Commanderski

I've been doing a lot of playing around with the AI recently, and I thought I'd bore you all, and insult the developers, by describing what aspects of the AI I think work well, and what could be done to improve it.
A: Static defence
Firstly, in certain respects, the AI works extremely well.
For example, the simplest way to set up an AI plan in an attack/defend QB situation (Probe, Attack or Assault), which is the type of game I play the most (and therefore the type I am most interested in learning how to produce), is to set up several AI groups, and for each one paint the entire defender setup zone (or a big part of it), and then select a different behaviour for each group...
For example:
- group 1, ambush 1000m;
- group 2, ambush 300m
- group 3, cautious
- group 4, normal ...and so on
In an attack-defend scenario, this will give you a very good static defence, and with a suitable map, will give you a fun and challenging Quick Battle. The AI will allocate the groups very intelligently and will create an integrated network of defensive positions, there may be interlocked fields of fire, AT guns will be well sited, avenues of approach will be covered, and it may place units as bait. It seems to have an excellent 'understanding' of the relationship between terrain, objectives and setup zones.
It's incredibly easy for the map designer and works very well. As a map designer, it will also surprise you. Since all you're doing is painting big swathes of the map and inputting the full range of behaviours, you can happily play QBs on your own maps without any foreknowledge of what the AI is likely to do. Marvellous.
For years I avoided using the AI, because I thought the map designer had to think out all the strategies and (a) I wasn't confident in my strategic skills, and (b), what point would there have been when I wouldn't be able to enjoy the maps myself, knowing in advance what was going to happen?
But I was quite mistaken about just how sophisticated the AI is, and how easy it is to use.
If you do something as simple as this:

...you'll get a really good defence from the AI, but it will be a static defence.
 
B: Responsiveness
Planning an active defence, with displacement or counterattacks, or a realistic attack, is far harder. With QB maps, I've seldom seen either one work well. Occasionally they're quite fun and somewhat challenging, but most of the time - with QBs at least - an attack plan or active defence is a turkey shoot.
The reason for this, and the area where I would like to see improvements is in the AI response, or lack of response, to the actions of its opponent.
I have read comments over the years that programming a truly responsive AI is a Holy Grail that is more or less impossible, but (and this is the point at which I insult the developers), I wonder perhaps if that is true.
I can see the reason why it is so hard...
Imagine a map of 2000m2 - that's 62,500 action squares (250 x 250).

To calculate, at the level of the action square, what was happening on such a map (lines of sight, lines of fires, enemy presence and so on) would involve around 62,0002 or nearly 4 billion combinations of action squares - once a minute or more often.
But if the AI were to react in a more general way - say perhaps it 'observed' enemy movement on the level of 5 x 5 action squares...

A 2000 m2 map would comprise of 2,500 such 'AI action acres', which would mean around 6 million combinations to calculate approximate LOS and LOF.
Given that the AI does such a fabulous job on static defence with the under-the-hood algorithms it has, if the AI were just to react in a general way to the presence of enemy troops on an 'action acre', in a similar fashion to the way it incorporates objective zones and terrain in a static defence (seeking to mass fire on the enemy for units designated 'active', or backing away from massed enemy for troops designated 'cautious, perhaps), you would get a fantastic responsive AI.
The AI already has the capability to produce interlocking fire, keyholes and so on, but it would then be orienting these towards the player's units. Major movements would still be provided as an AI plan by the designer, but the AI would no longer be operating blindly or by clockwork.
In fact, seeing how well the AI produces an integrated static defence with the simplest of designer plans, it only needs to respond fairly generally to the presence of enemy units - anything more would be too much. If the AI were to continuously respond to enemy movements down to the level of the action square with the sophistication it uses to produce static defence, the game would become too difficult to play.
 

Soldiers from the Alarmeinheiten pass a downed friendly aircraft.  Thanks @Aquila-SmartWargames . 


 

+1  True    .  I would get a lot further with scenario design / game play if I didn't keep stopping to take screenshots.  There are just so many cool things that go on down at ground level with almost every fire team and every vehicle on every turn.  Its very cool that in WEGO you can rewind the action and follow a different fire team / vehicle.  But before you know it you've spent 20 RL minutes watching one minute of game play.      

Canister. 

Good luck Aragorn2002, I asked the same a week ago. I'm still waiting the answer.

What you get when you set your equipment quality to Poor.    (Because this is the internet -> That was a joke).

The current rail lines are somewhat curved (moreso than the roads).....I think that image might just be a case of seeing them at a particularly optimal angle.
That said, I always live in hope of more editor options, you really can never have too many! 

That Pak40 is looking really good. Shoot, the whole Fire & Rubble expansion has been very impressive to me. Just have to remain patient.

I suppose we all find the setting that we are comfortable with. "Iron" isn't for everyone, but I can't imagine playing the game any other way.

Just in case any of you beer maniacs enjoy a bit of winter fun in Russia... 
 
 

Sorry I don t want to offense anybody with my little joke, I wish like eveybody to have a knowleges of the date of the release, I found only the way funny that it was asking and the brutal answer giving, but I understand, I will be also very desappointed to revieve this answer for myself.
 
I was trying only to have a little smile of this forum, but the sens of humour dont seem to be present, or my answers never be of the level of the community. 😑 
 

Cold snow and hot fires.
Looking good...

This is not a big deal,have an upfront agreement not to do this, anyone who would (take advantage of this is ) to begin with is a moron, it would easily be found out at the end of the game when you see the tank crews bailed out and hiding in the back , or if you see them scouting? game is VOIDED, will you play him again? no.

This is the point of zeroing.
Because that is exactly what they are doing.
It's pretty pointless to compare real world data for Tiger 2 and ingame data for the Sherman 76 (Have you got a link or reference for the Tiger 2 accuracy stuff?) It would more useful to compare the ingame Sherman accuracy once zeroed to the Tiger 2 ingame accuracy once zeroed.
The Sherman gunner's main optic is 4x IIRC, so it looks even smaller! Im not 100% up on my Sherman fire control and gunnery mechanics, but I don't think firing the gun is going to change the gunner's point of aim... so why would the gunner voluntarily aim somewhere else once he's on target?

Finally... in theory you could increase the deviation to make the guns less accurate to simulate the gunner "shifting his aim" or "targeting different points of the tank", but
a) how do you know that BF hasn't already done this?
and b) It's such as an edge case. This setup- one tank plinking another 2000m which isn't allowed to shoot back on a flat map with no cover- is an accuracy test (which I understand is what you're testing) but it's not an accuracy test that takes into account likely battlefield conditions. What you're effectively testing is the maximum accuracy of the Sherman vs the Tiger 2, but there's no indication that this is relevant to actual gameplay. If the Sherman doesn't survive long enough or isn't exposed for long enough to get that maximum accuracy- or the Tiger 2 is smart enough to avoid getting plinked like this- then does it matter?

Well I was being humorous I think you all recognize,  but the point remains, the Battlefront team can't resist adding in more stuff to make BIG modules despite saying they won't do it ever again.

There's a new 'Germany' region. Standing basegame QB maps will change building facades (and other stuff) when you switch regions. Basegame QB map X set in July Russia will play quite different when its switched to Germany, February, during a heavy snowfall.

You guys keep saying you will never do a module like that again. It was said after Gustav Line, it was said while working on Rome to Victory, and now it's being said again. I bet you it gets said again for the Final Blitzkrieg module.

I believe placing a limit on the number of QB points is a way of ensuring the game won't crash and be overloaded by the additional processing/RAM power required (CPU and GPU). However, I  can not think of a sensible reason for why the game does not allow players the complete freedom to just manually determine the precise number of points each side should have in a QB.
Anyway, I was somewhat inspired by your telling of how you try to use the QB battles to configure battles to play out various battles in a user run H2H campaign, and have updated/enhanced my previously released "Bull's CM QB RATIOS" table (discussed in the thread QB Battle Force Points tables/charts) to Rev2.
I have now gone the final extra few yards and have now tabulated every possible combination of QB battle that is possible from CM QBs in one consolidated table, listing the QB force points allocated to both sides, the total of those points, the resultant force ratios, and of course all the QB parameter setup information required to achieve the battle of choice (battle type, size, force modifer).  Of course you need to be able to open the file in Excel (or equivalent) to filter and sort the table as you seem fit to find the battle setup you want.  Column values are colour formatted from smallest possible (green) to largest possible (red).
eg.  Preview of top of table sorted by force ratio (note: although only the five ME battles at the top of that list precisely give both players "even points" to spend ie. force ration of 1).  However, you can see that there are other battle setups which differ in points allocation by only a few percentage (ie. ratios between 1 and 1.1 (or between 0% and 10% points differential) which players may agree to consider irrelevant in setting up an otherwise "balanced points ME", if that is what they want.

This table alone should provide anyone everything they need to know about what is and what is not possible to achieve with the CM QB parameters, and how to achieve them.

Because they don't think we are capable of handling such great power.
 

Street fight.

Meanwhile at 2. Battalion Command Post.
Panzerfaust!! ..........quick....... where is the panzerfaust?!?!  It was leaning against the SitMap earlier!!  Find it!!  That's an Order!!!  


Please forgive me for leaving the floating icons turned on.  It was a stressful few minutes ................      

Nice shot🙂

A Schwimmwagen!!!!  Lets see it swim!!