Ad hoc Battlegroups bundling an ad hoc organization of armor and infantry under a brigade level command were SOP toward the end of the war on the allied side. It was driven in part by assembling more effective combined arms formations and more likely by reassigning surviving units out of organic forces to a new command after others in its organic structure suffered heavy attrition. The Widening the Corridor scenario starts with a number of armor battlegroup formations on the allied side.Yeah, sorry, Dave. But it's great you're still working at it. Thanks. I wish I had the money to slip a couple of hundred thousand euros your way, to hire a coding team and do all the things we would all like done in a faster time frame. But sadly, we'll have to wait!
Actually, one of my personal frustrations over the last couple of years, as a tester, is that all development in terms of coding has had to be concentrated on the new update. Which has meant that as I play and come across queries I just have to ignore them, when in the past I would have taken shots, saves and recordings and posted up a full report in the dev forum sure that one day it would probably be looked at. So, testing the pretty challenging Gremercy scenario (from BaB) again yesterday I again started looking at how the opponent AI makes ad hoc battle groups and was wondering what rationale was being applied to permit the AI opponent to depart from organic structure. I've noticed that it's very happy and quick to do this, as circs demand, much happier and quicker than I am, as the player. Sometimes its dispositions clearly arise from the battlefield chaos - so very often in Race for Bastogne, for example, I see the AI Axis organic structure almost completely forgotten by day 2, with the Axis forces recombined into 'ad hoc' groupings as a consequence of the traffic jam and combat chaos produced by trying to funnel massive, disparate forces down a few major roads to reach distant objectives and being blocked here and there and forced to re-plan. (I believe a coincidental effect of some of the impending update changes will be to ameliorate this because part of the chaos is produced by pathing issues that are being looked at.) But to come back to the Gremercy scenario yesterday, the AI Axis invented a weird battlegroup (KG Bake, it was, under the commander of that name) whereby it grouped about six towed AT units with that commander and infiltrated them through the Allied lines by night. Come morning, when they were visible, they were easy to kill off because the KG did not include any infantry or significant armour support. Again, part of the issue here was the pathing, I think, but aside from that I found myself thinking - why on earth did the AI create such an odd grouping, and should there not be a greater weight given to trying to maintain organic structure, perhaps? But since all time is being spent on the update, there was no where for me to raise the observation!!!! (And my frustration led to me posting this little report instead....)
I should say that it's still possible for me to play the game - certain scenarios - as it is and be beaten by the AI!!
I wouldn't worry about addressing it in this revision -- there's plenty of good in the work that should get into users' hands.FYI I have revised the AllocateForcesToTasks() and AllocateForcesToFormations() code several times while overhauling attacks. Inside these functions the standard Allocate() is called. This creates a set of requirements for each task or formation subGroup. It then determines the suitability of each unit to these requirements. There are various biases and special requirements thrown into the mix and some of these favour staying with your organic boss, subordinates and siblings. But I do acknowledge that sometimes these aren't strong enough. There's always scope to review.
I bought and tried the latest DC Ardennes and the AI - if you play as Allies - is utterly rubbish. I'm sorry to say it. I put it on the highest setting possible and played all the smaller scenarios through. It was a walk-over. I mean literally. And that game was flagged as having very good AI. It's possible it's good if you play the Axis, but I didn't want to do that, and none of the release material said it was rubbish if you played as Allies.
GG WitE2. Well, what can I say? The AI can be made to give you a totally silly and unrealistic fight if you give it cheats. That's how their AI works. You give it 110 morale or upwards and it gets to move without restriction so it can rebuild all its lines. If you don't do this then the fight is pretty easy, even without messing with manual air or manual depots and logistics. Plus, again, the turn based thing leads to silliness. You get basically a week to do what you want with a non-reactive opponent. This is the nature of turn-based games, I realise.
I was intrigued by the resource allocation for industrial production, long term planning and new research aspects of HOI2.Personally, I found that unlike some war games, since the very first release of RDOA, there are many ways that you can cripple yourself with supply and reinforcements. And if that isn't a enough, you can intentionally sit for an hour and eat your pre-planned faster response time of the OODA loop.
Also, no one ever forces a commander to throw every man into the fight. Dave, has always said "keep a reserve". You could keep 50% as a reserve not for the current fight, but the next fight beyond the scope of scenario.
The point is to play and have fun. I believe in general there are enough options to do so.
All realistic war games face this problem. The Japanese were going to lose, because China tied up 50% of their ground forces and would have fought for 100 years. (Time scales of civilization is far different in The East, than what we envision for The West.) The USA was an industrial powerhouse which would flood the sea with Liberty Ships and Carriers. Eventually, you would be able to walk from San Francisco to the home islands.
The NAZIs were going to lose to the Red Army. The USSR also had tremendous production and resources. And they fully intended to avenge themselves in a very different type of war in the East than with UK/USA. And again, you had the USA's incredible industrial base pouring supplies into the fight, along with a bomber campaign that turned Germany to rubble.
So, either you end up with fantasy games (HOI4), or designers must be innovative to allow for play on the losing side and still a sense of accomplishment and victory.
The Japanese were going to lose, because China tied up 50% of their ground forces and would have fought for 100 years. (Time scales of civilization is far different in The East, than what we envision for The West.) The USA was an industrial powerhouse which would flood the sea with Liberty Ships and Carriers. Eventually, you would be able to walk from San Francisco to the home islands.
along with a bomber campaign that turned Germany to rubble.