SteveP
-
Posts
427 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by SteveP
-
-
From my reading of posts in this forum, I have gotten the impression that a lot of players have unrealistic expectations about what the AI "should" be able to do, and/or have exaggerated ideas of what the AI is able to to do already (for example, thinking that the AI can do calculated ambushes).
BFC has invested most of their AI programming skill in development of the TacAI. The TacAI is designed to make all of the decisions about where and when to direct fire, and handles all of the reactions of the units when under fire or when threatened. It does not deal with movement (except for covered panics and routs). IMHO, the TacAI makes relatively few "stupid AI tricks," but that as you go up the ladder in the AI system, you start to run into more of those tricks. My understanding and expectation is that in CM2, the TacAI will be even more complex and powerful, but that there will be little change to the other components of the AI -- other than, I gather, some ability to respond to scripted "values" that designers can build into scenarios.
I think it is a good thing, if you are going to play the AI, to have a pretty detailed understanding of how it works, even though that may give you an advantage. Otherwise, you won't know if you are winning because you've learned good tactics, or because you are knowingly or unknowingly taking advantage of the AI's limitations.
-
Keep in mind that the AI is basically a "path-finding" method. That is, it's looking for covered routes that get its units closer to the flags. AFV create a greater problem for the AI, because they don't have as many terrain options for cover (for example, they can't go into rough terrain to protect themselves. For them, it's mostly woods and, even more important, reverse slopes. If the AI does see any good ways to move AFVs forward, while minimizing the time spent in the open, there's a good chance it won't.
That may or may not explain what you saw. I don't know, for example, why the carriers moved up, but the AI may consider speed and profile in deciding what is safe to move or not.
-
Ok, so I did my own little test and it does seem that AFVs, at least, don't get any real camouflage protection against aircraft, when in scattered trees (much less any other sort of terrain). The test involved a non-moving PZIV in a defensive setup. Don't know how relevant that is to CMSF, but might be something to look at if and when they get back to WW2.
Of course, I have no idea whether the modeling for close air support in CM is very realistic in any event. I've always treated it like a kind of wild card that adds a element of uncertainty to a battle situation.that might otherwise seem cut-and-dried.
-
I haven't played a lot of scenarios with aircraft, so I don't have much of an intuitive feel for how easily aircraft spot AFVs or any other units that haven't moved. However, I think it's fair to say that AFVs and other units that are in the open (which I think includes infantry in foxholes) are pretty easily spotted by aircraft. Maybe that's not appropriate -- I'll leave that to the grogs to offer opinions about. Whether AFVs are easily spotted when they are in trees is unclear. It would be interesting to know if someone has tested for that.Originally posted by mav1:By the way, why can't afv's be invisible at the start of the game if they are camouflage. That was the point I was trying to make SteveP. If you are on the defensive, totaly outnumbered and have worse tanks that your opponent then why wouldn't you try to coamouflage your afv's to give yourself an advantage.The germans relied on a lot of camouflage towards the end of the war, so that they could ambush there more numerous enemy's. Also to make it harder for aircraft to spot them.
As to your other concern, all my testing indicates that AFVs do get a camouflage bonus, like other units, at the start of a battle, which they lose if they move. However, they have to be deeper in or further behind cover than infantry to be invisible (a good rule of thumb, I think, is one tile back in scattered trees). Also, the profile of the AFV is a factor in how deep they need to be. If you think that AFVs ought to be invisible when they are just a meter or two within scattered trees, for example, the way that infantry can be, then again that's something for the grogs to weigh in on. But there's no need for them to be there, in order to be effective at ambushing.
-
OK, that might be workable, and it would be something that could be easily programmed into the TacAI, I think. If that's the way it works, then I think it would work best for players who are generally willing to let the TacAI alone, rather than constantly wanting to micromanage all the actions as much as possible. But that's a matter of personal taste rather than a fundamental problem in the design of the game. It will be interesting to see what actually comes out.Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:I'm pretty sure that's how it would work too, i.e. that each unit has it's own list of spotted targets and any others simply don't show up when you select that unit. I would assume, however, that you will still be able to see all known enemy targets in some mode, perhaps by deselecting all of your units.
-
I have to admit I haven't followed every "bones" thread and related posts, so you may be right. That being said, I would be skeptical that the game will have that level of complexity. After all, how would that really work in practice? Would it work like this: you click on one of your units and an enemy unit pops into view (because you happened to click on the unit that actually spotted the enemy unit) and then you click on another of your units and the enemy unit disappears (or maybe there's an icon??)? Do you then have to click around among your units, watching the enemy unit appear and disappear, as you figure out who can fire?Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:I think the "god" problem will also be addressed in a limited sort of way by only allowing area fire against unspotted targets, even if they have been spotted by other units. If it was me coding this, I'd have area fire have some level of unpredictability about it as well - kind of like an arty strike going off target - and also maybe limitations on it if the firing unit is aware of friendlies near the targeted area (reduced number of bursts, chance of disobeying the order, that kind of thing). [/QB]
Or is it that you aren't allowed to target the enemy unit (Target or Next Target), if your unit hasn't spotted him. Except that you won't know if it's because there's a blockage in the LOF or because of the delay in spotting. So does that mean they have to come up with a new tool or a modified targeting tool, which you would have to check each time, for each unit, to find out if the problem is delayed spotting, or an LOF blockage?
And, in any event, it won't matter that much, because you will be able to give appropriate orders (advance, covered arc, orientation) to ensure that units which haven't spotted the enemy unit right away, will do so pretty quickly. So why would you want to authorize that area fire, when you might be in a position to deliver direct fire a few seconds later?
So, allowing once again that I may have missed the relevant "bone," my guess is that nothing very dramatic will be done about the "god" problem, since that problem can't be solved by reprogramming the TacAI.
One idea that would work in that context would be to build in more of a delayed reaction from the TacAI. At minimum, relative spotting means that the TacAI considers spotting on a unit by unit basis, just as it now gives firing orders. The player then tries to intervene and give direct firing orders to units which did not open fire (because they hadn't spotted the enemy themselves). The TacAI accepts that order, but delays executing the order until the firing unit in question actually spots the enemy. This would work similarly to what happens when you send an AFV around the corner of a building, while at the same time giving it an order to fire at an enemy AFV that it can't yet see. Only in the solution I'm proposing, movement by your unit isn't involved -- just a delay until the target is fully acquired. All that could be handled quite easily by the TacAI (which also means that it would be compatible with the way the AI as a whole works). Maybe the targeting line could have a different color so that you know there is going to be delay while your unit tries to spot the target.
-
I'm not sure I understand exactly what the issue is. AFAIK, everything except AFVs, when on defense, are invisible to the attacker at the start of a battle, assuming they have any sort of cover/concealment at all. And AFVs certainly can be put into positions for ambushing in most cases. Is the objection that large guns are too easily spotted at range once they open fire? Is it that they are too easily spotted by aircraft? It sounds like the objection is that large guns and AFVs get spotted even when they don't fire, at a greater range than mav1 thinks is appropriate. I wonder what he would consider to be more appropriate. My own experience is that you will spot the trench or foxhole much sooner than the weapon occupying it, if it doesn't open fire first.
Also, I'm unclear on how the shift to relative spotting will solve this problem (if it is a problem). This shift doesn't change the "god" problem. If one of your units spots a concealed defender, you will know it is there, and can give your orders accordingly. AFAIK, the only thing the shift to relative spotting does, is prevent the instant reaction from all the other friendly units firing at an enemy unit that has just been spotted by one of them. In effect, it's just a reprogramming of the TacAI.
-
I also think people may be over-complicating what is going on when CM does combat results calculations. I don't think it is any more sophisticated than FP modified by the exposure of the unit being fired on, further modified by a randomizing factor, with the result compared to some probability values (which vary by the experience level of the unit being fired at) for casualties and/or morale effects. The system doesn't care if the FP is coming from an HMG, a squad, or an HQ. If it really is easier to advance against a lone HMG vs a squad/HQ combination, it is probably because in the latter case there are two units firing rather than one (which means more FP "bursts" are going out in any given turn), or that the HQ has combat bonuses which make the squad's FP higher at short range than the lone HMG can deliver.Originally posted by flamingknives:Mr. flamingpicky would like to point out that both features are already in the CMX1 engine. Certainly there's a significant morale modifier to troops fired on from ambush, and Green troops are easier to kill that Vets etc.
-
Sgt. Kelly: Glad to see that someone is still trying to fight the good fight, even though responding means I have to repeat a few things.
I'm not sure why people are having trouble with this one, but it's certainly worth trying again:I don't see the need to postulate an 'in-turn' unhide command for the AI but unavailable to the human player, since its behaviour can be explained fully by known properties of the TacAI. I.e. unhiding is influenced by unit experience and being in command (but not by covered arcs, which I agree with Steve are too sophisticated to be used by the AI).If the behavior is the result of the TacAI doing what it normally should be doing, then it will do it whether it's for units in my control or for units in the computer's control.
Let me put that another way: if the computer's units are unHiding because the TacAI is reacting to something and making them unHide, then the TacAI will have the same reactions and take the same actions for the units in my forces. That is what I expected to see. When I didn't see that is what led to this investigation (after I replaced CMBB and did a bunch of other unnecessary stuff, as mentioned before
)Now if someone wants to postulate that the TacAI works differently for the computer than it does for the player, then that's fine. I don't think so. Moreover, I think it's a distinction without a difference (or is it the other way around. Oh, well).
If you think that the AI actually tries to keep platoons together, you are playing a different version of the AI than I am.The AI seems to pay some attention to command for units that have an organic HQ. I.e. it can deploy a platoon in such a way as to have all or at least most squads in command of the HQ. The AI does not know how to put units that do not have their own HQ under the control of others.Thus, things like MGs and guns often, but not always, find themselves out of command and will therefore be more prone to breaking fire discipline. This explains some of the randomness observed. The rest is caused by the randomness of spotting itself, which is probably quite high for a hidden unit.
But that's neither here nor there for purposes of this thread. Happy to stipulate to that. Let me say, however, that when I first discovered the odd behavior, the same idea occurred to me, and in fact, one of the first things I tested was whether having the MG (to use the same example) in command made a difference. It didn't. I also tried it by putting some other friendly units in the area (maybe the MG was lonely and pining in the bottom of its trench). No effect.Let me also say what I've said before, I have now seen this behavior in a very wide range of scenarios/QBs, without exception.
Also, and again I don't know why this isn't sinking in: spotting has nothing to do with it. If it were that simple, this thread wouldn't exist. Yes, hiding does reduce spotting ability to some extent (which is another reason why this is a stupid AI trick), but not that much. And besides all the tests I did were designed to eliminate spotting as an explanation. When I control the MG and give it a hide command, it will spot the enemy units. Every time. Therefore, when the computer is controlling the MG, it is spotting the units. Every time. Unless of course, BFC decided to give the AI a handicap in that regard, and wouldn't that be a hoot!
Don't get too hung up on trying to explain away one single test case. That particular test, among others, was designed to put to rest the notion that this behavior could be explained by covered arcs. Yes, you are correct, if the MG is green, he will open fire before the green squads get to the trench. That is, as you recognize, because the TacAI is programmed to make them get trigger happy when they are closely threatened. However -- and let me emphasize this -- this behavior by the TacAI works the same and with the same consistency whether or not the MG is being controlled by the computer or by me!This explains your example of the green platoon charging the crack MG.This behavior -- the fight or flight reaction, if I can call it that -- does not explain the randomness which occurs at a range of 300m, say. And even if it did, it should do it the same for computer as for me. And it doesn't. It's really as simple as that.
First of all, the AI's units are quite invisible whether or not they are hidden. You can test that for yourself by playing a scenario hot seat, if you want to be absolutely convinced. After all, when you play defense, do you hide your units? If so, you should reconsider (unless of course you are laying an ambush where you want the enemy to get particularly close). CMBB actually made this protection for defenders stronger than it was in CMBO (I think even the user manual says something about a presumption of camouflage for defenders).I would say the most likely reason the AI hides all its units on turn 1 is to limit damage from opening barrages. They probably came up with that for CMBB, where it would matter to an Axis AI which doesn't know any better but to control the flags by deploying on top of them and faces a human player with oodles of cheap heavy artillery at his disposal.Second, the behavior started with CMBO. It wasn't added in CMBB -- like the AI's exemption from command delay, which probably was because of the change that caused waypoints to incur delay.
Don't know if this is true or not, but I don't have any quibble with it. I think the AI shouldn't be hiding them in the first place.The AI could also hide its units during the setup phase, but then it passes up the chance to spot any enemy units that are visible right off the bat. With that, the AI would waste its best chance of using its artillery effectively, which is pre-planned against units spotted right after the setup phase.
If this were true, this thread wouldn't exist. The computer does unhide its units in a way that is different than the TacAI does for the human. Too repeat the point one more time: if the player gives his units a Hide order it will stay hidden until one of two things happens: the player unHides the units at the beginning of a subsequent turn, or the unit is threatened by the close proximity of an enemy (the definition of "close" varying by the experience level of the hidden unit certainly, but never as far away as 300m). However the computer is able to unHide its units for some third reason and it is able to do this in real time.Subsequent unhides are handled by the TacAI as they would be for a human player who did not give any orders to his units.And by the way, did I mention that the computer can also give units new move orders in the middle of a turn???
So, there we go folks. Happy to stay in the batter's box on this one. Does anyone have a different sort of curveball they want to throw?
-
Withholding fire with a covered arc (or a Hide command for that matter) because you don't want to prematurely give away your position is, to my mind, one of the definitions of an ambush -- which is what covered arcs are primarily for. Keep in mind, though, that there is also the possibility of relying too much on ambushes. Just one of the dangers is that you are letting enemy troops get closer to your own troops than they otherwise could, or at least sooner and packing more heat. Your FP may be greater at the closer range, but so is the enemies'.Originally posted by Mudhugger:You have not given away your position and since squads rarely attack alone, on the next turn you can pull your arc back. Thus giving the juicy squad a pass in an attempt to catch the entire platoon in the open. Or you can open fire on them immediately, you still have the drop on him.
As for your point about the benefit of feeling like you are in control: perfectly fine. It's your game. Enjoy it.
-
One of the things I’ve been trying to figure out is why the AI is designed to give an automatic Hide command to its units when on defense. My first theory was that when they were designing CMBO, Steve and Charles thought this would be more or less SOP for everyone playing the game (the text in the user manuals suggests that), and they wanted as much as possible for the AI to be following “good” tactics.
However, I now have a different theory that I like better. It goes something like this:
One day, Steve and Charles are discussing the problem of making the AI into a satisfying opponent.
“You know,” says Steve, “the Ambush command is one of the best game play features we’ve come up with, but unless we get the AI to use it, players are going to feel like there’s not much excitement for them in the game.”
“Of course,” says Charles, “but you know I’ve tried everything I could think of in the way of an algorithm that would get the AI to use that command in some reasonably sensible and consistent way. I could spend the next ten years doing that, and I might never get it to work.”
“No, no, that’s no good. We have to eat, after all. What we need is something that will feel like being ambushed to the player, without actually making the AI use the Ambush command,” Steve says. “How about this? Suppose we have the AI automatically Hide its units when on defense. Then when they do start firing, it will seem like the fire came out of nowhere.”
Charles shakes his head. “Won’t work. The AI is programmed to unHide any units as soon as they have LOF to an enemy, so that the TacAI can evaluate whether or not to fire. And since the AI is playing in Real Time …”
“Shhh,” says Steve, looking around the room. “I’ve told you never to say that. You know how paranoid gamers are. As soon as they find out that the AI is playing in you-know-what, we’ll get all sorts of complaints about how the AI is cheating and every other kind of nonsense.”
“Alright, already. Don’t be such a nag about it. I was just going to say that because the AI is playing in you-know-what, the AI will give the unHide command immediately every time. The effect would be no different than if the AI hadn’t given the Hide command in the first place.”
Silence settles on the room, as the two ponder this dilemma. Then Steve says, “I’ve got it. The Hide command would be given only once during a battle, at the very beginning. Therefore, the unHide command is given only once. What if we put a random factor – a big one – into the rule that the AI uses to trigger an unHide order. Then the first time a player comes into LOF of AI units, there will be lot of unpredictability in the way that the AI appears to respond. Players will jump to the conclusion that the AI is setting ambushes.”
Charles nods. “I like it. It won’t matter that the AI is reacting sometimes in ways that don’t make a lot of sense tactically, because the players won’t realize it and it will only happen once in a battle.”
Steve nods too, looking particularly satisfied. “Yeah. I bet it will be years before anyone comes along who figures out what’s really going on.” After that the two return to haggling over the unresolved issue of how best to split the enormous profits from the game, once it’s published.
The End.
-
Yeah, while I didn't think it was picking on me, I did (as I mentioned in another post) actually think my system was broken -- which amounts to a nasty AI trick in my book.Originally posted by kawaiku:Hey SteveP.....maybe the AI is just picking on you!? And if the AI is playing in real time, it is either a)you are really kicking its butt and needs a little help or b)you beat it soo much that it plays in RT to try and make it a little even! In my case it doesn't have to because Im getting smeared all over the map most of the time.
It was actually the behavior caused by the Hide command and another behavior (the fact that the AI is exempt from command delay) that made me think this. I ended up spending a lot of time before I figured out that BFC hadn't been (how shall I put this?) thoroughly comprehensive when addressing the question of whether the AI played the game differently than we do.In any event, the programming for the TacAI is IMHO impressive, and obviously the pride and joy of its designers. To the extent that you are playing a scenario or QB in which the OpsAI and StratAI aren't doing much of anything, the computer can be a pretty satisfying opponent. That's why the AI is stronger when on defense, because the only thing the OpsAI and StratAI do is orient the units in the direction of the enemy and -- and this often proves to be a stupid AI trick -- "organize" a counterattack when it loses control of a flag. When the computer is the attacker or it's a meeting engagement, the OpsAI and StratAI have a lot more to do, and things can break down pretty quickly -- especially if the AI's side has a lot of ground they have to advance across before the actual combat starts.
-
Yes that is pretty much what I am saying. What you are doing when using covered arcs that way is sub-optimizing the performance of your troops, at least most of the time. You seem to think that the TacAI will open fire indiscriminately whenever it sees an enemy unit, no matter what the range or cover the enemy unit is in. A little testing will show you that this is not the case. The TacAI only opens fire when calculations show that the probability of causing some damage to the enemy unit is above some threshold value that's embedded in the code (and keep in mind that the people who put that value in there are the same ones who decided what values would be effective or not when they designed the game). One of the advantages that the TacAI has, is that it is doing these calculations constantly, in Real Time as the enemy moves around within one of your unit's LOS.That using coverd arcs in the open, outside of cover is a worse move then letting the TacAI open fire anytime the unit is spotted, no matter what cover or range the enemy is atNow, let's suppose that I have, through my own calculations and intuition, decided that my HMG's fire is suitably effective out to 400m, and I set a covered arc accordingly. A juicy enemy infantry squad advances to 401m away. My MG doesn't open fire, even though the probability of doing damage to the enemy squad is virtually the same at 401m as at 400m. Even worse, I can't change my mind and open fire at that unit until the next turn. The covered arc hasn't given you any benefit -- unless it is from the feeling that you are in control and not some faceless computer program.
I used to use covered arcs for all my units as a standard procedure, until I figured out the above. One of things that I try to remind myself is that the covered arc command was first and foremost a replacement for the old Ambush command in CMBO. I do use covered arcs for other purposes than ambushing, but usually to offset a known quirk in the TacAI's behavior. An example would be giving arcs to units that have a move to contact order. The TacAI has a very expansive definition of "contact" and I find that the arcs tend to keep my units in motion until they have a real contact. Also I regard overwatch as the Attacker's version of ambushing, so I will often use arcs for them.
Absolutely! You own the game. How you play it is entirely up to you and your personal taste. This thread was primarily aimed at CMers who are interested in "what's under the hood" as it were, and you may be wise to recognize that you are not among them at this point.You contend that I am naive as to how AI play works. Maybe so. The more I think about it the more I want to stay that way. I enjoy the game and AI play is the biggest part of that. Because of my profession I can only manage a few two player games. And if thinking the AI is playing better then it is, RT or not, gives me more enjoyment; GOOD. So I will leave this at that only to say. AI functionality for me: Ignorance is Bliss.
-
I have a couple of thoughts that I think are related to this. Whenever you are playing a scenario (not a QB) and see units routing toward the enemy (truly routing, not just in cover panic -- i.e., sneaking or advancing while in a pinned state), there is from my experience a fair probability of an error in the scenario parameters. You can open the scenario in the Editor and check on the second page of parameters for the setting for Side Friendly To. You will likely find that the unit is routing toward a side that these parameters say is friendly to it's army. This may, in fact, be where the enemy is located.
On the question of the TacAI targeting tank crews when other targets are available, I have a theory that one of the "rules" guiding AI behavior is to maximize victory points. Man for man, tank crews are worth more points than infantry, for example. Don't know if this theory is correct, but it has made me think twice about overruling the TacAI when I see it doing this.
-
Two ways: one is deductive, the other is inductive (I hope I've got that right. It's been awhile since I studied these things.Originally posted by juan_gigante:Steve, much of this can be explained away by the AI using covered arcs. You say you're sure there are no arcs, but I'm not. Your examples of AI behavior are textbook examples of covered arcs in action. Now, without word from BFC, we can't really know, but I think you're dismissing arcs to quickly. On what basis are you doing this?
) Also a heavy dose of Ockham's Razor.First, consider the difficulty of programming the AI to figure out when to use covered arcs and in what manner. Do you extend them a full 180 degrees or less (or more for that matter)? Do you extend them all the way across open terrain or something less (or more). On what criteria would the AI decide to use a covered arc one time and choose not to use it in exactly the same situation another? Just think of all the factors you consider when deciding to use a covered arc. The fact is that the OpsAI/StratAI are not state-of-the-art. BFC has acknowledged that they only created enough there to give us an opponent that could do the basic things. After all, if they couldn't program the AI to use indirect fire from onboard mortars, how could they have programmed it to properly use covered arcs? I don't believe the AI ever used ambush markers in CMBO, and that would certainly have been easier to program than covered arcs.
Moreover, BFC designed the TacAI to be the module primarily (even exclusively except for that damned Hide command) responsible for deciding when to open fire. A covered arc, like the Hide command, preempts the TacAI. Although they apparently programmed the OpsAI to give all units a Hide command at the beginning of the game (heaven only knows why
), the OpsAI does not give its units a Hide command later in the game after they've come out of hiding. Therefore, it was clear that they only intended this preemption at the beginning of the game. I can't think of any reason why they would have the OpsAI routinely and frequently preempt the TacAI with covered arcs, even if they could program it to do so.Finally, on this point, if they programmed the OpsAI to use covered arcs, it would have to be in some reasonably consistent and predictable way. Virtually everything the OpsAI and StratAI does follows this pattern.
Which leads me to my tests. I've already mentioned one of them: running a green platoon across 100m of open terrain into a trench manned by a crack HMG. Most of the time, the MG never opened fire until the squads were right in the trench with them. When it did open fire, the point at which is opened fire varied significantly -- from the moment the squads left cover to a point halfway across the open terrain. So why did it choose to use a covered arc sometimes and not most of the time or all of the time? When it did choose to set a covered arc, why set it at the edge of the cover one time and in the middle of the open area another?
Even humans don't tend to have this kind of variability (unless they are trying to outfox an opponent they've played before -- but this kind of deviousness is beyond the AI). I think they tend to use covered arcs in some fairly standardized way. So would the AI.
You may want to believe that BFC has in fact created a very sophisticated AI decision-making capability (and if they did, why are we all complaining about how badly it does so many things) and/or that they introduced some inexplicable randomness into the decision-making in order to keep players off balance -- while at the same time making sure the AI still functioned in a way that didn't produce outlandish results (instead of being merely clueless
). But Ockham's razor tells me that the simplest explanation is that the AI plays in RT.My question would be: why resist the idea? Just because BFC never admitted that the AI plays in RT doesn't mean anything. No one asked them before.
-
Mud: Maybe I should do my own RT "pause" and interrupt this thread for an explanation of how the AI works. This is based on what I've read in the manual, in this forum, my own tests/experience, and some theorizing.
First, about 90% (my number -- intended only to give some perspective) of the functionality of the AI is in the TacAI. The functionality works strictly on a unit by unit basis -- you could think of it as each unit having its own TacAI to control its actions. Those actions include deciding when to open fire and who to fire at, what reactions to have when getting fired at (e.g. going to alert, shaken, caution, pinned, etc), when to sneak or run away from fire, and in what direction, and so on. Basically everything that is involved in attempting to simulate the behavior of units in battle conditions. My understanding has always been that the TacAI has the same functionality and operates in the same way for each side in a battle, whether that side is being controlled by a player or by the computer.
The other 10% of the AI's functionality is contained in the OpsAI (presumably for Operational) and the StratAI (for Strategic). Of course, I don't know exactly what functionality is in each, but I can make some educated guesses. I think that the OpsAI is the component that issues commands to the units. The AI has a much more limited set of commands that it can use compared to a human player. I think these are limited to Hide (which it apparently issues automatically at the start of the game), unHide (which it apparently issues to units who have LOF to enemy targets), Move (which it issues to units in cover or to AFVs generally), and Run (which it issues to infantry units in the open, except for those which are slower moving). It may also issue fire orders for FOs, but that might be a StratAI function. I do not think it can use any other commands, with the possible exception of Advance which it may use when units first move out of cover. However, I don't think so. It may be able to issue Hunt orders to AFVs.
The function of the StratAI mostly consists of path-finding (seeking one or more covered routes to the flag(s) in the case of attacking, and orientation in the case of defense (i.e., which direction is the enemy coming from). The conclusions from these calculations are used by the OpsAI as the basis for orders.
I think that's pretty much it -- unless of course BFC should by chance resume reading posts in this forum and decide to weigh in with corrections.
Now, the TacAI already operates in RT. It's also a common denominator between the player and the AI. However, our ability to perform the kind of functions that the OpsAI and the StratAI perform are limited to the orders phase of each turn. A player can't stop the turn in the middle of the calculations and change his mind about the orders he have given. In fact, he doesn't even know he wants to change his mind until he views the movie, and then it's obviously too late because all of the turn's calculations and results have been finalized. The only thing he can do is quit and use Autosave to try a different set of commands. Even then, he can't do what the computer can apparently do: give a Hide command to the units and an unHide command to be executed at a later time in the same turn. The only way this could be happening is that the whole AI (not just TacAI, but also OpsAI and StratAI) is playing the game in Real Time.
It's quite possible, if I'm right, that we could have had a RT option back when CMBO came out, except that (my guess) most computers didn't have the horsepower to run graphics (i.e., the "movie") at the same time as the calculations.
Now for a couple of specifics:
1. Hot Seat should produce the same results as playing against the AI, if you are giving the same orders as the AI (e.g, giving all of the units on defense an order to Hide at the beginning of the game). The fact that it doesn't produce the same results is why I started this thread and the other one on the stupid AI trick.
2. What you are calling the "default orders" could be either TacAI or OpsAI. I can't tell what specifics you are thinking of in your post. IMHO, the TacAI is a pretty sophisticated and complex system that most of the time makes better decisions than the player does or can (because the TacAI is operating in RT and the player can't). My sense is a lot of players want to micromanage their units and not let the TacAI do it's job. Overuse of covered arcs is an example of this. Constantly issuing direct fire orders is another. These things ought to be more the exception than the rule. Again, this is just my opinion, but it comes from playing the game both ways, and looking at the results using Hot Seat as well as playing against the AI. The best way to judge if the TacAI is making "weak" decisions is to leave the TacAI alone on your side of the battlefield and see what happens (even try the scenario both ways: letting the TacAI alone one time, and micromanaging the other. Better yet, does this playing Hot Seat).
If you are trying to evaluate this by looking at what the AI is doing on it's side of the battlefield, you may be misinterpreting who's making the "weak" decisions: the TacAI or the OpsAI. As I have said in a number of posts, I think this practice by the OpsAI of giving automatic Hide orders is a stupid AI trick, and a really unnecessary one. And one of the side-effects of this practice, is that it causes players such as yourself to think the TacAI doesn't know when to properly open fire. The fact is that the TacAI has been completely preempted by the Hide order.
-
Green: I know how tempting it is to assume that this behavior is somehow related to spotting. It isn't. I think the simplest way to show this is with the example in which the attackers start in cover and move in the first turn across open terrain, at range (say 300m) toward a defender who should open fire on them (say infantry advancing toward an HMG). Now if you play this Hot Seat, you will see two things: (1) the advancing infantry are spotted the moment they leave cover (this is true even if the HMG is given a Hide order, by the way); and (2) the MG will open fire on the infantry a second or two later. And it will do this every time. Every Time!! (I'm assuming that you haven't set a covered arc or, imitating the AI's stupid trick, given the MG a Hide order.)
From this you can conclude that if the AI is controlling the MG, the MG is still spotting the infantry as soon as they emerge from cover, BUT the MG's pattern of firing doesn't match what happened when you played it Hot Seat. Most of the time the MG won't fire (OK, it's been hidden, but then it shouldn't ever fire. Ever!). But sometimes it does fire. And sometimes it fires after the infantry has moved some distance from cover (which never happens if you are playing Hot Seat). What accounts for this variability?
Again, my two alternatives: the computer is playing in RT (which means that the OpsAI module is continually evaluating whether or not to unHide and can execute that decision in the middle of a turn). Or the computer has a TacAI that is "enhanced" from the one that we have on our side (which only means that the computer is operating in an RT mode more than we are).
However, what if you take the above scenario and add another MG to the defense. If the AI is playing with an enhanced TacAI, the decision to unHide would be made for each of the MGs separately -- because that's the way the TacAI works, unit by unit. That would appear to increase the overall probably that at least one of the MGs would open fire during the turn. The tests I have run do not support that. What the tests appear to show is that the AI will unHide none or all of the units that have the ability to fire on the advancing units (that is, have LOF to the units). And the probability of the unHide command is the same no matter how many units have LOF. Any units which do not have LOF to the advancing units will stay hidden (and I've seen that).
As for the possibility that the computer is giving the units a Hide command (which I can observe) and, during the orders "phase," an unHide command to be executed later, my answer is: how would you do this? You could only give the unHide command at the start of the next turn. So why or how does the computer get to do this in the same orders phase?
kawiku: what you are describing is the TacAI at work. The TacAI is a whole system of reactions and some decision-making that are intended to simulate the behavior of units under threat or actual fire. This system "should" be the same for both us and the computer. I think it is, but whether that is true is partly the subject of this thread.
-
Let's see how much of this I can cover:
Green: I did not start this thread to complain about the AI "cheating." I know there have been lots of threads about that in the past, but that's not the motive here. I only posted this because I observed behavior that was inconsistent with what I understood to be the way the game operated and it made me curious (more than curious, actually -- I really thought there was something wrong with my software, and I ended up reinstalling CMBB and other system software, and so on. Crazy, but how was I to know??). And I know others are curious about the mechanics of the game, so I thought I would share what I had discovered and my interpretation of it. It would be great if BFC would comment, but I doubt that they will, since I don't think the CM1 games are what they are thinking about right now.
Dook: I don't think you are correct in your guess that the AI is giving the units Hide orders (which is what I am directly observing) and then immediately giving them unHide orders (which I do not directly observe) before the computer starts calculating the results of the turn. In the thread about the stupid AI trick, I described my technique for doing this observation (a modification of a suggestion by another poster, Sgt. Kelley). If the first action you take is to surrender, and then you observe the AI's units, you see that they are in unHide mode (assuming the scenario designer didn't Hide them). This is because the AI never got the chance to give them any orders. However, if you run the first turn, then quit, open that turn using Autosave and surrender at the very beginning of the repeat, you will see that the units are hidden. What is clear is that the AI's orders are preserved by Autosave. There's no reason I can think of why the Autosave would preserve the Hide order but not some immediately subsequent unHide order.
As for spotting -- not an explanation. The AI's units which are hidden are nevertheless spotting the attacking units instantly -- I can tell that by playing the same scenario Hot Seat. The AI's units are not firing because they are hidden -- as they would if you were playing them -- unless they do fire. Which they shouldn't be doing unless the AI was able to give them an unHide order in the middle of the turn.
Michael: You may be interested to know that this behavior -- namely the AI giving automatic Hide orders, and also what I am choosing to call RT decision-making -- goes back to CMBO. The exemption from command delay started with CMBB, however -- suggesting perhaps that it really was about dealing with the new command delay model. Given that a lot of the complaining about the AI "cheating" involved things like spotting and tank-killing, I wouldn't be too surprised if Steve simply forgot that there were in fact some things the AI could do that we couldn't.
Sergei: You are simply asserting that I am wrong, without explaining the behavior I'm seeing. As Green points out, the TacAI is making decisions and executing them during the time that the computer is doing "combat calculations." Much of this is purely reactive, of course (e.g., did the advancing unit cross the covered arc boundary). But some of it is not. For example, the TacAI is during a turn continually evaluating whether or not to open fire on a moving unit. It is not only figuring out whether the unit is in LOS/LOF, but also whether or not its fire has a reasonable probability of doing some damage. When it thinks it has that opportunity, it effectively "stops" the "combat calculations" and gives the unit involved an order to fire. That is RT behavior. My understanding is that all of the functions of the TacAI are the same for the player and for the computer. If not, I would find that interesting to know about -- not to complain, just to know.
Mudhugger: I only said that the AI does not use covered arcs, though I admit there is no way to prove it. However, I have done a number of tests very specifically designed to detect covered arcs and have never see it. You seem to be making an assumption that the AI has some behavior pattern which works sort of like a covered arc. If you ran some tests of the scenario you described, you would see something different from what you assume. Try running it ten times. My prediction is that anywhere from 7-9 times, the AI defender will not open up on your attackers during the first turn (and, it doesn't matter what orders to give them -- they can do a parade ground march and the result will be the same). As for the times that the AI does open up on you: if you start your attacking units in the open, the AI will "stop play" fairly early in the turn to unHide. If your attacking units start in cover, it's quite variable as to when the AI opens fire (which argues against a covered arc, since why would it vary?), but nevertheless, it has to be giving its units an unHide order at that point in time.
And concern about "fairness" is not a motivating factor behind my starting this thread.
Green, again: Since the same computer that's doing the calculations is the one that's doing the AI decision-making, it's quite possible for the AI to be playing in RT without requiring "massive" new functionality. Keep in mind that the AI has a much more limited command set to work with than we do (for example, no area firing, no indirect firing with mortars, and I believe no direct firing orders, no pauses in move orders, no covered arcs, etc. etc.). It was a more limited set in CMBO, and I doubt that it was given any of the new commands that we were given when CMBB came along (I doubt, for example, that it can use the MTC command). So, there are only a very few nonTacAI decisions that it could make during the course of a turn.
So, again, on why this interests me, one reason would be that this would help explain why making CM2 into a RT option game isn't such a big deal. They'd already licked half the problem in CM1.
-
I found this bothersome as well, though I am sure that JasonC had his reasons for putting that flag out there without any Germans in the vicinity.Originally posted by jtcm:-- is there any way of making AI Ger infy stay put ?
What I did was to go into the Editor and move that flag to a location where the Germans already were (there are a couple of likely choices). The other option, of course, is to use the Editor to place a couple of German units near that flag. Don't really know which is better. Matter of taste, I suppose.
-
For anyone who really wants to get deep into my conspiracy theory
, I have some more "evidence" to offer that the computer is playing in RT.In the thread that discussed how the AI doesn't have any command delay, I mentioned a couple of things that I think relate to this question. The most telling of these was that I noted how most of the AI's units moved immediately at the start of a turn, but some started movements in the middle of a turn. Since I do not think the AI gives units pauses as part of an overall movement order, I think the best explanation for this is that the computer has "stopped" play at that point and given these units new move orders -- and since they have no command delay they start moving immediately at that point.
The other point has to do with the zig-zagging movement of some of the AI's units. Most of its units seemed follow a reasonably coherent movement plan, generally aimed toward getting the unit into a covered approach to the flag. But some units did odd little zig-zagging dances, often out in the open. I mentioned at the time that I thought this was evidence of lots of waypoints. But the movement plan involved doesn't make any sense. An alternative explanation is that the AI is changing it's mind in the middle of a turn, about where it wants those units to go, and gives them new orders -- which they obey immediately without any command delay. And it may change its mind about that unit's orders more than once in a turn.
It's possible that the only reason (if there is a good reason) that the AI is exempt from command delay is because most of time its units are out of command radius and it is therefore handicapped.
-
I am about 99% sure the AI never uses covered arcs, just as it never gives area fire orders to onmap units or indirect fire for onmap mortars (I also, despite what I said previously, don't think the computer gives direct fire orders the way we do -- I think it just decides to Hide or unHide and lets the TacAI module decide whether or not to fire and who to fire at).Originally posted by Mudhugger:Perhaps the AI is using covered arcs with the hide command. Setting up ambushes, and when they have their shot they unhide. Sly sob's.
I have specifically tested to see if there was any evidence of covered arcs. I described one example of this in the other thread, in which I literally ran green squads across open terrain into a trench containing a crack MG (which had been given the Hide order by the AI), without it opening fire. I think the AI simply hides units and then unhides them when it sees units out in the open. The only question is whether it is able to do this in the middle of a turn.
When people think that the AI has staged some sort of clever ambush, what they are really experiencing is the side-effect of this behavior of the AI -- to give everyone a Hide order. As a result the AI seems to open fire at "unexpected" times. It's not being clever. It's mostly a stupid AI trick, except for this peculiar behavior that I am describing in this thread.
[ February 21, 2006, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: SteveP ]
-
I don't think so. Consider that if I am commanding the defense and give my units Hide orders, they do not fire at range. Ever. Yet, when the AI is giving its units Hide orders, they do fire -- sometimes. So far, I have only two explanations for this in my mind:Originally posted by Michael Emrys:No, more likely what you are observing is the built-in delay that accounts for the amount of time it would take for a real-life unit to spot an enemy and bring it under fire.
Note that this is not the same as the command delay, though it might be effected by a commander's combat rating, etc.
Michael
1. The TacAI works differently for the computer than it does for us. That is, the TacAI for the computer is reacting to something (don't know what-- but certainly not from feeling endangered) and overruling the Hide order in the same way it would if the unit saw it was about to be overrun.
2. The computer is able to interrupt the flow of play and change its orders to the unit(s) just as if it were playing in RT.
-
Looking over my posting, I realize that there is another explanation which would account for the specific behavior I described above: that is, the AI gives a Hide order to all of its units, but sometimes also gives a targeting order for some of them.
However, I am not convinced that it is so simple. Many of the tests I ran involved units emerging from cover at some distance from the defender (more than 300m, say), and getting shot at in the middle of the turn by AI units that started the turn in Hide mode. I don't think it's possible that this was the TacAI reacting to a "threat".
[ February 20, 2006, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: SteveP ]
-
It's possible that this question has already been answered in the CM2 forum and I missed it. The reason I am asking is that I seem to have stumbled on behavior that suggests very strongly to me that the AI is allowed to play the game in RT now. Here is why I think this:
In another thread (referring to a stupid AI trick), I and a few other posters discussed that fact that the AI automatically starts all units in Hide mode when on defense (I've now confirmed this in a wide variety of tests). In that thread, I said I thought this gave the AI's performance a significant handicap, since it slowed down its reaction to enemy units when they first moved out of cover.
I now think it's more complicated than that. Consider a scenario in which the attacker's setup zone is within the LOS of the defense, but at some range (400-500m, say), and that the setup zone is basically open terrain. To keep things simple, assume that the attacker gives no orders to his units -- they just stay where they are and either get fired on or not.
Let's say further that the composition of the forces is such that the defender (if human) is going to open fire on those visible attackers right away -- there's no tactical reason to withhold fire. However, if the human player controlling the defense gives a Hide order to all of his units at the start of turn one (which is what the AI does), none of his units will fire during that turn. Ever. They will stay hidden until the player unHides them, or until the close approach of enemy units gets too threatening and the individual units "decide" to unHide themselves and start firing.
However, this is not what happens when the AI is playing defense in this situation. The AI units are immediately put into Hide mode at the beginning of the turn, but there is a probability (which appears to vary considerably based on considerations that I am still puzzling about -- but it is definitely not always 100% and sometimes much less than 100%) that the AI's units will come out of hiding and open fire during that turn (usually right away if the scenario is like what I described above).
Now, how would you do this if you were in command of those defending units? You can't. If you give your units a Hide order at the start of turn one, you don't get the opportunity two seconds into the turn to stop everything, tell them to unHide and start firing. The only way you could do that would be in an RT game, in which you can pause at any time and give a new order. To me, it appears that this is exactly what the AI is doing.
The TacAI operates in Real-Time, of course, but my assumption has always been that the functions and functioning of the TacAI is the same for both humans and the computer. I am also assuming that the Hide order works the same for humans and the computer, and that the TacAI wouldn't be any more likely to override a Hide order given by the computer than by a human.
Anybody want to take a stab at an alternative explanation?
)
But that's neither here nor there for purposes of this thread. Happy to stipulate to that. Let me say, however, that when I first discovered the odd behavior, the same idea occurred to me, and in fact, one of the first things I tested was whether having the MG (to use the same example) in command made a difference. It didn't. I also tried it by putting some other friendly units in the area (maybe the MG was lonely and pining in the bottom of its trench). No effect.
) Also a heavy dose of Ockham's Razor.
Camouflage And Hiding
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted