James Ling

I've found that beating the AI when I was defending during an Attack battle is a little too easy. Imagine my suprise when I played a QB PROBE battle as defender and got a minor defeat. I did another and lost again! The AI seemed to be suddenly more subtle, cautious, and overall cleverer on the attack in a Probe battle than during an Attack battle. Question: Does the Strat/op AI adust to battle type instead of having simply one attack/defend mode? Is there a difference between the attacking AI in a Probe & Attack battle.....or were the 2 battles I've just played flukes?

Thanks

I was wondering this as the CMHQ chat is a bit hit and miss for getting a battle.

Thanks Steve for your attention on this subject. You've explained all very well. Forge ahead now with CM2 (esp the bit about removing assurance theres no reserves into the Strat AI planning!). PS: Got any rough ETA as to CM2 coming out?

Steve & Charles - The dayly casulty figures you quoted can't be argued with....but what proportion of those casulties were sustained though artillery during the WHOLE day, not just the 20-60 mins of actual engagement, which is the bit CM models. Thanks for the helpful revelation that global moral doesnt affect the Strat AI's planning. What I am seeing must be wholly the effect low GM & split-squads have on the Tac AI behavior of the infantry. The hightened Tac-AI self-preservation is worth including as an option as it does give a better game and simulation of battle behavior. I've gone on about results in my other posts so I'll just ask: Please give it a try on your testers who I'm sure will be satisfied and approve it as a patch.

BTS - Thanks for your reply. During my latest split-squad battle I used no FOW and observed that a couple of times the AI half squads reuniting through close proximity. A direct compasion between full and split squad Tac AI behavior was possible: The full squads advanced boldly upright into the incoming until 4/5 casulties forced them to break. The split squads hit cover as soon as they were fired on, returned fire and/or found better cover. The latter seems much more realistic and is also a greater challenge to play against. Twice as challenging in fact when your own men are just as prone to self-preservation as the enemy, you have to lead them that more carefully. The options to give full squads the existing Tac AI of the split squads and player/battle type defined global moral would improve CM both as a game (no more easy wins) and a simulation.

Just to let you all know I've now compleated 6 battles using split squads for higher infantry Tac AI self-preservation and a lower global moral. The overall results are still a good balence between caution and aggression together with more sensible infantry. The average losses on both sides are 10 - 30%. I haven't yet seen any suicidal moves like single squads charging at whole platoons, which is what used to happen. Overall I feel the game has become more challenging and realistic.

Your right Coralsaw. In fact its only been a two-off so far, I've played both sides of my experimental senario, with simlier outcome. I'll be glad to play more and report the results. As an OPTION in the game it would great if global moral could be set by the player/and or pre-set by the type of battle ie: an all out assault would have high GM where as a probe or meeting engagement would have a lower one. It would reflect the commitment of the commander and men to the objective, how far their willing to go. You dont expect a sensible enemy to take 70+% casulties in a probe engagement! It would also be wonderful if as an OPTION full squads could be given the existing Tac AI for split squads. The higher self-preservation and reactions of the split squads seem by far more realistic, more human, than the full squad. Combine the two and it really does work, the Infantry behave as realistically as the tank AI does now. BTS chaps what do you think of these suggestions, are they realistic ideas for a patch?

Very True Mr Bucket. I cant belive that ordinary Brits, regular guy GI's and German's who knew its really over would've taken such huge casulties. How did any of them survive to become veterens? Why do the wise battle hardened veterens do such suicidal things? I found in my experiment that the battle was like watching a vietnam news reel where the grunts spent most the time cowering then poping up to shoot. The strat AI seemed to give sensible orders: Short dashes while my men were supressed, dircting squads around concentrations of fire instead of into it. If global moral was lowered and Tac AI self preservation raised CM would go ultra-realistic. Judge for yourself with your own experiement fellow CM'ers. BTS - What is your view on this?

There certainly is.

Infantry battles in CM are good but not perfect. The AI is a bit too aggressive resulting in easy wins when you end up gunning down whole squads premeturly sent charging into the open. Casulty rates of 70% plus at the end of the battle for the other side are not uncommon. So I tryed an experiment to lower global moral with the aim of installing more caution in my AI opponant: I simply created a meeting engagement and split all the squads on either side in the set up. The global moral went down to 60% for both sides. Both opposing infantry companies were of approxamatly equal points. It was a sort of Turin test to see if the AI could prevail without weight of numbers against an experienced player. THE RESULTS: The AI won a marginal victory! As the global moral was 60% the Strat AI must have planned less aggressivly. The split squad Tac AI was also in play so individual self preservation was higher. Playing a cautious AI was actually harder more rewarding and more realistic than facing an aggressive one. I could really belive it was a real. Try it for yourself, the AI keeps its squads split and you must'nt cheat by reuniting yours. BTS - Could you consider lowering global moral and raising squads tac AI self preservation?

Third that!

OK - useing a hill crest as cover may not be SOP. But in battle you'd use any sort of cover when the bullets are flying! A hill crest, despite being skylined, is better cover than running into the incoming for some scattered trees. If cover can be used in reality then it should be simulated in CM. As it stands now it seems that the CM engine would have to be rebuilt to simulate the effects of terrian elevations on incoming direct fire . Ok, accepted. But to reduce the problemb could not the tac-AI be tweaked so squads on hill tops run in the OPPOSITE direction to the incoming taking themselfs out of los and out of danger? It seems the realistic alternative to going over the top of the hill and into greater danger. Tanks withdraw out los when facing a threat. Can't the same mechanics be used for infantry when the Tac-AI considers its options? [This message has been edited by James Ling (edited 09-13-2000).]

Sure this a sound tactic, an SOP. But it doesn't mean that no squad in WW2 ever used a hill crest in a firefight?

Yes, its a good tip, but I would prefer the infantry to behave realistically. I know the game engine probally can't be tweaked with a patch on this one. Still, there's always CM2!

Diceman-I've just done a quick test creating a battlefield of a ridge and placeing units below the crest, on it, on the exposed side and more inbetween. I got a reading of 75% exposure on all units except on those far down the reverse side which read out of los. Once the battle started the enemy of course abandoned the hill and got slaughtered moving towards the incoming fire to some scattered trees - whose exposure was 35%.

Yes, you've got the hang of it David mate! All you blokes have given some excellent views on the subject. But back to the original aim of my topic: Could BTS please comment on this important issue! [This message has been edited by James Ling (edited 09-11-2000).] [This message has been edited by James Ling (edited 09-11-2000).]

Bastables - A quick recap of the topic for the lazy: Men shooting from the crest of a well defined hill have their legs&bodies out of los of incoming direct fire - when under fire they can duck behind the skyline for total cover. Unfortunatly the game doesnt recognise this commanding position as cover and infantry so placed tend to run towards the incoming to any flimsy cover adandoning what in reality is a solid position. Why not go to your nearest hill top, lay down at the crest and imagine your fireing down at enemies below. If its a sunny day you may get a nice sun tan!

Dear Charles & Steve A few days ago I started up a topic about hill creast cover and it has had lots of agreement. For days now people have asked for your comments because the subject does need it - straight from the horses mouth so to speak.

Michlos - this is not a flying hamster - the situation you describe is perfectly correct. I opened this topic about direct small arms fire against the cover afforded to infantry by hill crests and also the reactions of those fired on inf being a bit unrealistic. I see this as a last bastion of innaccuracy in an otherwise near perfect game - one which I hope Steve & Charles will soon comment on and do somthing about. Hang on, Steve & Charles have got just about everything else covered - surely they must have looked at this issue, mayby there is some programming problem which prevents it from being done? Like wreaked viechals not blocking los issue. I'd really like to hear from the guys at BTS what is what. [This message has been edited by James Ling (edited 09-09-2000).]

Dear BTS I belive the issue of hill crest cover should be sorted out because it takes away a fundimental portion of cover used in reality by infantry. A soldier fireing from a hill crest is effectivly hull down - his body and legs are out of the firers los - if pinned the soldier can just duck behind the skyline for total cover. It would be strange not to include this factor in what is a brilliantly realistic game. Could not the los calculations used for tanks be used?

I have seen many times infantry who are covered by a hills crest come under direct fire and instead of ducking behind the skyline they abandon that solid position of cover/concealment/commanding view and actually run towards the incoming fire to the flimsy cover of say scattered trees. In all cases the incoming direct fire was from a direction & angle which could not hit the reverse sloap of the hill's crest. Is this a bug?

The warning lables to do with moral are really useful but the 'eliminated' 'abandoned' ect lables tend to get in the way especally later in a battle. Is there any way of taking those lables out while leaving wanted ones in? I had a quick look in the BMP files but its like finding a needle in a haystack! Can anyone tell me where they are so I can remove them? PS: I know what shift-G does.

In the game an HQ squad still retains all its leadership abilities even when down to 1 man and the odds against that 1 man being the CO himself is by then 6-1. The casulties within squads are ramdomly determed for weapon loss so I recon CO loss in HQ's should be too. With the loss of a CO the HQ should loose its leadership abilities but still retain a basic command radius (with an asterisk by the ex CO's name to indicate it). The leaderships abilities - stealth/combat/moral/command surly come from the personal qualities of the officer leading his men. I dont know how these qualities can be inherited by say the last surving radio operator. I just think it is an aspect of combat that has been left out and should'nt be too difficult to impliment in a patch. What do all you chaps out there think? PS:To BTS, sorry to sound like an angry headmaster, this is the best game I've ever played!

I can answer the 2nd question Jeff: In the map editor preview the map and you'll find both sides forces laid out in single lines. Just use the place order to position them within their zones.