This game has issues

[Dimitris]

Ah, another anecdote then. Oh well. Have fun with the game 🙂

[CV32]

18 hours ago, Dimitris said:

Ah, another anecdote then. Oh well. Have fun with the game 🙂

I generally do, but this one pops up now and then (it does seem to be more prevalent with air to air missiles than with SAMs), it is an exercise in frustration.

I would have expected this one to have been tackled long ago, but bugs can be persistent little beasts.

[CV32]

Two curious AI behaviours that I have noticed repeatedly:

1. Scenario: Cruising along in a US Navy SSN (in this case, a late model Los Angeles aka San Juan class) at 14 knots. Detect a submarine contact ahead at >20 nautical miles that is soon classified as a Russkie Victor III cruising at similar speed on an apparent intercept course. I assume at this point that I was detected first, and so I immediately slow to creep speed (5 knots) and change depth. The Vic III matches the depth change. Presumably my signature has soon faded, but the pattern continues to repeat itself. While creeping, I change depth. The Vic III does likewise. Over and over again. Both are passive the entire time.

2. Scenario: Following an exchange of BVR air to air missiles, my fighters turn for home. I am pursued by the enemy. When I go to high altitude, and afterburner, the enemy goes low and military speed. When I go back to cruise speed, he climbs and turns on the burner. I can typically hold him at bay by repeating this pattern, and he can never close the distance.

[broncepulido]

On 3/12/2019 at 1:45 PM, CV32 said:

 

2. Scenario: Following an exchange of BVR air to air missiles, my fighters turn for home. I am pursued by the enemy. When I go to high altitude, and afterburner, the enemy goes low and military speed. When I go back to cruise speed, he climbs and turns on the burner. I can typically hold him at bay by repeating this pattern, and he can never close the distance.

Hahahahaha

[CV32]

Picked up the Desert Storm DLC. Two minor complaints:

1. It doesn't seem like a great deal of effort was spent on play testing and proof reading. Lots of little errors, including minor annoyances like typos, as well as things like generic loadouts (e.g. Walleyes, Walleyes everywhere) and inclusion of platforms that aren't historically accurate (e.g. IDF F-15I Raam with AIM-120B AMRAAM). Also seeing a few bugs that seem more scenario based than GE based (e.g. aircraft unable to return to their home base and forced to divert.)

2. The scenarios seem heavily weighted on the hypothetical rather than the historical. Entirely subjective, of course, but I would have preferred to see a more balanced mix of (a) focused, historically accurate (or, a best attempt, as I realize it is a tough job) and (b) hypothetical scenarios.

Side note:

The more I play Command, the more I realize just how close it is to traditional versions of Harpoon in many ways. For example, AI behaviour is pretty predictable (e.g. if I knock down a P-3F Orion patrol, another will launch to take its place ... and meet its demise in short order); serious detail is hard to achieve (e.g. rather than thousands of armored vehicles strewn across the desert, the game can only really model dozens); most scenarios follow the same pattern (e.g. if you can survive the worst the enemy has to offer, usually concentrated in a few predictable attacks, then it usually quickly becomes a battle of attrition.)

Scuds are easy to find, lol!