Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 7/6/2000 5:54:00 AM   
Voriax

 

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Bigjim, I said 'in a way' I wanted to see if the AI spots mines easier, whether it does it by getting info before any unit can see them or by spotting them easily when they are in vision range. This one hex hole was sufficent to see that this is not a case, the AI did not have a clue that the opening was there. btw, in your test, did you change the place of the opening? if you did, did the computer position it's troops accordingly? I've seen such strange initial setups that little amaze me in that...I've been playing some test games with the new Finnish OOB..in one game I had a minefield of 5 mines. It was not in front of the flag, it was in front of a small hill. Well the tanks came and *boom* One dead tank in each mined hex. AI obviously cheated and took the joy of assaulting those tanks to death from me! up. As for the telepathic AI arty spotters. I've whined about that to the SSI, and to the SPWW2 team This game is the only one where I feel that they are gone. SP3 was the worst in this... Remember that in SP3 an arty unit was revealed after it had fired a few shots? Well I'm currently playing the second stalingrad scenario in SPWAW and I see clearly two russkie mortars that are maybe 50 hexes away from me and there are several buildings between. No planes so there should be *no* way I can see them, but I do. I think it's a leftover from SP3. I guess your units also reveal themselves to the ai occasionally. Mike has done a great job, but even though he has removed a number of cheats, it is still possible that he hasn't spotted all of them. The code is probably miles long Mike, I'd be very interested to hear the ways AI cheated in the earlier incarnations of SP. Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to bigjim)
Post #: 31
- 7/6/2000 8:21:00 PM   
Charles22

 

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		Larry: Well gaw lee. Don't you think if the six man command is 100 points that it's way over-priced compared to a T34/85?

_____________________________


(in reply to bigjim)
Post #: 32
- 7/6/2000 9:41:00 PM   
Larry Holt

 

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Charles22: Larry: Well gaw lee. Don't you think if the six man command is 100 points that it's way over-priced compared to a T34/85?
The command team gives orders and supression benefits that are hard to compare to the fire power of a tank. Its apples and oranges. Then again, having been an A0 in real life several times and knowing how awesome I was, I suppose if I was the game A0, I'd be worth about a gazillion points. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to bigjim)
Post #: 33
- 7/7/2000 12:35:00 AM   
BA Evans

 

Posts: 250
Joined: 5/25/2000
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by renwor: Any reason you prefer 8-Rads to PSW-222? they have same armament, comparable armour and are smaller and cheaper. I always go for PSWs. Though I have my doubts about efectiveness of 20mm against infantry. looks like coaxial MG does more damage. Regards renwor
Hi Renwor, I picked the 8-Rad because I liked the picture better. I knew they had the same guns, but I didn't much look past that when I started the campaign. I have now checked the rest of the stats. and the 8-Rad seems to have some advantages over the 222. 8-Rad has 12 front armor while the 222 only has 8. 8-Rad has 17 turret armor while the 222 only has 10. 8-Rad (23) costs three points less than the 222 (26)! Not sure why the 8-Rad costs more, it seems to be equal or superior in every area, except size. The only negative on the 8-Rad is that it is one size larger than the 222. Did you notice the 8-Rad has four wheels? I am sure this helps it maneouver in rough terrain. BA Evans

_____________________________


(in reply to bigjim)
Post #: 34
- 7/7/2000 1:18:00 AM   
O de B

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: France, Paris
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Voriax: I see clearly two russkie mortars that are maybe 50 hexes away from me and there are several buildings between. the computer position it's troops accordin No planes so there should be *no* way I can see them, but I do. I think it's a leftover from SP3. I guess your units also reveal themselves to the ai occasionally. Voriax
Hi Voriax. Mike Wood posted early in the forum that this was done on purpose. It's easy for a human player to counter battery at the smoke plummets that appear when the AI or the opponent uses on-board battery. When he removed the cheats for the A.I., it could not do such counter fire so he added a routine to reveal units from time to time. This happen for both sides since the A.I. gets not advantage over a human player. So yes, some of your on-boards guns/mortars happen to be seen the same way by tha AI. This way it can couter battery them.

_____________________________


(in reply to bigjim)
Post #: 35
- 7/7/2000 10:18:00 AM   
bigjim

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 6/3/2000
Status: offline 		Voraix, Well I have tried several different tests and the results have varying effects, the Biggest "AI inhancement" is the LOS it gets vs the player LOS, the second it the "Arty routine" where it gets arty at the beginning of its' turn and at the END of its' turn, the third is the amount of "buy" points it gets for battles (which probably allows the second to happen). Example: the last battle in my current campaine (US vs Germany starting in Dec 41) I was to defend and given 908 "buy points" I purchased all mines and layed my fields and set my 60 vehicles at the far right end of the board the view range was 29 hexes, the AI came at me with the following: 116 squads of infantry 12 battery's of 150 mm off/board 21 panzer shrike teams 28 HMG's 17 snipers 10 Plane's 20 50mm mortar teams 25 panzer III's (J and H models) this would cost the player at best around 4000 buy points, it allowed the AI to have constant off board heavy arty EVERY turn, plus numerous sorties of planes (both of which have been "improved" to cause more damage), and enough infantry to pentrate the mine fields in 14 turns. It also send in the arty vs my vehicles which were OVER 50 hexs away from the nearest German spotter (as my plan was to lay back let them spend themselves vs the mines then recover lost Victory hexes) and when I moved the vehicles the next turn after beinging fired on over 50 hexes away, it adjusted fire 10 hexes and continued to pound them. I lost 15 vehicles to arty and air power and NONE to ground troops. I am forced to go the "mine routine" because 908 buy points WILLNOT over come the AI advantage (which is turned off BTW) also the AI goes out of its way to kill crews in difference to units which can kill it on the next turn (which I find totally unreal) the result of so much arty it that your troops spend the entire battle routed or so high as to be ineffective when shooting at 4% to hit numbers. As I stated in an earlier thread I was fearful that "improving planes and Arty" would unbalance the game if playing vs the AI and I feel I am right, not to mention the tremendous "buy point" advantage that I would like to be able to control, so I can force a equal playing field or close to equal. [This message has been edited by bigjim (edited 07-06-2000).]

_____________________________


(in reply to bigjim)
Post #: 36
- 7/7/2000 11:40:00 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		There is only one LOS routine, everybody uses the same one. The AI gets no LOS advantage. Both sides artillery will fall at the end of both turns. Depends on the delay and rate of fire. I can't reproduce this buy bug. Do you have AI purchase advantage off? I generated 5 battle games and let the computer deploy and it stayed within the points I assigned to it each time. Set up a battle then save it and change the file to a scen file and open it in the editor.

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to bigjim)
Post #: 37
- 7/7/2000 8:19:00 PM   
BA Evans

 

Posts: 250
Joined: 5/25/2000
From: USA
Status: offline 		Thanks for the info Mike and Paul. Very informative. BA Evans

_____________________________


(in reply to bigjim)
Post #: 38
- 7/7/2000 10:37:00 PM   
bigjim

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 6/3/2000
Status: offline 		Yes thanks for the reply Mike I now understand the thinking behind the AI and must say I don't care for it, as it is not historical and is only for "game play" but at least now I understand it. This will have an effect on any for pay games I might consider from Matrix but thanks again for your time and info (if I wanted to play WWI I would expect the title to mention that) BigJim

_____________________________


(in reply to bigjim)
Post #: 39
- 7/7/2000 10:57:00 PM   
Larry Holt

 

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by bigjim: Yes thanks for the reply Mike I now understand the thinking behind the AI and must say I don't care for it, as it is not historical and is only for "game play" but at least now I understand it... (if I wanted to play WWI I would expect the title to mention that) BigJim
But it is historical. That's the best tactics to break through a defense or break up an attack. Arty was the backbone of the German army and the greatest killer on the battlefield. Matrix may be using it to compensate for a less than perfect AI (but then again most humans are less than perfect players too), but IRL armies use massed arty in these situations for sound tactical reasons. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to bigjim)
Post #: 40
- 7/8/2000 7:42:00 AM   
bigjim

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 6/3/2000
Status: offline 		It is not the tactic Larry but the scale which it is used, we seem to have mix and match scales in this game??? To have Corps Arty hit one small area in the battle zone seems unbalanced to me and the historical I refer to is the 7 vs 1 in the attack, normally 3 v 1 is the rule of thumb for attack for any commander at this level of combat. I spent my time in the military and I guess you did too you must know what I am saying about scale and then to have vehicle crews close assaulting is just laughable. BigJim

_____________________________


(in reply to bigjim)
Post #: 41
- 7/8/2000 8:05:00 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		I guess you never read about any of Montgomery's attacks. 7-1 and an ARMY artilery park at a single point was about the minimum he would go with. Same most of the Soviet attacks after 43. These are NOT ahistorical force dispositions at the "point of decision" in a larger operational level battle, which the game represents. As to problems with scale, even in a Corps attack, there had to be a lead regiment. The Russians would often attack with a Corps on the frontage of a MEDIUM map. While human players can abuse crews (much less now that they only go 1 hex after being shot at) It is pretty easy to use combined arms tactics and avoid the AI "suicide crews".

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to bigjim)
Post #: 42
- 7/8/2000 11:25:00 AM   
bigjim

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 6/3/2000
Status: offline 		Heheheh Paul I probably know more about Montgomery than you do. He was famous for being over cautious and the Americans flatly REFUSED to except any idea of him being the over all commander in Europe during the war, for that specific reason, his over cautious manuvering in South Africa allowed the Germans much needed time to fortify the Normandy and Calais beachs. There is NO Army manual of tactics written based on Montgomery's tactics at all, in fact they are a point of what NOT to do in most military schools. So if the entire game is based on what Monty did or what the Russian's did in 43 ??? why have start dates earlier than those times, I am sorry but I feel the Artillery is out of whack in some cases in this game (only in AI vs human) it is probably fine for a player vs player game. As for the "crew" deal it is just a "sore point" of losing the allusion when a crew goes on the attack, I agree with others here who think they should be permantly routed and heading for home, only defending themselves if they have to. BigJim

_____________________________


(in reply to bigjim)
Post #: 43
- 7/8/2000 12:20:00 PM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		Well lots of people know more than I about lots of things. Thats why I appreciate their input on this forum :-) I'm not saying the game is based on anybody's tactics. You tried to imply that attacking at odds greater than 3-1 and with a Corps artillery on an SP sized map were not historical. I cited cases where they were. "Historical tactics" are not just the good ones. For the most part, "good combined arms tactics" weren't used by ANYBODY but the Germans for quite a while. That is what let them hold out as long as they did against the numbers they did. Unfortunatley it is not possible to program the AI with appropriate tactics to each country each year of the war. It would not be much fun becasue a lot of them would even WORSE than the current AI. As I said before, if you want an historical challenge, play against a Human! The AI needs the advantage of numbers or its not much fun.

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to bigjim)
Post #: 44
- 7/9/2000 2:49:00 AM   
Charles22

 

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		The Blitzkrieg tactics were all about attacking the enemy in force, cutting them off, attacking at the least guarded spot with em masse superiority. In Montgomery's case as well as even later in the Battle of the Bulge (even that late for a weakened Germany) the points of attack were usually hugely disproportionate, particularly in artillery. If US doctrine back then, always called for attacking with odds of 3-to-1 or less, no wonder they only inched along. I think we would also find that the only way the Allies got ashore in Normandy, was specifically because of attacking en masse. I mean, afterall, other than the ground forces what do you call those thousands of ships and planes, 3-to-1 odds? I think they tried the basic 1-to-1 or 3-to-1 odds attacks in Dieppe.

_____________________________


(in reply to bigjim)
Post #: 45
- 7/9/2000 8:00:00 AM   
bigjim

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 6/3/2000
Status: offline 		Well Charles 3 to 1 is a minimum for the attack no commander would comtemplate less than that as an acceptable risk, I am not sure what the ratio was at Normandy but an amphibious assault always calls for more arty due to the nature of the assault. Your arguement on ratio's must be taken up with Clauswitz since he is the one who stated 3 to 1 as the minimum, and I felt that given the "scale" of SPWAW that the mininums are what we want, I guess some of you feel different and that is fine with me. BigJim

_____________________________


(in reply to bigjim)
Post #: 46
- 7/10/2000 8:16:00 PM   
Charles22

 

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		bigjim: I don't know how we, or at least, I, misinterpeted you. It seemed to me as though you were griping about having to face attacks any larger than 3-to-1 scale, but now you see it as quite common. So if a good deal of military leaders would consider 3-to-1 the "minimum", then why is it that you should think it strange that the enemy would attack you with such a force?

_____________________________


(in reply to bigjim)
Post #: 47
- 7/10/2000 9:23:00 PM   
Larry Holt

 

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline 		The US Army doctrine states that 3:1 in overall combat power gives a 50% chance of success based on historical data. 3:1 is not considered desirable to attack by either the US or the doctrine of the former USSR. At the decisive point 7:1 in armor and 10:1 in arty is desired by Soviet doctrine. The US does not specify numbers so neatly but does desire more than 3:1. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to bigjim)
Post #: 48
- 7/10/2000 9:42:00 PM   
robot


Posts: 1438
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Covington Ky USA
Status: offline 		I guess my core force may be larger than most people in this game. But with the large amount of enemy forces to face thought i needed them. Now i find that the larger i go the larger they grow. So assume i am in comparison with every one. My heart sinks in a deffend stance when i look out and see all the enemy facing me. But after ten turns or when you feel the tide turn my heart sings. May take until the 25 turn but when ever it does and you dont want to run away. Thats when you know a job well done and your troops will live to fight another battle. There is no feeling like this in the world. Percentages artty spotting hitting all this goes out the window. My core to start as germany 1939 against the poles. A deffend and my tatics. 1 squad spec. ops. 3man recon. backed up by 2 sec. rad 8s 3 platoons IIIe updated with 2 IVs each pla. 3 platoons grenadeirs 2 platoons engineers backed up by 1 platoon IVs 4 37mm AT guns W/250/1 for transport 4 150 mm anti personal guns w/transport 4 88s aa w/transport The 37s will be upgraded to TD later. The 150s to sigs 33 and the 88s i have not decided on yet. The transports will be changed to mobile AAs and mortors and what ever else i feel i need. Although the mortors are not that effective i like the sound,suppression and mobility. As far as tatics lots of mines,barbed wire and tank obstacals. My inf. is set at 1 hex fire heavy cover with at least 1 37mm and 1 150 inf gun all set at one hex for ambush effect with mines and wire. Oh also if i can afford forts and bunkers set at key spots to open fire at range. My recon in defend or for hole pluggers my reserve so to speak. Engineers are set out futtherist w/IVs as back up. There prime mission is to delay and kill as much as they can before retreatting back to my main lines. 88s are given open spaces to ffire from as are my tanks and constantly pore fire down on the enemy. Also in my advances always use airborne in the rear of enemy to harass and pull some of enemy from front lines. Also like the little chutes dropping fronm the planes. Like o/b artty and planes just dont depend on it alot. Also if have extra mines will try and place in unusual dezines and unusual places. The hardest thing i find to do or should say time consuming is to kill all the inf. they send at me. When you never or very seldome get more then 2 kills at one time, it takes many many shots to kill 2500 men. Plus all the crews who close assault when ever they can. By the way i have yet to lose over 30% casualties from my force. By the way by wwII standers that is dam good. Where 50 and 75% was not uncommon. Sorry about the long duration of this. I know i have felt the AI was cheating but when fighting such a large force and all you can think of is too run. Each and every member of your force you lose seems like a cheat. But have you ever thought about the times you hit a tank at 20hexes head on with one shot as a cheat on your part. Oh by the way all my troops started out as green. I did this becuse as a new commander i did not think hitler would trust me with crack troops. Love this game and everything about it. Especially seeing these posts. You should have played the old board games from 30 yrs ago. ------------------ Robots wear armor for skin.Grunts wear skin for armor.

_____________________________

Robots wear armor for skin.Grunts wear skin for armor.

(in reply to bigjim)
Post #: 49
- 7/11/2000 1:30:00 AM   
bigjim

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 6/3/2000
Status: offline 		Charles I fail to see your point??? I said I felt the SCALE of the game would dictate minimums??? How can you read that wrong??? At any rate it is now moot since I have discovered the "right" way to set up the game to my liking. As for US doctrine "shrug" I guess the more you can get the better but I was always taught no less than 3 to 1 in the attack, as for arty I was taught no ratio???? the US generally has plenty of artillery on hand so the ratio there is kind of moot too they call in all they need usually, but I felt the game was more infantry and tank tactics and therefore the "queen" of battle would not be so prevelant, I have since learned better (I never used arty in the old SP game because it was useless for the player) I now put arty into my mix and it has a much better effect than the "old game" so I may have jumped off the deep end too soon. BigJim

_____________________________


(in reply to bigjim)
Post #: 50
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

2.672