I dont like ai allies...

[Patrat]

I remembered an old puzzle: you have a well and 2 buckets of 3 and 5 liters at your disposal, you have to make there will be exactly 4 liters of water in a 5-liter bucket
I think commanding the Nationalists in SCW is a bit like this puzzle.
I'm 100 percent against splitting the Nationalists into some groups and separate commanding because that will be too easy then

It's a puzzle all right.

The puzzle is: do you want to watch the AI play poorly against the AI, and find ways to work around that?

Or just play the game?

To add insult to injury supporting fire is bugged, and your allies steal your prestige

The thing is, I can't see this
My Nationalists are more than decent on the battlefield and I'm very pleased with them
Do we play 2 different games?
As I wrote before - SCW is similar to OoB and I believe immodestly that I'm one of the better players in OoB, maybe my experience with OoB allows me to manage these troops so well?

I can't see it either. My Nationalist troops are tigers on the battlefield. Far from slowing me down, sometimes they actually seem to be carrying me.


BTW, I also play OOB.

[KesaAnna]

The purpose of AI ally is to cooperate with it.

If I understand the above statement correctly , then --

I can't see it either. My Nationalist troops are tigers on the battlefield. Far from slowing me down, sometimes they actually seem to be carrying me.

-- That is basically the case. It's the AI Nationalists who will take victory hexes and win the scenario .

After all ; You have no infantry , ( save the lousy Italians --- IF you have the Auxiliaries trait ) and who typically takes down dug - in infantry in towns with tanks or AA guns anyway ?

Your job is to support the AI Nationalists . At best , to guide the AI Nationalists.

Do we play 2 different games?

But then , actually , yes , I would say so.

The original Grand Campaign in no way works this way , nor generally , do war games in general work this way.

This , I suspect , can be a hard change to wrap your mind around . It certainly was for me.

I'm not so sure that the average player is so mediocre or so dumb though. After all , in reality , it took some otherwise very bright people , many with impressive war records under their belt , quite awhile to wrap their minds around the idea that the 4,000 year old ( ? ) cavalry idea simply didn't work anymore.

I have long believed that war game companies ( not that I have ever run a war game company.... ) should devote as much , or more , time and effort to writing actually decent game manuals and how - to's. Assuming the world is full of idiots may be emotionally gratifying , ( ? ) but I suspect it is actually woefully unproductive , and , eventually , long - term , unprofitable.

Presumably you want to expose as many people as possible to the joys of wargaming , and want to sell your game to as many people as possible ?

Well , I doubt many people are going to buy , or subsequently play , a game to feel stupid.

But that's apparently another of my tiny minority opinions.

[Kerensky]

The original Grand Campaign in no way works this way , nor generally , do war games in general work this way.

Mission to innovate accomplished.

Goes a long way to explain the sharp divide between players who like new innovation, and those who aren't comfortable with a very dramatic and somewhat unprecedented change in gameplay.

It's going to be interesting to see the DLC 1939 reactions. I expect some people will be disappointed by crazy innovations in gameplay not continuing, while others will be more like 'finally back to normal gameplay no more weird shenanigans!'

[kondi754]

Do we play 2 different games?

But then , actually , yes , I would say so.

The original Grand Campaign in no way works this way , nor generally , do war games in general work this way.

This , I suspect , can be a hard change to wrap your mind around . It certainly was for me.

I'm not so sure that the average player is so mediocre or so dumb though. After all , in reality , it took some otherwise very bright people , many with impressive war records under their belt , quite awhile to wrap their minds around the idea that the 4,000 year old ( ? ) cavalry idea simply didn't work anymore.

I have long believed that war game companies ( not that I have ever run a war game company.... ) should devote as much , or more , time and effort to writing actually decent game manuals and how - to's. Assuming the world is full of idiots may be emotionally gratifying , ( ? ) but I suspect it is actually woefully unproductive , and , eventually , long - term , unprofitable.

Presumably you want to expose as many people as possible to the joys of wargaming , and want to sell your game to as many people as possible ?

Well , I doubt many people are going to buy , or subsequently play , a game to feel stupid.

But that's apparently another of my tiny minority opinions.

ok, i hate sharing my "tactical" secrets, so i will write in general:
1. You are not the most important on the battlefield, the Nationalists are the most important
2.remember that your move is first (Nationalists attack right after you), so what you do on the map is to help the Nationalists, so circle around them (the most important trait IMHO - perimeter control), protect them, soften the points they will attack
3. do not hesitate to stop Nationalists, there is a lot of time, so if they do nothing for 1-2 turns nothing will happen
4. remember that your strength in SCW are auxilliary forces , but don't buy too expensive Aux units because they aren't units that you will keep for longer, expensive units buy only for Core
5. invest in air forces, build huge air forces (CR.32, cheap Italian fighters are the key to success for early scenarios at least )

Follow these 5 commandments and you will be ok

PS. it's not Kursk, don't expect to get some powerful tanks or "wunderwaffe" later

[KesaAnna]

My own particular criticisms should not be taken harshly.

It so happens that a Spanish Civil War campaign wasn't just in my top five wish list . It was number one on my wish list.

On that score alone , my luck in choosing to buy this game is incredible.

You play as the Germans , with your beloved German core.

--- But it's NOT , really , a German campaign. It's a Nationalist Spanish campaign.

As it SHOULD be.

So , as awkward as it may be to wrap my mind around the reality that I am only one - third (?) in control of things , this innovation ultimately seems simply reasonable and logical.

Reasonable and logical , yes , but still an innovation never the less.

Certainly this game is proving to be a lot more than just a suck - every - last - penny - out - of - the - franchise - sequel !

And , after all , I originally bought the game hoping it would be more than just a Panzer General clone with updated graphics.

So , yes , and just four months after launch , mission accomplished. I doubt this game is going to be mistaken for its predecessors .

[kondi754]

My own particular criticisms should not be taken harshly.

It so happens that a Spanish Civil War campaign wasn't just in my top five wish list . It was number one on my wish list.

On that score alone , my luck in choosing to buy this game is incredible.

You play as the Germans , with your beloved German core.

--- But it's NOT , really , a German campaign. It's a Nationalist Spanish campaign.

As it SHOULD be.

So , as awkward as it may be to wrap my mind around the reality that I am only one - third (?) in control of things , this innovation ultimately seems simply reasonable and logical.

Reasonable and logical , yes , but still an innovation never the less.

Certainly this game is proving to be a lot more than just a suck - every - last - penny - out - of - the - franchise - sequel !

And , after all , I originally bought the game hoping it would be more than just a Panzer General clone with updated graphics.

So , yes , and just four months after launch , mission accomplished. I doubt this game is going to be mistaken for its predecessors .

This is only the first part of the saga, but it promises a lot will happen in the following parts
I think we will argue more than once about the validity of some solutions
But I'm an optimist and I think that the vast majority of players will get used to, accept and even love PzC 2 GC

PS. @KesaAnna, sorry i didn't quite understand your comment earlier, so don't be offended by my reply , these rules i wrote above are for beginners

[IceSerpent]

I was initially excited about the idea of AI allies, but frankly, it makes the game much worse for me. Kind of changes the whole thing from strategy game to a weird "figure out a way to herd dumb AI into not exposing your arty" puzzle game. Allied troops just walking away from the front line for no obvious reason really makes no sense from either gameplay or historical perspective. Not to mention that those allies were apparently selected for their suicidal personality, and they drain your prestige pool like crazy as a result. Of course, the game is still playable, it just feels strange to have to fight both OPFOR AI and "allied" AI at the same time.
Personally, I'd really like to have an option to turn that whole thing off and retain full control of all units. I think it would be the easiest fix to implement, and it would allow folks who like the current setup to continue using it.

Just my $0.02

[kverdon]

I must agree that I've found the whole AI Allies thing a bit disagreeable as well. I don't mind the theory of it but I don't feel it works as a whole. As a player I ask myself "Why am i being penalized by because the programmed AI does totally moronic things?'" I have always played PG/PC/OOB a bit conservatively regards to prestige expenditure so to see over 1200 prestige wasted away by my AI "Allies" is a bit frustrating. I'm not totally against the idea of an AI ally, just the implementation. It makes zero to no sense to order all the units over the whole map to "Attack/Defend/Hold" orders seeing that they are in different locations and situations. Especially when "Defend" can turn into a bit of a FUBAR. It would work MUCH better if you could assign those orders to individual units, or at least groups. Yes, I understand about the fact that historically the Spanish Nationalists did not always follow along with German tactical wishes but then again enough else of the SCW DLS is abstracted outside the historical norm, I don't see a need to religiously adhere to that part as well. If you are going to artificially enhance the ground and air units of the Republicans, why not give a little more control to the AI Nationalist forces? Giving the human player total control over the AI forces would probably unbalance a number of the scenarios but perhaps a bit of a compromise might make things a bit more palatable?

[Patrat]

Kind of changes the whole thing from strategy game to a weird "figure out a way to herd dumb AI into not exposing your arty" puzzle game. Allied troops just walking away from the front line for no obvious reason really makes no sense from either gameplay or historical perspective.

I usually place a couple of Italian infantry with the artillery that's assisting the nationalist infantry. I spread the Italians in front of the artillery in such a way that its still protected if the Nationalist infantry wanders off. If necessary I'll even split the Italian units to make sure the artillery is covered.

And as I mentioned before, the nationalist infantry in real life would sometimes "wander off".

[Tassadar]

On my end the system works quite well. It did bleed prestige in intial scenarios and continues to do so, but I've learned to manage the way the allies attacka and defend by creating better paths and occasions for them and it's now not so bad. Plus after a while the prestige slowly but surely builds up for me, even without going crazy with capturing.

The only issue I have with the allies is that tempted by weak targets they have a tendency of leaving my artillery exposed - I had to learn the hard way I need to position my support a bit differently with that in mind.

[o_t_d_x]

Limited control for spanish nationalists - yes. Its realistic, its innovation for a genre that really had none for an eternity.

But one order for all troops is simply nonsense. Why not giving that order to every nationalist unit alone ? You attack, you hold and most important - you hold WITHOUT touching my precious prestige. (Prestige is holy and only german core troops deserve it. Thats a religious dogma for me - sorry.)

[kverdon]

Something that might help would be the ability to highlight a group of units and give them one of the 3 select orders. Somewhat like you do in the Total War series except with more general orders.

[fluffybunnyuk]

Ebro is a good example of that.
It stands to reason that you want your AI allies to "DEFEND" the hexes they hold on the front line. The problem is if you do that then the spare tools hanging around the supply hex never get to the front line.
I propose an ahistorical coup option whereby Spain falls to the german army they invited in, and then the spanish are disbanded in favour of shiny new german military hardware, and infantry.

[IceSerpent]

I usually place a couple of Italian infantry with the artillery that's assisting the nationalist infantry. I spread the Italians in front of the artillery in such a way that its still protected if the Nationalist infantry wanders off. If necessary I'll even split the Italian units to make sure the artillery is covered.

Yes, there are certainly ways to get around this. All those ways are weird from a strategic perspective though - in your example you are essentially sending an arty to ally #1, then ask ally #2 to send infantry to ally #1 in order to protect your arty in case ally #1 does something stupid. I can't think of any RL instance of allied support being done in such a roundabout fashion.

And as I mentioned before, the nationalist infantry in real life would sometimes "wander off".

Just out of curiosity, which event(s) are you referring to? My knowledge of SCW is somewhat limited where individual battles are concerned - did nationalist troops have a habit of just wandering off in random directions without even being attacked, simply because they felt that their current position was boring or something?

On a side note, I've noticed that AI works noticeably better on lower difficulty levels, i.e. they seem to be almost competent on General, then go "full derp" on FM. Not sure if it has something to do with OPFOR's accuracy bonus messing up AI's decision making, or if it's an undocumented feature of some sort.

Something that might help would be the ability to highlight a group of units and give them one of the 3 select orders. Somewhat like you do in the Total War series except with more general orders.

I thought about this myself, but then I realized that it would be virtually the same as full control. If you can select a unit and tell it to attack/hold/defend, you might as well tell it where to go. I think it would complicate things for no discernible gameplay benefit.

[Patrat]

There are certainly many instances in Spain and in ww2 of the germans not trusting certain allies to hold the frontlines and placing more trusted troops in their vicinity. It's often referred to as corseting. I mostly use Italian troops because they are cheap, but in critical situations I use German troops to bolster the Spanish.

The most common reason for nationalist troops to abandon a position was because they were taking heavy fire. Though on occasion they left for no discernable reason. Discernable to the germans that is. On occasion they also attack the wrong position and not the one that had been bombed and bombarded by artillery. Wolfram Richtofens diary makes several rather scathing comments about these tendencies of the nationalist infantry.

The Republican troops were of course far worse in this regard. Especially in the early days.

[IceSerpent]

There are certainly many instances in Spain and in ww2 of the germans not trusting certain allies to hold the frontlines and placing more trusted troops in their vicinity. It's often referred to as corseting. I mostly use Italian troops because they are cheap, but in critical situations I use German troops to bolster the Spanish.

The most common reason for nationalist troops to abandon a position was because they were taking heavy fire. Though on occasion they left for no discernable reason. Discernable to the germans that is. On occasion they also attack the wrong position and not the one that had been bombed and bombarded by artillery. Wolfram Richtofens diary makes several rather scathing comments about these tendencies of the nationalist infantry.

The Republican troops were of course far worse in this regard. Especially in the early days.

That's understandable, but we're not talking about them running away when pushed or attacking the wrong targets (actually, AI does both of those things, but it's not a huge issue). The huge issue imho is that a full stack w/o any suppression would quite often just walk in a seemingly random direction.

[Patrat]

I haven't noticed them just wandering off in a random direction. They always seem to be going somewhere. It just might not be where I would prefer they go. Lol

Its probably best to think of yourself being the subordinate general, tasked to supporting the AI general in his plans. You can make strong suggestions, but you cant control him completely.

Some people are so used to being the boss in total control, that its difficult to adjust playing almost second fiddle, as it were, to the AI.

[IceSerpent]

I haven't noticed them just wandering off in a random direction. They always seem to be going somewhere. It just might not be where I would prefer they go. Lol

LOL! I am sure they are indeed going somewhere, problem is that "somewhere" seems to be the nearest bar or something...

[o_t_d_x]

As always: the best solution would have been, to make the ai deactivatable for players, that prefer direct control.

Of course, the infantry has to be weakend in that case. And all the guys who love to waste their time with artificial idiots, can have that too.
Would that have been soooo hard to implement ?

And dont come with realism, there is so much unrealism in that game:

I win every battle in 2nd world war, eradicate all allies, have an über army with hardware, that only existed on paper, achieve total air dominance with my jet fighter only air force in 1944/45 (by the way why are fighters so cheap when replaced ? was it so easy to learn a farmer how to fly and fight with a jet ?) , have fast moving maus tanks that never did anything but cost money in real life, supply "beams" on the battlefield, allies having 90% of worlds oil, much more money and ressources is not a problem, the list is endless with things that arent realistic in pc2.

For some it seems, its hard to admit, that an idea that looked good on paper, and even is good for some players, can be boring and frustrating for many others.

[Mojko]

So these are the 3 changes I want to remedy the situation with the friendly AI.

• Command per group - for example Relief Group, Toledo Group

• AI units no longer attack under defend commmand

• Current command is highlighted

Here is a mockup: