(02-07-2015, 12:59 PM)Weasel Wrote: I wouldn't bother going to shrapnel, you will be shouted down and told to piss off. In regards to your questions, all those things would require game code re-writing, not going to happen. I agree, I have played several AI picked games lately and we have found the turns are excessive (40+ for an ME), one side gets lots of heavy arty and air while the other gets a few batteries of light and AAA, and the side with the light arty gets heavier tanks and the heavy arty guy gets lighter ones. All in all I have come to the conclusion that AI games are not worth the effort. Walrus and myself tried 4 in a row and all followed this pattern (SPMBT). If the forces could be edited it would help, so both players could talk and agree on calibre of guns allowed etc but you have to stay within that unit class.
Thanks Weasel,
I am now playing my nth game with AI and think that on the whole the AI picks can be very interesting especially if playing mirrors or parallels with multiple choice for myself and opponent. For example, Normandy 1944 we just used pick one from 6 set ups which were Germans vs US/Can/UK and AI tank lite and tank heavy, giving the Germans 6 defensive scenarios to actually look at the terrain and forces. Same in SPMBT for example, Israel defending vs Egypt/Syria tank lite & tank heavy advances\ and Korea, a Chinese advance vs US Army and USMC tank lite and tank heavy.
I mostly have no complaints and it certainly levels the field in terms of there being no "pet forces" fielded.
For meeting engagements it works fine mostly - even with 40+ moves!
I might ask politely at Shrapnel and see what response I get and post it here.