Ah, but therein lies the genius: it was YOUR fault if shit hit the fan, and you're meant to learn from it for another attempt. I think if the AI had been more self-preserving, it would kind of defeat the purpose of all your meticulous planning. I think that was "the game" aspect of it and less a failure to replicate a unit thinking on his feet and removing agency from the player.Exactly that. My big issue was that the AI of your squaddies wasn't great so they could watch the dude in front of them get taken down and they'd make no attempt to evade or change tactics at all to prevent also getting shot. So your little squad of 3-4 guys could run into a trap and all get mowed down in a line like 4 turkeys getting headshotted in a row.
Of course, that's a copout; I know it's more likely technology wasn't there back in the late '90s to create complex AI in a 3D environment that could respond and react to my shitty planning. Like I said, I sucked hard at the game, but I've never had so much fun being not good at something.
Yeah, sad the concept has largely gone by the wayside, but I can see the appeal being niche by more modern standards, and not worth a developer's time. Though if someone were to try and make something similar today, I'd be on board to try.But the concept was wonderful. Planning out the entire assault, setting everyone up, hitting the start button and watching all the gears start turning at once.No drama or nonsense in the briefings, just "This is your job, this is the layout of the place to the best of our knowledge, pick your guys and try to make it work"