ME

[Crossroads]

RE: ME

I have mixed feelings about ME. I do like the Mediterranean terrain in ME more than the desert. Then again the temperate climate terrain has always been more appealing and reminds me more of my CS gaming roots on the Eastern Front than running across sand in the desert.

I do not like the organization function of the game in that no named leaders were included in the files. In fact I had to mod the leader name files using the old names from DG so I could have a LtCol named Al-Falid instead of LtCol  named 22 Infantry. I find that no leaders being included in upper echelon units is bothersome. I got spoiled with EF & WF.

I'm currently playing 2 PBEM's and possibly a third. Both 1973 era. By JTCS standards they are small scenarios 2-3. They are not bad but they are not sweeping tank actions on the Eastern Front either. For one thing the weapon systems had evolved so much over the years that kill ratios escalated dramatically by 1973. That's bad in a small sized scenario because one mistake or one critical unit loss and your done...major defeat.

I tend to like the 1967 and earlier scenarios because the tank busting technology was not there yet. Even if you still made a mistake in playing you had a chance to pull it out. After 1967, it  seems likes its kill-a-go-go!

You all know that I have been a big critic of the A/I over the years. I've often said if you improve the A/I you gain a thousand fold. Let's face it some gamers don't like PBEM all the time. Some like taking on the computer in a quiet corner of their home sipping on their favorite beer and halving a drag from a Salem gold. I see some improvement in the A/I with the adaptive A/I feature but for me personally its not enough soon enough. Over the years I have dominated the A/I and racked up major win after major win. What I am waiting for is to have an A/I that totally cleans my clock by halfway through the scenario. With that I can analyze where I went wrong, then I can say OK HAL, the gloves are off baby and lets get down to business!

I do like some of the new gaming features like Extreme Fog of War in that recon becomes very important with this optional rule. I also like the 2D graphics a bunch and a lot of work has been put forth to get them there. They are outstanding and I cannot wait to see what WWII will look like. I am not a 2D player by any means but the 2D graphics are pleasing to the eye. I may become a 2D player eventually if this excellent work continues forward.  A number of the in game highlighting features are a plus too. Like the new cursors, counter style, enhanced labels and elevation delta. These I feel are all positives.

I haven't given up on ME. I do generally believe for this game engine it is a step in the right direction. Sure there are some teething issues but one thing is for sure, there is a hell of a development team out there that is second to none. I can't wait to see what they will do with WWII. Will it ever out class East Front or West Front for me, I doubt it. My gaming roots go back to late 60's and early 70's when World War II was all that was available. I tend to gravitate back to where I am comfortable.

John

Thanks John. Regarding the AI; again the Adaptive AI will hopefully be an important key here. Yet it is early days as how all the parameters are best exploited especially in scenario-by-scenario basis. Regardless, AI often needs our help to be competitive. 

One trick I do when playing vs AI is I observe how it approaches the game, is it being too bold or too cautious. So for instance when I feel there'd be a good chance for an AI counter attack I first deactivate AI, then adjust its aggressiveness level accordingly, then activate AI again. It is a partial answer only, but at times it works a treat. 

Thank you for your kind comments! I often play vs AI as well. With a brew in my hand too! Don't smoke though.