells of inactivity - 11/22/2010 8:57:46 PM   
Andrew Williams


Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline 		just some nonchalant mumbling

_____________________________


(in reply to xe5)
Post #: 14
RE: Long spells of inactivity - 11/23/2010 5:25:46 AM   
Renato

 

Posts: 194
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Milano, Italy
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by Renato -- 11/23/2010 5:37:45 AM >

(in reply to Andrew Williams)
Post #: 15
RE: Long spells of inactivity - 11/23/2010 6:28:30 PM   
xe5

 

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Renato)
Post #: 16
RE: Long spells of inactivity - 11/23/2010 9:29:09 PM   
Renato

 

Posts: 194
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Milano, Italy
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to xe5)
Post #: 17
RE: Long spells of inactivity - 12/1/2010 10:52:24 PM   
CSO_Talorgan


Posts: 768
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

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


... or is removed altogether.

(in reply to xe5)
Post #: 18
RE: Long spells of inactivity - 3/29/2011 4:29:26 PM   
Renato

 

Posts: 194
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Milano, Italy
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to CSO_Talorgan)
Post #: 19
RE: Long spells of inactivity - 3/29/2011 11:41:37 PM   
emperor peter

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 11/18/2009
From: Genk, Belgium
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Renato)
Post #: 20
RE: Long spells of inactivity - 3/31/2011 7:48:43 AM   
STIENER

 

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to emperor peter)
Post #: 21
RE: Long spells of inactivity - 3/31/2011 12:01:06 PM   
Renato

 

Posts: 194
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Milano, Italy
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to STIENER)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> Long spells of inactivity Page: [1]
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.875