How to deal with SPART attacking a village

[zaybz]

A tactical question from a beginner.

My task force is under attack at night from a self-propelled artillery company approaching and firing on an engineers company dug-in in the village.

I have tanks and mechanised infantry nearby, but no infantry.

Any tips for how to deal with the SPART?

 

[jimcarravallah]

A tactical question from a beginner.

My task force is under attack at night from a self-propelled artillery company approaching and firing on an engineers company dug-in in the village.

I have tanks and mechanised infantry nearby, but no infantry.

Any tips for how to deal with the SPART?

A lone Self-propelled artillery unit may have a large firepower factor, but it is generally not constructed to conduct a lone defense against determined armored forces.

I'd attack with the armored formation and hold the mechanized infantry in reserve either to boost the armored attack if if bogs down (night time combat fatigues and lowers cohesion of forces quicker than what occurs in daytime combat) or as a follow on to mop up after the artillery unit has been disorganized. .

 

[zaybz]

Thanks very much for answering my very beginner-ish question, Jim.

I had guessed as much myself.
I'm weighing up whether to go in with a small force to attack them, or to simply wait it out until morning, as I'm concerned that there might be other units out there in the darkness which could threaten my precious tanks - better to conserve them until daylight....

Anyway, thanks again!

 

[jimcarravallah]

Thanks very much for answering my very beginner-ish question, Jim.

I had guessed as much myself.
I'm weighing up whether to go in with a small force to attack them, or to simply wait it out until morning, as I'm concerned that there might be other units out there in the darkness which could threaten my precious tanks - better to conserve them until daylight....

Anyway, thanks again!

The way I studied the game and tactics was to pause and save before issuing an order.

After organizing for the combat, I'd run the game from that point.

In that manner, if the tactic was faulty, I could go to the previous save and revise the orders from that point.

In this instance you could try both waiting until morning and going all out with the attack to see which works best at night. To keep things straight, I assign each different order track a letter "a" for the first track, "b" for the second, etc. If the "a" track failed, I could continue with "b" until I hit the next dilemma point.

it's a good method to determine which tactics work best in specific situations.

It's not the most honest method of obtaining a victory because you can always pick the optimum track to continue that particular game, but if you make it through to a victory on your "a" tracks, you can feel pretty good for yourself because all the other stuff you tried didn't work as good as your initial decision.

 

[GoodGuy]

after organizing for the combat, I'd run the game from that point.
In that manner, if the tactic was faulty, I could go to the previous save and revise the orders from that point.

Checking out what works best by using savegames is a good method for beginners, I guess.
In earlier installments, each resumed savegame had the potential to result in slightly or even very different outcomes, though, as the enemy AI could revise its current approaches (and adjust routes, replan attacks or reassign forces in the process) freely. So attacks and movements (the positions of attack order or move order markers) of the player's units are saved in the savegame data, but the savegame will not confine the engine (means the AI controlling enemy and player units) after the savegame is loaded.
As I understand it, the savegame feeds the info about the units' current whereabouts and orders and maybe even the routes/approaches, but the enemy AI is then able/authorized to reassess and adjust, if it comes to the conclusion that adjustments are needed.

I tend to think that the engine either prohibits some adjustments for a particular time frame (after loading a savegame), though, so that enemy AI units don't start to reorganize in front of say the player's defending units 1 minute into a resumed savegame, just because the AI comes up with the "brilliant" idea that it would be better to bypass the player units, form up and then attack with more units to capture the defended objective, for instance. It looks like something is in place that ensures a certain level of continuity for a particular time frame and/or for certain tasks once a savegame is loaded, to me at least, but then rest of the scenario time can be packed with surprises, especially in scenarios where the enemy AI has the choice between several objectives to put the win-meter in a favorable position.

In Zaybz case, the enemy AI may draw different conclusions after loading a savegame, it might call off the described spArt attack or even gather forces to throw in more units (at a time), just a few game hrs later.
I am guessing that this awesome AI behavior/capability (which enhances the replayability) is still present in CO2.

 

[jimcarravallah]

Checking out what works best by using savegames is a good method for beginners, I guess.

One could deduce the original poster is a beginner, as he indicated in his first post that he was just starting to play the game.

In earlier installments, each resumed savegame had the potential to result in slightly or even very different outcomes, though, as the enemy AI could revise its current approaches (and adjust routes, replan attacks or reassign forces in the process) freely. So attacks and movements (the positions of attack order or move order markers) of the player's units are saved in the savegame data, but the savegame will not confine the engine (means the AI controlling enemy and player units) after the savegame is loaded.

As I understand it, the savegame feeds the info about the units' current whereabouts and orders and maybe even the routes/approaches, but the enemy AI is then able/authorized to reassess and adjust, if it comes to the conclusion that adjustments are needed.[/quote]

There are a randomizing factors built into aspects of AI decision logic both at start and as the game runs.

Pausing the game allows the human player to assess the tactical situation at that point of the conflict.

Attempting different approaches to address that situation is how one learns the nuances of command and control.

In the end, the best tactician puts the enemy at a disadvantage by reducing the number of options the enemy or, in this case, the AI can choose and maximizing the tactician's options in return.

I tend to think that the engine either prohibits some adjustments for a particular time frame (after loading a savegame), though, so that enemy AI units don't start to reorganize in front of say the player's defending units 1 minute into a resumed savegame, just because the AI comes up with the "brilliant" idea that it would be better to bypass the player units, form up and then attack with more units to capture the defended objective, for instance. It looks like something is in place that ensures a certain level of continuity for a particular time frame and/or for certain tasks once a savegame is loaded, to me at least, but then rest of the scenario time can be packed with surprises, especially in scenarios where the enemy AI has the choice between several objectives to put the win-meter in a favorable position.

The savegame stores the AI unit disposition, intel, and plans at that point. If it didn't, the developers wouldn't request a savegame file from before a problem occurs to support software problem troubleshooting. The goal in troubleshooting is to see if the error replicates itself so its cause can be traced.

In Zaybz case, the enemy AI may draw different conclusions after loading a savegame, it might call off the described spArt attack or even gather forces to throw in more units (at a time), just a few game hrs later.
I am guessing that this awesome AI behavior/capability (which enhances the replayability) is still present in CO2.

It starts with the plans, intel, and dispositions it had at the point the game was saved.

If it reacts differently upon start up it is because of newly-discovered human player-induced intel and dispositions triggering a replan rather than an ad hoc change each time the game starts -- kind of like real life.

If you're basing your assessment of the CO2 game activities on what was available in CO1 you're seriously behind the power curve in understanding the capabilities of the game. While the game screen appears the same, there was significant insertion of AI opponent improvements, friendly and enemy intel gathering capabilities, supply distribution and routing, and "staff" functions in support of the human player.

 

[GoodGuy]

One could deduce the original poster is a beginner, as he indicated in his first post that he was just starting to play the game.

Yes, Sherlock.
That's what I gathered and that's why I agreed with you. The rest of my post was meant to be a song of praise regarding the AI's capabilties.
If you think that it wasn't detailed enough, you can correct me, ofc.

In the end, the best tactician puts the enemy at a disadvantage by reducing the number of options the enemy or, in this case, the AI can choose and maximizing the tactician's options in return.

I know. While the game's enemy AI is excellent (actually the best you can find in a wargame), able human opponents are harder to beat/crack, usually. I played against a number of COTA players (regulars from the Matrix forums, not sure if they ever moved over to the LnL forum), so I think I'm halfway knowledgable in the tactics department . I am a pretty aggressive player who thinks outside the box and who comes up with "weird" strats that confused my opponents, so that I managed to gain a major advantage in most of those matches.
I just saw the "opponents wanted" call in the other thread, so it's actually tempting to reinstall CO2.

It starts with the plans, intel, and dispositions it had at the point the game was saved.

Ofc, and that's basically what I said, when I mentioned dispositions and orders (as in plans/approaches + targets). Well, bite me , I forgot to add intel.

If it reacts differently upon start up it is because of newly-discovered human player-induced intel and dispositions triggering a replan rather than an ad hoc change each time the game starts -- kind of like real life.

I said ".... it might call off the described spArt attack, or....., just a few hours later" (IF a reassessment gets triggered, ofc), so I wasn't talking about a different reaction upon start, but that different sessions started from the same savegame can turn out quite differently, which is one of the engine's strong/challenging traits. Maybe my wording wasn't specific enough (at 2 a.m. in the morning).

If you're basing your assessment of the CO2 game activities on what was available in CO1 you're seriously behind the power curve in understanding the capabilities of the game. While the game screen appears the same, there was significant insertion of AI opponent improvements, friendly and enemy intel gathering capabilities, supply distribution and routing, and "staff" functions in support of the human player.

I followed Dave's elaborations during the years, since HTTR and up to CO2, so I think I can say that I'm halfway informed, but he refined and added so many details, a full list of changes (over the years) would probably easily span across 70 pages or more, with all fixes and AI behavior code changes mentioned, and my brain didn't record each and every code addition/discussion along that path. And there are changes under the hood he only discussed in the beta forum, or which he even just documented in the code's comments, which we/I can't access, naturally. So, I am well aware of most improvements/additions that were publicly discussed/released or included in the latest version of the manual, and I checked out particular features myself, but other infos are not available to ordinary users - obviously. So, as an ordinary user, I'd say I'm not too far behind the details that were communicated here or in the manual, at least.

I just tried to give Zaybz a basic idea regarding the AI's capabilities/approach, and not a comprehensive/detailed list of what's in a savegame and what not, or what processes are involved under the hood. The latter is detail knowledge Dave would be able to communicate, or - to quite some extent - user Markshot, back in the day.
I just tried to point out (to a new user) some of the reasons for the game being so challenging, sorry if it wasn't detailed enough.

 

[GoodGuy]

@Jim: Btw, I and others appreciate your input/general attitude, you are always willing to help and you give good advice/feedback, so please don't get my last post wrong. I think you know how to read/interpret smileys, right?

 

[zaybz]

The way I studied the game and tactics was to pause and save before issuing an order.

After organizing for the combat, I'd run the game from that point.

In that manner, if the tactic was faulty, I could go to the previous save and revise the orders from that point.

Great idea, thanks very much