Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Are there any articles/threads/AAR/dev blogs that can explain the AI in combat mission in detail? I am looking for something quite in-dept, as I am aware of the basic levels of AI like tacAI. operational AI and strategic AI. But I would like to delve deeper and understand it better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The engine manual and JonS's excellent scenario design AAR are probably the best place to start.

Pdf files of both come with the game and are well worth reading

P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pete Wenman said:

The engine manual and JonS's excellent scenario design AAR are probably the best place to start.

Pdf files of both come with the game and are well worth reading

P

Thanks for the info, however, I have already checked them out but i am eager to know more through AAR or other sources. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ridaz said:

I am looking for something quite in-dept, as I am aware of the basic levels of AI like tacAI. operational AI and strategic AI.

There's no operational and strategic AI in this game, there's just the TacAI and then the orders the scenario designer put into the scenario..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AI in this game is perhaps one of its weakest  points...Not that any other game does it better...but still...it is seriously lacking !

That is why i have been advocating for some major improvements for quite some time now...that is...MORE AI GROUPS !!!...(32 atleast)...

The AI have  ZERO understanding of the overall picture in a scenario. The AI have very limited understanding of the terrain concerning larger areas. The AI have very limited understanding of what the different unit does...How to use HMGs, how to use a light mortars, how to use an assultguns etc...

It's been my experience that the AI pretty much only sees each unit/team as a number of men...A sniper-team is 2 men, a HMG team is 4 men, a squad is 8 men, a panzer schreck team is 2 men for example... It does not really matter what kind of team it is...The AI does not understand how to use it...

If the scenario designer puts an infantry platoon, a HMG team and a light mortar-team into an AI-Group and gives them an advance orders...They will do so...They will advance...

But they will not do it very visely...The machinegun team and the mortar team will NOT set up a base of fire possition to support the assulting units...They will just TAG ALONG...treated as a number of men...not taking into account their ability/limitation as heavy weapon teams...

 

Please , please, please !!! 

give us 32 AI-Groups...It is absolutely neccesary to get the AI to perform somewhat intellegently...

In a PLAYER attack scenario 16 AI-Groups might be enough for most circomstances...but in an AI attack scenario it most certanly is NOT !!! 

The AI needs HELP !!! to perform somewhat cleverly...

In a well designed scenario the AI can be a challange...Yes, absolutelly !...but 95 percent of those scenarios are... PLAYER ATTACK scenarios.

On the defence 16 AI-Groups might be enough in many situations...but on the attack...no, no, no !!! 16 AI-Groups will not do it...It is simply not enough...

The evidence is pretty obvious...The number of AI attack scenarios avaliable is very limited....The number of GOOD/CHALLEGING attack scenarios is even fewer.

 

please, please, please !!! give us 32 AI-Groups...The improvements to vs AI gameplay will be MASSIVE !

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, RepsolCBR said:

The AI in this game is perhaps one of its weakest  points...Not that any other game does it better...but still...it is seriously lacking !

That is why i have been advocating for some major improvements for quite some time now...that is...MORE AI GROUPS !!!...(32 atleast)...

The AI have  ZERO understanding of the overall picture in a scenario. The AI have very limited understanding of the terrain concerning larger areas. The AI have very limited understanding of what the different unit does...How to use HMGs, how to use a light mortars, how to use an assultguns etc...

It's been my experience that the AI pretty much only sees each unit/team as a number of men...A sniper-team is 2 men, a HMG team is 4 men, a squad is 8 men, a panzer schreck team is 2 men for example... It does not really matter what kind of team it is...The AI does not understand how to use it...

If the scenario designer puts an infantry platoon, a HMG team and a light mortar-team into an AI-Group and gives them an advance orders...They will do so...They will advance...

But they will not do it very visely...The machinegun team and the mortar team will NOT set up a base of fire possition to support the assulting units...They will just TAG ALONG...treated as a number of men...not taking into account their ability/limitation as heavy weapon teams...

 

Please , please, please !!! 

give us 32 AI-Groups...It is absolutely neccesary to get the AI to perform somewhat intellegently...

In a PLAYER attack scenario 16 AI-Groups might be enough for most circomstances...but in an AI attack scenario it most certanly is NOT !!! 

The AI needs HELP !!! to perform somewhat cleverly...

In a well designed scenario the AI can be a challange...Yes, absolutelly !...but 95 percent of those scenarios are... PLAYER ATTACK scenarios.

On the defence 16 AI-Groups might be enough in many situations...but on the attack...no, no, no !!! 16 AI-Groups will not do it...It is simply not enough...

The evidence is pretty obvious...The number of AI attack scenarios avaliable is very limited....The number of GOOD/CHALLEGING attack scenarios is even fewer.

 

please, please, please !!! give us 32 AI-Groups...The improvements to vs AI gameplay will be MASSIVE !

 

 

 

 

Erm... they actually added to 32 AI groups since 4.0 engine 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ridaz said:

Erm... they actually added to 32 AI groups since 4.0 engine 

I think its 16 different AI groups that can be given up to 32 orders each, IIRC.  More terrain objectives would = more triggers.  This would be cool also. 

Edited by MOS:96B2P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MOS:96B2P said:

I think its 16 different AI groups that can be given up to 32 orders each, IIRC.  More terrain objectives would = more triggers.  This would be cool also. 

OIC well that's quite a shame, but I am still impressed by the AI though. In other games once u played with the AI enough times, Then regardless of maps or mode, the AI will be predictable. However in this game every map/scenario has a different AI personality and always keep me guessing. It would be nice if they can improve the AI or even better, make it use dynamic AI plus the directive AI. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a bit beside the point to keep asking for more AI groups to fix the AI. It's a bit like saying WE NEED MORE HORSES... when what you really need is a truck maybe.

As I see it (after some experience building scenarios) is that we need the game to interpret AI orders orders in a better way. When given an advance order, the units will just run towards the designated destination. If each team made a short (30 sec) stop each time they reached a place of cover (hedge, low wall, etc.), the order would be massively more useful. It wouldn't mean the AI would suddenly start acting like a world class player, but it would make it much easier for a designer to make the AI attack in a reasonably believable way.

As it is, we can use an assault AI order (not the same as the assault command in the game), which makes the units of the group move in bounds, but the individual legs of the bounds are way too long, so units can't suppoirt each other, and no attention is given to cover along the way, which means units will happily run straight past a place of cover and then hunker down in the open field 30 metres ahead.

Currently, the only way to do a sort of workable AI attack is to very carefully use a lot of individual move orders to micromanage exactly where each AI unit will end up and for how long, and then sculpt the landscape of the map to make sure the odds are stacked against the player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think it's a bit beside the point to keep asking for more AI groups to fix the AI.

Here we have to disagree...;)

A good way to solv the very problem you mention above would be to give the desiger more AI Groups.

I'm pretty sure that this would be far easier to program compared to getting the AI units to act in a more belivable way by their own...To get a more human-like AI the computer controlled units would need to have a better understanding of what each unit does...how to do it...when to do it...why to do it...The AI would need to be able to interpret the terrain to a far greater degree in order to be able to use it to its advantage...both the terrain 'under its feet' as well as the over all terrain situation...What kind of impact will that hill 150m of to the west have on the movement across this field...for example. The AI would need to have a better understanding of both what other friendly and enemy units are doing right now and might be doing soon...

Getting the AI to have this kind of awareness would be a massive undertaking to program...It would be far easier to program additional AI Groups...

Let us scenario desigers HELP the AI a bit more :)...It needs it...

Having more AI Groups would not neccesarely complicate scenario designing imo. It would require more work to program...yes...but it would most likely cut down on the playtesting and subsequent tweaking quite a bit...The designer will have a far greater chans of getting the AI Groups to perform as he wish first time out if he can keep them smaller.

A small example...An infantry platoon with a machinegun attached advances down a street...

Have them in one AI-Group...the designer would have very limited controll of wich team moves where, when they move, what they do when they reach their next waypoint etc...

Splitting this platoon up into maybe 3 or even 4 AI Groups would give the scenario designer the ability to make sure that the advance up the street is well timed and coordinated...The machinegun could be placed to suppress (area fire) suspected targets up ahead and provide direct fire against any enemy that shows itself. The squads could be ordered to advance up the street on both sides (without zig-zagging across the open street to get to the next waypoint) at a pace and intervall that the scenario designer seems fit. The squads could also be ordered to area fire at certain objects as they go along if desired. The HQ team could be held back at a sutable distance to be able to maintain C2. At the right time the machinegun team could be brought forward to their next supporting possition...

Things like these ...:) More AI Groups would help imo

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, RepsolCBR said:

'm pretty sure that this would be far easier to program compared to getting the AI units to act in a more belivable way by their own...To get a more human-like AI the computer controlled units would need to have a better understanding of what each unit does...how to do it...when to do it...why to do it...

My point is that we would not need to go that far. Just making the AI stop and take a pause when it passes some good cover would be very useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I would like to assign an AI group to each individual vehicle if I could mainly for collision avoidance and coordinating movements through forest tiles, and leap frogging way points, when linear destinations are required. There are some good work arounds. Such as dropping the same number of destination tiles as there are vehicles in the group, works in most terrain except forest.

I should mention I use dash often ( except at choke points or where combat is imminent) so all vehicles move at once to respond quickly if required, but there is a higher affinity for vehicles to go into the collision routine if the destination tiles are not set to the optimum location. It takes testing to determine which waypoints work the best.

 

 

Edited by nik mond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nik mond said:

 I would like to assign an AI group to each individual vehicle if I could 

 

 

Me too...many of the times.

It gives far better controll of how tha AI behaves when it comes to maintaining formation, leap frogging, timing and choosing god fighting possitions etc...

Sure...the AI will do a somewhat decent job controlling a platoon sized AI Group consisting of a few tanks...It is no disaster by any means :)

but it is 'that Little extra' that may not work as the designer wants it to...sometimes the right flank tank in a formation decides to move over to the left flank of the formation when moving through a number of waypoints for example...This usually is not the best of ideas...If the AI is left in controll of the entire platoon the leap frogging might not be conducted in the way the designer want it to...the fighting possitions enroute might not be choosen according to the designers wishes etc...

Being able to controll each tank individually pretty much removes these problems...The designer will be able to get the tank platoon to perform as he intends them to...

even the finer details :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with 32 AI Groups! I am always designing AI with a combination of units I really do not want together... simply because I have run short of AI groups. 8 was severely restrictive, 16 is only slightly better. However, 32 would be outstanding! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One question that I've never got straightened out in my own head.....Do vehicles & their passengers always have to be in the same AI group?

I could set an experiment up in the editor, I know, but I'm kinda busy right now.....So if anyone already knows the answer (which I strongly suspect is the case), I'd appreciate a heads up.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

One question that I've never got straightened out in my own head.....Do vehicles & their passengers always have to be in the same AI group?

 

No ! they do not...:)

I did a scenario in CMRT in wich i used T34s and tankriders (different AI-Groups)...The tanks where their own AI Group and the tankriders...also their own...

The tanks could be help back ones the tankriders had jumped of to provide support when the infantry moved forward...

I'd be suprised it doesn't work the same way with trucks, halftracks etc...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AI groups at 16 limit the editor. As in the previous post a company of tanks (3 Platoons) receive A2, A3, A4... the riding infantry company (3 Platoons) would be A5, A6, A7..... Now, if you design the scenario with a command section A8, then you have essentially used half of your editor allotment of groups. This also is a waste of units in these groups. When I design my scenarios I often use two groups per platoon. So, my riding infantry company would be A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, and A10. Also, any support weapons would be A11, A12 (Mortars, Heavy Machine guns). A1 is static positions. What I am saying is, I use 12 groups for a company of tanks and infantry. If I had another company of tanks and infantry I would need 23 groups to effectively design my scenario the way I would like to. I fail to complete most of my scenarios because I can't get my units to do what I want them to.... simply because of the group restriction. In fact, most of my scenarios are about the size of Battalion on the computer side.... I can't believe I am the only one having this issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ThePhantom said:

AI groups at 16 limit the editor. As in the previous post a company of tanks (3 Platoons) receive A2, A3, A4... the riding infantry company (3 Platoons) would be A5, A6, A7..... Now, if you design the scenario with a command section A8, then you have essentially used half of your editor allotment of groups. This also is a waste of units in these groups. When I design my scenarios I often use two groups per platoon. So, my riding infantry company would be A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, and A10. Also, any support weapons would be A11, A12 (Mortars, Heavy Machine guns). A1 is static positions. What I am saying is, I use 12 groups for a company of tanks and infantry. If I had another company of tanks and infantry I would need 23 groups to effectively design my scenario the way I would like to. I fail to complete most of my scenarios because I can't get my units to do what I want them to.... simply because of the group restriction. In fact, most of my scenarios are about the size of Battalion on the computer side.... I can't believe I am the only one having this issue. 


You are most certanly not alone...but i think that this limitation primarely shows itself when designing AI-attack scenarios.
Not very many people seems to be doing this. Maybe because of this very reason...to few AI-groups. We can't get the AI to perform good enough...
 
If the player commands something like a company sized force in a defensive scenario then the attacking AI will pretty much need a battalion sized force to provide any kind of challange.
If we limit ourself to only using one AI group/platoon in this battalion attack we will still need something like 12 - 15 AI Groups.
 
( 3 companies with 4 platoons each ( 3 X inf.platoon plus 1 X hvy weapons platoon)) equals 12 AI-groups plus one or a few extra for battalion support weapons (on map mortars for example).
 
This leaves pretty much nothing left for supporting armour, some halftracks maybe, recon untis, breach units, reinforcements etc..
 
Having an entire platoon in each AI-group is not even good enough in many situations imo. It has been made even  more apparent now in V4.0 that includes the ability for the AI to use areafire...
 
The AI will not do so on it's own (as far as i know). The designer needs to give the AI-group that order at each waypoint.
Sure...You can give an entire platoon of infantry or tanks ( 1 AI-group) an area fire order...no problem ! But this might not be what you want.
 
You want PARTS of the platoon to area fire at a designated area while the other part moves forward...
Simple solution ! use 2 AI-groups/ platoon. Now one group could provide suppresive fire while the other moves forward. much better !
 
You might want to split the platon into 3 AI-groups to better control the advance and have the ability to area fire at two different locations as the third teams moves forward.
 
Other examples. Some platoons contains their own light mortars (brittish). Keeping this mortar team in its own AI group to provide some indirect fire (area fire command) while the rest of the platoon ( a seperat AI-group) advances would be a good thing.
 
Some platoons might have attached bazooka/schreck teams. It might be a good thing to keep these in seperate AI-groups. Some might have breach teams etc.
 
Using only one AI/platoon is very limited imo. Having the freedom to use more would be a fantastic improvement in epspecially AI attack scenarios.
I really hopes this will happen !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posting to add my support to what RepsolCBR, ThePhantom, and others are saying about the current 16 AI Group limit. Expanding the number of groups to 32+ is my top choice for new Editor features by a mile. Others have detailed the issue, so I won't go into them again in this post.

The design of my scenario, The Radzy Award, faced exactly these issues when being made. So, if you want to play a defensive scenario against an attacking AI (that uses extensive AI Area Fire), please check it out. If you're a designer, playing it and then analyzing how I dealt with AI Groups and the AI plan might be a useful experience.

(BTW, the scenario was released mid-July and has had 170 downloads. However, I have received flat zero feedback on it and no ratings. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

You made more scenarios than that one :)

Yeah, I've got a few floating out there. One even made it onto the livestream back when the Vehicle Pack came out for CMBN. I think all them besides TRA are H2H-only, though. I make a lot of SP stuff for myself, but just play and delete it.

Edited by Macisle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×