digging in is too much

[Phoenix]

Well, after playing against the AI in a number of updated titles now and watching carefully without FOW I have releuctantly had to admit that I've seen nothing like the AI performance I was so impressed with in the Smolensk 43 title. And very reluctantly (since it's theoretically such an improvement) I would have to conclude that a major part of what is not going so well is that the AI on the attack just spends too much time digging in instead of attacking. I think, reading other posts, that others have probably already made this point. I think it would be great if there was some kind of switch that just stopped the AI from digging in when on the attack.

[Strela]

Well, after playing against the AI in a number of updated titles now and watching carefully without FOW I have releuctantly had to admit that I've seen nothing like the AI performance I was so impressed with in the Smolensk 43 title. And very reluctantly (since it's theoretically such an improvement) I would have to conclude that a major part of what is not going so well is that the AI on the attack just spends too much time digging in instead of attacking. I think, reading other posts, that others have probably already made this point. I think it would be great if there was some kind of switch that just stopped the AI from digging in when on the attack.

We are looking at the digging in and may tweak this as discussed elsewhere.

Please keep in mind that the earlier titles have a varied range of scripting (or not). Particularly the earlier titles maybe more deficient than the later ones. We hope to update any glaring issues, but the time spent on earlier titles will distract from any work in progress...

[Phoenix]

Thanks. Yeah, I don't think you should spend ages trying to rescript - concentrate on the new ones, I'd say. Smolensk 43 the AI works great on the attack, so maybe don't update it until you've tweaked the digging-in!!!

[warhero88]

Please keep in mind that the earlier titles have a varied range of scripting (or not). Particularly the earlier titles maybe more deficient than the later ones. We hope to update any glaring issues, but the time spent on earlier titles will distract from any work in progress...

WDS seems very data driven: you understand your current customers base’s purchasing and play preferences and therefore no doubt know the opportunity cost of spending cycles on updating older titles vs releasing new titles, and David’s comment above seems to acknowledge which way that balance goes. I get it. But my concern as someone trying to ramp several new players onto the system is that many of the big/famous battles/campaigns that appeal to my particular group are encompassed by the older titles. Like Phoenix indicated above, I too have noticed the 4.05 AI performance being as mixed as always on the older titles (and digging in makes it worse on the attack). Knowing this, I am not sure what to recommend to the group for our next title purchase as the group has aspirations of Network humans vs AI play as well as challenging solo games to play on their own (along with the network H2H we are currently enjoying). With that in mind, I think some rudimentary scripting cleanup (to 4.05 stds) of key, *popular* scenarios in *popular* older titles would be well-received. I’m sure the sales database could provide guidance on popular titles.