Securing objectives: whack-a-mole

[BarryJI]

One small complaint I have with this wonderful game is the way in which, especially towards the end of a battle and especially at night, single enemy units (company size usually, often smaller) show up in objectives I've taken, which causes those objective to be regarded as "lost". I know that the player earns points for the accumulated time in which he holds objectives but I think I read in the manual that enemy forces with one tenth of the combat power of the occupying forces will cause the objective to be no longer in the player's control. This irks me for a couple of reasons: often the encroaching units do not amount to anything close to a tenth of the combat power of the force I have in situ (and are often barely in fighting shape) and there appears to be no tactical reason for a vastly outmanned unit to encroach in this way except to "steal" points from the player, often at night when it is not immediately visible and often very near the end of a battle. To me, this seems like a "gamey" element in a simulation otherwise distinguished by its superb tactical AI.

Of course, it is possible that I am simply not securing my objectives well enough, allowing an enemy unit or two to penetrate a hole in my screen, even within the footprint of my defensive deployment. Do you guys recommend that I detach individual companies from a, let's say, three or four company-sized defensive force and place them on roads or other possible entry points at the perimeter? I've been so spoiled by the smartness of the AI in this game that it seems odd to have to micromanage a defense because enemy "spoilers" are sneaking into secure objectives within the defensive footprint.

Thank you for hearing me out; all advice/wisdom is much appreciated.

 

[Keydet]

Believe your question and observations have been raised many times in the past. I know I have at least once. In general something is amiss. Seems like companies are very robotic and superior HQ's are nearly unthinking when subordinates are forced off objectives. But it's complicated. Here is a stream of conscious thoughts on the complications.

• A battalion of the 30th USID and a platoon of Peipers mech infantry fought over the Sanitarium for quite some time. The complex traded hands again and again. Seemed like that infantry platoon never quit. It constantly counterattacked. But then again this was not a case of the US moving on and the platoon slipping back in.
• In urban and heavily wooded terrain its very common for retreated units to regroup and infiltrate and re-occupy positions previously lost.
• US BN and Rgt HQ's and even the subordinate companies seem not to have alternate and supplementary positions planned for a proper defense.
• Battalions and Rgts and subordinates seem completely clueless when defeated and do not make any adjustments, These become like pieces of the Terminator continuing to struggle to complete the mission.

Could go on but its late.

 

[JArraya]

Yes indeed, this is one of the issues that has been reported with the game many times. It is the issue that annoys me second most. The first is supply getting cut off for unknown reasons.
Regardless, this is a brilliant game that I wish more people would play so that the devs can actually make some money from it and therefore make more and more often updates. Let's keep supporting the game and its development!

 

[BarryJI]

Thanks for your responses, gents, it’s always good to know that my (relatively minor) criticisms are not too far off-base. I was prompted to post this after doing pretty well as the Allies in the Greyhound Dash scenario, only to have to spend the last 12 hours or so playing whack-a-mole with enemy units diving hopelessly into objectives that they could never possibly take, regardless of the “lost objective” status this behaviour generates. I don’t think it’s the behaviour that’s the issue but the algorithm governing what constitutes “occupation”. This strikes me as easier to fix than counter-attacking routines for AI.

I am relatively new to the game but very impressed and enthusiastic; I have read the manual from start to finish…twice! It appears that the main “issues” with the current build are the above plus over-dominant higher-level artillery (when managed by the player) and some oddness around supply (which I have observed and experienced). I know there is an imminent update which will address the artillery issues; does anyone think it will address any of the others?

 

[jimcarravallah]

Thanks for your responses, gents, it’s always good to know that my (relatively minor) criticisms are not too far off-base. I was prompted to post this after doing pretty well as the Allies in the Greyhound Dash scenario, only to have to spend the last 12 hours or so playing whack-a-mole with enemy units diving hopelessly into objectives that they could never possibly take, regardless of the “lost objective” status this behaviour generates. I don’t think it’s the behaviour that’s the issue but the algorithm governing what constitutes “occupation”. This strikes me as easier to fix than counter-attacking routines for AI.

I am relatively new to the game but very impressed and enthusiastic; I have read the manual from start to finish…twice! It appears that the main “issues” with the current build are the above plus over-dominant higher-level artillery (when managed by the player) and some oddness around supply (which I have observed and experienced). I know there is an imminent update which will address the artillery issues; does anyone think it will address any of the others?

Dave's comments in SITREP describe the programming effort he has taken on and what he intends to address in the upcoming patch.

One issue has been higher echelon commands abandoning effort to secure a primary objective in a plan when a percentage of units under the command fail to accomplish secondary objectives in support of the primary objective.

Another is reprogramming move and attack sequencing to assure that weaker support units do not take the lead in a march or attack.

 

[Grognerd]

I do agree it has some minor annoyances but I also definitely agree it is a brilliant game. I find it the best computer wargame out there at the moment.

 

[Rob]

I do agree it has some minor annoyances but I also definitely agree it is a brilliant game. I find it the best computer wargame out there at the moment.

+ 1

 

[BarryJI]

I do agree it has some minor annoyances but I also definitely agree it is a brilliant game. I find it the best computer wargame out there at the moment.

Fully agree.