This seems like a basic question but how well do Invasion vs Invasion commander fights go? I'm currently doing a warfare-like mission where US Army controls all of southern Takistan and the Russians control the north split down the middle. I've had some real fun battles with this as both sides have 400 units (Active limiter is a frame rate saver) but I've seen some issues. The Ai commanders are so focused on the attack that once each side punches a hole through the frontline it just ends up as a bunch of troops in enemy territory with very little being done about it.

Has anyone ever done long term invasion on invasion commanders and do they eventually try to retake what they lose or will they just keep doing a blitzkrieg to the enemy base until one losses it's airport?

If anything I'll just switch the Russians to occupation but that kind of defeats the point of my mission.

Lol..... I just noticed after posting this I didn't have the military logistics of the blufor synced to the commander.. Maybe that's why he left holes in his defenses..

Ahh thanks that never occurred to me, I might also make the airfields a separate placement module since the AI seems to zerg for each other's airfield.. Not how I want the war to play out. I'll give Occupation commanders a try and if it's not the results I'm looking for Occ vs Invas will work well enough.

Tried occupation, they use less groups (Which is better) but they're still sending a large chunk of their force to a single objective. The high priority HQ must be the reason, I'm just going to make sure they don't know about each other's bases which should solve my problem.

(I feel dumb) I found out why my blufor commander wasn't defending the airfield.. I had so many modules clustered and synced together that I failed to notice the mil placement module wasn't synced to it's commander.. It spawned units but they didn't know there was an objective there to defend..