Slitherine

I was just wondering if the AI always gets a set amount of prestige at the start of a scenario which is unaffected by the results of any previous battles? Considering the seemingly endless flow of replacement units for the Soviets after 1941 on the East Front is it actually just a question of scripted reinforcements arriving irrespective of any notional amount of prestige the AI is supposed to have?

You can watch the replay of a game, there you see the AI turns as well. Including prestige. So that is very enlightening!

Each map has a different amount of prestige for the AI

Too much in some cases. The amount of JS 1 in the battle for Kiev 1943 is outright crazy - I counted more than 17 last time I played. And the amount is preset and in no way influenced by player progress. Same as in PG, difference - in PG your performance had an impact on the overall war development, for me the biggest flaw of PC DLCs, where player performance borders irrelevant. Which makes the "campaign" nothing more than a series of tactical battles with the same core.

Regards,
Thorsten Haupts

A campaign where the AI resources reflected prior history would be interesting, though it might exaggerate the snowball effect of one error leading to ten later on.

Under the current system, scripting is much more important than in-game prestige. I have written some scenarios where the AI is essentially prevented from getting any new units of its own and only gets what it's given - some of these seem to work much better than allowing the AI any choice. Making scripts history-dependent would mean a lot of duplication of effort.

I suspect that this is why some of the more strategic games are played as a single large scenario rather than a series of actions.

ThorHa wrote:Too much in some cases. The amount of JS 1 in the battle for Kiev 1943 is outright crazy - I counted more than 17 last time I played. And the amount is preset and in no way influenced by player progress. Same as in PG, difference - in PG your performance had an impact on the overall war development, for me the biggest flaw of PC DLCs, where player performance borders irrelevant. Which makes the "campaign" nothing more than a series of tactical battles with the same core.

Regards,
Thorsten Haupts

I understand there is no unhistorical outcome in the Eastern Front GC but isn't it possible for the Germans to 'Win' in the West? I am torn between wanting the chance to change history and remembering thinking 'this is ridiculous' after conquering the USA in the base game. Getting to India in Afrika Korps did not seem so far fetched somehow. I have seen people complaining about WITE that it is almost impossible for the Germans to win and if they don't take Moscow in 1941 they just stop playing but the grognards attitude seems to be that you accept that overall defeat is inevitable but the challenge is to do better than the Germans historically?