Rommel in Normandy: Initial Assessment

[bjarmson]

I've played through all the scenarios for the first time (BA 2.3, vs the AI), and I must say I'm immensely disappointed. While the maps and new units are great, the scenarios are mostly ludicrously easy (played at the hardest settings). The scenarios seem to get easier as you advance into them. The Holding the Heights scenario is ridiculously easy, set up your infantry and anti-tank units move up the panzers and station them discreetly, blast the Brits to bits. The Brits didn't manage to take a single victory point, virtually all my minimal losses were to artillery barrages. The Jagpanthers became expert after only a few turns and proceeded to blow hell out of Shermans and Churchills and Brit infantry, each scoring probably 10-20 kills. It was a slaughter, the most one sided battle I've ever had in BA. Death from Above, despite the initial losses of the shellshocked troops on the front line, was simply more of the same. Retreat what troops you can to the second line, move your panzers forward, rally them when the officer halftrack becomes available, blow the Americans away. After the initial losses of the shellshocked units, the Germans are simply invincible to the AI attack, virtually all losses being inflicted by artillery (including destroying a seemingly invincible Jagpanther).

I had hoped the AI would be improved in BA 2.3, but it seems dumber. AI infantry too often stands in the open or a tries to attack armor rather than hide and ambush, AI armor mostly fritters itself away by attacking one at a time, or when it does attack in force, is blown to bits by Jagpanthers (the new super weapon, hit as hard as King Tigers or 88s, but don't break down, are almost invincibly armored, and highly mobile—my recommendation take as many as are available).

Unlike previous scenario bundles, where I often got beat upon first play (particularly the end scenarios, which were often very hard to beat and justified numerous replays), the Rommel in Normandy scenarios are mostly boring because they are ridiculously easy to beat versus the AI. During the Holding the Heights and Death from Above scenarios I kept wanting them to be done because neither was in any way interesting after the initial wave had been devastated. By around turn ten they became downright boring, the only damage being from artillery attacks.

So what's the deal here? Are the Rommel in Normandy scenarios supposed to only be played player vs player? Most of the scenarios need vast adjustments to be interesting vs the AI. They are simply boring the way they are now, since there is hardly any challenge to winning vs AI. I'm extremely disappointed.

[Browncoat]

I have to agree. Most of the scenarios are a cake walk. I was not very happy with operation Husky either. It to ended up being boring. Really missing the challenges of the first campaigns.

[LandMarine47]

What you guys are describing is exactly why Slitherine does not want to do these DLC's. Lets face it the AI is not exactly the greatest player and if you can bleed it out it won't pose much of a threat. These late war tanks are very strong and adding them would make the game very easy. This is why Slith isn't going to give us a late war German Campaign in BA 2 as well. The only way we are getting a German DLC is if the Allies have superior armor. That's it. So if you want a hard campaign once again head back to the first 3 but this one was made so people could finally enjoy a late war German view. If you wanted it to be difficult then don't buy the tough units. That ought to make thing though.

[leci]

As a poor MP player - although I try (but the game mechanics always defeat me) - I would agree, very easy.

Understand buying weaker units, but conversely the AI should buy strong units and or display more AI.

Gilles

[aster]

So if you want a hard campaign once again head back to the first 3 but this one was made so people could finally enjoy a late war German view. If you wanted it to be difficult then don't buy the tough units. That ought to make thing though.

When the advice is to intentionally cripple yourself as player by purchasing weak units or what-have-you, that's an indicator that the scenario is poorly designed (to say nothing of weak AI, but that's a bigger fish to fry). These missions aren't directly replicating the OOB or going for actual historical dispositions - there's plenty of room for challenging tactical situations and even scripted events aimed at putting pressure on typical player strategies, but for whatever reasons this seems to be lacking for some of the DLC.

[LandMarine47]

While you do make some valid points here I have to disagree on your comment on my post. I simply said do not buy the best units. I was suggesting a core force made up of weaker Panzer IVG and Ost troops. But it is in some way handicapping the gameplay. I feel people are cracking down to hard on this DLC. Personally I did a full Playthrough and what you discribe as "boring" I had lots of fun. The only true map I thought wasnt fun was Holding the Heights but other than that I found this to be lots of fun in the end. I feel these people just in General don't like how BA operates or are not accustomed to its functions. Or they are the type of person that isn't happy if the AI isn't steamrolling them, and when the AI does do that they complain about it. BA gets to much hate ESPECIALLY in the iOS department and I think these people need to shut up and enjoy one of the only true War games on the App Store. They just need to know that there are people trying very hard on making them a war game. They just get angry is isnt a copy of major tile like COH. That just my opinion and you are free to counter mine with your own. Sorry for the rant it just infuriates me about people who are never happy with new changes and results.

[Browncoat]

I happen to love BA. Not hate it. I even wrote a sterling review in the App Store after buying it last year. It is not hate to express a critique. If no one ever gave feedback how would things get better? I love that Slitherine has brought and is bringing so much war gaming to the iPad. I never complain about a challenging mission. I love them. One of the things I like best about BA is that it is unique in my experience and not a copy of something else. If you enjoyed the last couple of releases, great. But those that express a critique with it don't deserved to be classed as haters.

[cptdavep]

I think those who have identified the AI as the problem are correct. When you're playing as the allies in BA you have to use specific tactics to defeat the superior German armour - either a, get up close and hit rear armour, or b, attack with several tanks at once to suppress them. The AI hasn't been updated to use these tactics, therefore while the allies have superior numbers they're unable to make that count as they're too dumb to take out the panthers and tigers.

Currently the only way the AI has taken out my stronger armor is when I've made a mistake and left side armor exposed or driven past concealed infantry.

[Igorputski]

So if you want a hard campaign once again head back to the first 3 but this one was made so people could finally enjoy a late war German view. If you wanted it to be difficult then don't buy the tough units. That ought to make thing though.

When the advice is to intentionally cripple yourself as player by purchasing weak units or what-have-you, that's an indicator that the scenario is poorly designed (to say nothing of weak AI, but that's a bigger fish to fry). These missions aren't directly replicating the OOB or going for actual historical dispositions - there's plenty of room for challenging tactical situations and even scripted events aimed at putting pressure on typical player strategies, but for whatever reasons this seems to be lacking for some of the DLC.

Ever played chess and intentionally made a bad move thus gimping yourself intentionally so your little brother or sister or lesser intelligent friend had a chance against you? Hrmmm must be a weak player involved there.

[aster]

Ever played chess and intentionally made a bad move thus gimping yourself intentionally so your little brother or sister or lesser intelligent friend had a chance against you? Hrmmm must be a weak player involved there.

LOL, that's a bit of a reach. A weaker human opponent has the chance to get better, plus the interpersonal experience can be enjoyable. When I'm playing against impersonal mindless computer AI I expect it to mount a moderate challenge and/or have the developers implement scenario design that masks its weaknesses.

I (and pretty sure I speak for most players out there) enjoy challenge in a game *as presented, as intended* by the designers. If it comes down to intentionally weakening myself by buying crap units or somesuch, well then I'll just move on to a different game - limited gametime in my day/week, so many games out there. There will always be a minority of fanboys who enjoy going thru all sorts of artificial contortions like that to make unbalanced stuff playable - but they are a very small minority.

Really captdavep hits it on the head - the AI isn't programmed with tactics to deal with the highly superior Axis armor, so those scenarios turn into a turkey shoot.

[bjarmson]

Seems the consensus of those posting above seem to think the RiN scenarios are boring.Why wasn't this noted in beta testing and adjusted so as to present more of a challenge when played against the AI? Why hasn't the AI been given an algorithm to keep infantry from moving onto open ground or standing in the open when cover is readily available a space or two away (this is a particularly egregious AI fault, one that should be a relatively easy fix)?

Now I realize the limitations of computer game AIs; I've been playing computer games, particularly war-games, for 25 years. The trick is to design scenarios that work despite the limitations imposed by the game's AI. This is not an easy task, but one that many of the earlier scenarios for BA have done pretty well. RiN is essentially a complete failure in this regard (particularly the later scenarios, which are usually the toughest). I would rather lose an interesting scenario than play one that presents no challenge at all. Why release a scenario that is so obviously flawed in that regard? I expect better from BA.

[Interstate40]

Totally agree with most points on this thread. AI is mostly hopeless and should be improved or the overall value of Single player BA will drop as scenarios get more complex. CloseCombat had much the same problem a decade ago but some of the modders built some brilliant mods that made the AI a fearsome opponent- super aggressive, coordinated and tactically smart.

Here are some suggestions to start with:
1. Infantry should ALWAYS seek cover to advance unless there are sighted friendly units well in advance. If there are no cover options they should take shortest open path to better cover.
2. The AI should some programmed ability to focus on certain tactical paths in force. There could be a few preselected based on terrain, with randomization. If attacking, the AI should aggressively focus on these avenues only. This would stop the senseless bleeding away of resources
3. Use of special and heavy weapons should be better programmed. MG and mortar should be set up in advance of an assault and should never advance first. The AI seems to not know what to do with Priests either - they rumble forward and get picked off instead of sitting back and pulverizing the most threatening targets from safety each round.
4. Add air support to allies - why are there not way more deadly air attacks? There are some AA for axis but they often do nothing. Surely this campaign should have an air attack every single round, focused on highest cost axis force closest to LOS? The reality for Rommels defenders was an endless air assault nightmare. Even Rommel himself copped an attack that almost killed him.
5. Add stronger armor for allies and improve how armor works together - they need to use their numbers better - draw fire then race to point blank range.

Am sure there are more - the air support would seem to be a very simple add, as well as better pathing for infantry and programming for Priests. Without these this campaign has zero replay appeal. I hope this is an area of focus of BA2.

[LandMarine47]

What you describe WAS once being created by someone but the project was never completed as the person has been long inactive. Maybe if someone can find his work and continue it there might be a chance? But yes this should be implemented but an AI that advanced is going to take money. And I don't think Slith has some extra money as they are pouring everything into those new iOS titles. Only if they make enough profit, is when we can get that AI. I don't know what setting the AI was on but I think it was at BAs limit. So lets not get mad at Slith we all know that they are trying their best with that tight budget. some people just forget that video game take time and most importantly money!

[bjarmson]

That's all nice and well LandMarine, but it doesn't win a game company many friends or return customers if they release and charge for crap. I expect to have a decent, challenging game vs the AI. If the scenario only plays well as a multiplayer, then they should note that. From now on, I'll wait to find out what others think before I buy anymore BA scenarios. Once burned ....

[protectivedaddy]

But isn't the beauty of BA the multiplayer.

There are vast improvements that need to be made to the single player campaigns, but I for one rarely play the single player anymore, as I find the multiplayer one of the best I have ver played, bare the exception of a game called Vulcan on the commodore 16 many many years ago.

I have no problem buying new maps, or downloading custom made maps, and do so just for the MP aspect. After all each person I play has a completely different approach and so it is something that would be hard to replicate no matter how much coding is used to replicate in a AI sense.

So for the gripers, yes the single player is poor but will no doubt be a lot stronger for BA2 - it would be good if it took the company of heroes route, but to call BA crap is unneeded as it is stellar as a MP game.

[Old_Warrior]

Thanks for the input. I will remember this when I go and evaluate my custom missions and other work I am doing. I agree that no mission is fun if all you do is "I came, I saw, I kicked the crap out of the AI!"

With this said do you guys agree that for the difficulty levels that:

1. Hardest setting should be HARD to win.

2. Medium setting should be winnable but make the player work a bit.

3. Easy setting should be for novices to the system, be as winnable as the missions seem to be for you "expert" players and cause the newbie to move up a notch as soon as he has gotten used to the interface and how the game works.

What say ye?

[Browncoat]

Yup

[protectivedaddy]

Hard - should be borderline impossible - making it a genuine achievement to defeat the enemy. Some scenarios should only be open to pay as either easy / medium / hard - for example some of the Normandy landing scenarios should be only available on hardest level due to the intensity and achievement of landing and getting a foothold etc.

Medium - should be an experienced player can win / a novice would get annihilated / an intermediate player can just about scrape a victory

Easy - gives the novice a good game but victory is guaranteed / has to be hard enough though for them to develop tactics and strategies - not just a simple free for all

Also I think some of the modders need to make some tutorial scenarios for the newbies - these would go down a treat.

In BA2 I have asked for a more map layout - now if this was combined with a level on each scenario - for example scenario one once won opens up scenarios 2/3/4 but 2 is easy mode, 3 is medium mode, 4 is hard mode, each being a different level setting and different historical battle but achieving victory in each one has a different knock on affect later along the map - if you get what I mean.

In the good old days of gaming hard level was almost never completed in a game unless you put serious hours in, and the good old magazine guides etc. that is how it needs to be again to give longevity, BA and BA2 can do this as they are a niche on the iPad platform, not so much so on the pc - but on the ipad there is absolutely nothing to rival it

[IainMcNeil]

For anyone who is finding it too easy are you also getting the achievements?

A lot of the difficulty comes from the achievements not just completing the base scenario so maybe retry with that in mind.

[pipfromslitherine]

Getting the difficulty right on expansions is a very fine line. There are always going to be very good players at the end of the bell-curve who find a given campaign too easy. We do have to balance missions to the whole playerbase though. I think it's telling that while the comments here seem to agree with each other, there are comments in other threads saying how tough the campaign is . As you say, the expansion have extensive beta testing, and we did not have feedback that on balance would make us think the campaign was too easy. The Achievements also provide additional challenges for the more expert player.

The ideas on difficulty levels etc are intriguing. I will take a look and see if there is anything we can do to expand the options we give to players - either in this version or perhaps in BA2.

Cheers

Pip