Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
No, I don't bother with recoveries with low maximums; they aren't worth the risk of being disordered. Those +0s were all on recoveries with maximums in the 50-100 range.
I'm halfway through the Crown campaign so far and am still having a positive experience.
I have had a lot more +0 recoveries. Last night I had three in a row.
As for reminding the players if they have leftover points, it would also be useful if the units that were available to receive points could flash or some similar indication so that the player doesn't have to tap through them individually and manually, since the > commands won't work if every unit has already been moved (or held) prior to the player attempting to end the turn.
I was not running the AI in fast forward when my unit retreated through an enemy unit. It has not happened again in my subsequent play-through.
I just finished playing through Waterloo again. I love the new HOLD functionality and thought that you implemented it very well.
Charging changes the gameplay, as does the fact that Recovering units aren't automatically eliminated by attacking them. I felt that the Prussian campaign was trickier as a result. I don't think I earned a Decisive victory for any Prussian battles, even after earning them for all the British and French battles.
One thing that the AI doesn't take full advantage of is the flanking bonus. The fact that the AI will always move AND attack with a unit at the same time costs it some efficiency when it comes to taking a desired target/position.
For example, if you want to take a position, the logical thing to do it surround it with units first and THEN start having those units attack sequentially so that they ALL benefit from the flanking bonus. This minimizes the casualties of the attacker and doesn't give the targeted unit anywhere to escape once they are finally disrupted.
If the AI were to learn how to move a unit without immediately attacking but then use that unit to attack later in the turn once other units have positioned themselves, that would help make the AI more ruthless.
Another thing the AI could improve on is how it decides to recover disrupted units. For example, after a unit has retreated, the AI will always have it retreat farther before it recovers. This is often unnecessary, and it can be a great tactical advantage to ADVANCE before recovering so that you're not two turns away from your previous position, as you would be if the unit retreated under fire and then retreated again before recovering.
The AI often loses sight of the objective too. It can be so determined to sweep away all the opposition in its path that you can often distract it with a skirmisher or two. When I'm playing, I often sprint past enemy units (especially entrenched units) on my way to the target. For example, last night I was playing Tannenberg on General as the Entente powers. I ran right past all the Central Powers' towns and trenches, surrounded the star, and knocked it out. Then the Central Powers units were forced to come out of their defenses to counter-attack, which meant I didn't have to batter my Poor Russians against trenches on hills, God forbid. Unless you implement zones of control (which I am not recommending), there will always be an opportunity to take advantage of the turn-based nature of the game by running past someone who would have been shooting at you the whole time in real life. If the AI could take advantage of this, that would give it an additional edge.
I would be in favor of ancient campaigns, or those from the Middle Ages:
– Phillip II and Alexander the Great, as mentioned
– Rome vs. Carthage (or the Germanic tribes)
– Hundred Years' War
– War of the Roses
– Thirty Years' War