Welcome to the LnLP Forums and Resource Area

We have updated our forums to the latest version. If you had an account you should be able to log in and use it as before. If not please create an account and we look forward to having you as a member.

SITREP

Tommy.w

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2020
Messages
7
Points
3
Age
122
Location
Earth
While waiting for the CO2 update and new DLCs where is everyone else getting their enjoyment? For me I'm playing Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2..
 

Le gac

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
8
Points
3
Age
55
Location
France
Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2, Graviteam tactics, Decisive campaign ardennes offensive. 3 good games for me.
Graviteam tactics mius front and tank warfare excellent for 3D with a very good AI.
But CO2 is the best for opérationnal level.
 

john connor

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
2,425
Points
63
Age
58
Location
Brussels
WDS (JTS) Panzer Campaigns and Modern Campaigns PBEM games. But they're all defective, for me...only my humble silly opinions, these.... The awful hexy maps, the turn-based gameplay - having to play PBEM (which I don't really like) because the AI is such a waste of time. I really really wish the new CO2 update was done. *sigh* It's been so so long that we've been waiting for the new update and BaB. I wonder how long it took Dave to actually code the original game, the original release, way back when, I mean the entire game?

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.

Graviteam? I have them all, all the DLC, and have really tried with this series. But the AI is full of awful spotting glitches (leading to many silly moments) and the battles are more like something from a Total War game. The losses are crazy, way higher than historical, and the developers (cudos to them for being in Kharkiv and continuing throughout) don't seem to mind this, no matter what is said, over many, many years. 'Tactics' for the AI seem to resemble a WW1 charge in a straight line at the enemy or objective. Mostly it's like that. Not always. Every now and then you see something that looks a bit clever, but mostly it's just basic. And since it's in (poor) 3D you can see it all.... So, not for me, or only in small doses, maybe....

It's the same with every other game I try. I could give a very very long list of games and criticism here. I've said for years, ONLY CO2 and Dave got the concept exactly right. But to be honest it's been difficult to play CO2 for a while because several of the things that are being improved or cured by the update in development really started to break immersion for me. The pathing issues around attacks, the support units in front. These things have got better over the years, for sure, but they still pop up, so like everyone else I've been longing for this present update for a very long time.

I hope this rant encourages Dave!
 
Last edited:

Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

Panther Games Designer
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
3,314
Points
113
Location
Canberra, Australia
Website
www.panthergames.com
No pressure then, hey Peter? :)

FYI Paul Scobell and I started the design of what became Command Ops in 1995. We started coding in 1996. It got released as Airborne Assault in 2000 or 2001 (it's so long ago I can't recall for certain!). So at least five years effort initially. So the last two years are a drop in the ocean, relatively speaking. I know its frustrating for you all. But it's doubly so for me as my livelihood depends on it. The one virtue this job teaches is patience.

By way of an updated SITREP, I have been working on meshing the complex attack with the basic attack this week. I have nutted out the design and started coding it up but will need this coming week to finish it off.
 

Tommy.w

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2020
Messages
7
Points
3
Age
122
Location
Earth
Totally agree with JC's comments, the other games have glaring issues and are just time fillers for CO2.

Perhaps when the update is out we as a community could try bring attention back to CO2? - In order to increase sales for Dave and team, in order to fund further development?
I remember a while back News updates were being published on steam, i know they take time and effort and how do you measure your return on investment..
 

john connor

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
2,425
Points
63
Age
58
Location
Brussels
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!!
 
Last edited:

Arkadiy

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
34
Points
8
Location
USA
Thact’s a fun story! It’s almost as if the game became self-aware, googled “German WW2 battlegroups”, saw the results and decided to indulge in some role-playing ;)
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
1,076
Points
63
Age
74
Location
Livonia, MI (Detroit-area suburb)
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!!
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.

I'd be interested in hearing what drives the AI to reassemble units, thinking it's probably warranted if it was designed to happen when the original organic formation suffers heavy losses in some of its subordinate units.
 

Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

Panther Games Designer
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
3,314
Points
113
Location
Canberra, Australia
Website
www.panthergames.com
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.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
1,076
Points
63
Age
74
Location
Livonia, MI (Detroit-area suburb)
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 wouldn't worry about addressing it in this revision -- there's plenty of good in the work that should get into users' hands.

That said, the command and control bonuses and orders delay penalties would tend to drive units to stay within organic structures, but there are probably triggers that negate the importance of those attributes when addressing battlefield contingencies.

Perhaps the way to explore those is to get anecdotes from users when they find it necessary to cross attach units for a tactical purpose.
 
Top