[Is this a Stupid AI Trick or what?]

I have possibly a fuller answer to the "why hasn't this been seen before?"

Imagine a platoon of enemy regulars in the woods 100m across an open field from you. You have a couple of regular platoons that you send advancing toward them (not exactly JasonC approved infantry tactics, but bear with me ) Now none of the enemy has fired yet, or been fired upon, so far (that's essential to this stupid AI trick).

In that situation, the odds are fairly good that one of the enemy regulars will get spooked enough to disobey the hide order. He starts firing. Your guys start firing back, which wakes up the other enemy squads, and you have a fire fight. It feels like what should be happening. However, the reality is that your guys probably got farther across that open area than they would have, had the enemy not been given hide orders. Now someone may argue that this a trivial problem, but consider this: if I am going to advance across that open area in this situation, my preference is that those squads be crack or elite, because they are almost certainly not going to fire until I am right on top of them. If they are green, they will most likely get a fire fight going while I am still some distance away. To me, that's just perverse.

But more generally, I think it is perverse for the OpsAI to be preempting the TacAI. The AI's decision-making gets less and and less reliable the higher you go on the decision ladder (that's not a complaint, just a fact). IMHO, the TacAI is a pretty good decision-making program -- better in fact than some players seem to realize when they preempt it themselves with lots of covered arcs and the like (moreover even BFC has said that players are well-advised to place substantial reliance on the TacAI). But at the beginning of the game of the AI is basically squelching the TacAI and turning the first line of decision-making over to the OpsAI.

Anyway, I really am going to try and stop ranting. Any minute now. I promise ...

[Is this a Stupid AI Trick or what?]

Oops ... spoke too soon. The AI IS giving its troops a universal hide command. It's just trickier to confirm it using Sgt. Kelly's suggestion.

If you surrender at the very beginning of the first turn, the Ops AI has not had a chance to give any orders yet. However, if you play through the first turn, quit and launch the same turn using autosave, and THEN surrender at the very beginning, you can see that the MG is hiding. My guess is that whatever commands the StratAI and OpsAI gave originally are preserved by the autosave process.

So, assuming I haven't misinterpreted any of this, I feel that at least I know what the stupid AI trick is.

Now, here's where the whole thing gets kinda funny. I edited my CMAK version of this test so that the trench and MG are relatively close to the green US troops. I also changed the MG to crack (which means he's going to obey the hide order more rigorously). I found that I could frequently use the Fast command to run my US squads right into the trench before the MG opened fire. How's that for a stupid AI trick??

[Is this a Stupid AI Trick or what?]

Originally posted by Sgt_Kelly:

Have you thought of surrendering immediately on the first turn and checking whether the AI MG is in hide mode when you look at the map ?

Terrific suggestion! Never thought of it. Ran a test using a CMAK scenario I made that works similarly to the one I described above. The MG was NOT hiding. To sort of test the test, I used the Editor to make the MG hide at the start. When I surrendered, it showed the MG was hiding. So your test suggestion seems to be valid.

So, now I'm back to where I started. The AI is doing something strange, annoying and IMHO bad for its performance, but I haven't a clue what it is or if there is any way to prevent it.

As for why this wasn't noticed before, it may be that people simply chalk it up to the randomness that is built into the game model. However, I am convinced that that is not the explanation. Something in the StratAI or the OpsAI is preempting the TacAI from firing. And if it's not a universal Hide command than I don't know what it is (and I don't think it's covered arcs, because I don't believe the AI uses them and anyway I ran some tests specific to check for that). So there you go, folks!

[Is this a Stupid AI Trick or what?]

Let's keep in mind that if this is what is going on, it's the result of a game play decision. I think we all understand and accept that many of the AI's limitations and behaviors are the result of the difficulty of programming an AI. This does not fall into that category. I also don't think it falls into the category of modeling decisions, like how readily a green infantry unit pins when it is hit with fire. We can argue something like that, but the game had to draw a line somewhere and there it is. This is just a simple either-or decision: to mandate that the AI hide the defending troops or not. At the moment, my view is that they made the wrong decision, because I think that it handicaps the performance of the AI rather than helping it.

[Is this a Stupid AI Trick or what?]

Originally posted by Cuirassier:

I don't have CMAK, but I will post anyway. I have noticed this on the Russian Training Scenario 200 series. The AI is silent on turn one, but on turn two, the MG's lay into you.

Yeah, Scenario 200 is a good example of why I think this is a handicap. If you correct the map side ownership problem in the Editor and play this using the default setup for the Russians, this is what should be happening in the first fifteen seconds of play: the sniper fires at one of the T34s, the MG opens up on the visible Russian infantry and the PAK gets off a first shot at one of the T34s. By the end of that first turn, there should be at least one dead T34, and probably two, and some messed up infantry. However, most of the time, nothing happens in that first turn. So the Russian gets a free pass.

[Is the AI exempt from command delays?]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> ....and, anyway, the AI is so handicapped as it is, why not give it an exemption from command delay

When I first read this thread that was my exact thought.

Its probably meant to be that way (no AI command delay) and its probably not a big deal if this is the FIRST time it has come up in the past 5-6-7 (?) years of EXTENSIVE game play and play testing!

-tom w </font>

[Is this a Stupid AI Trick or what?]

Well, guys, this may not be as big a puzzle as I thought. I happened to look in the manual, related to another subject, and came across the section that talks about using the Hide command. Lo and behold, it says among other things that "skillful use of hiding, especially as the defender, will allow you to remain invisible to your opponent until you feel the time is right to engage in direct combat." There are other comments in this section along the same lines.

I think the AI is, in fact, giving Hide orders to all its units when on defense. So, the question is: does that make sense. They certainly don't need to be hidden to be invisible, in FFOW or EFOW. But having them in hide mode certainly handicaps the performance of the AI's troops. And, heaven knows, the AI doesn't need any more handicaps. Maybe we should start a "Free the AI" campaign.

Anyone else want to weight in on this one?

[Is this a Stupid AI Trick or what?]

Interestingly, after posting the above, I happened to open a new (for me) scenario that offered a chance to experiment with this in a new way. It was one of those scenarios in which the battlefield is fairly segmented, so that at least initially you can have three relatively isolated battles going on. Also, because the scenario was designed to be played with the AI as attacker, the designer had placed the attacker units, in cover, very close to the defense (a good technique for making the AI a better attacker).

Anyway, to run my test, I took the attacking side. I set things up so that one platoon would advance into the open in its segment of the battlefield during the first turn. Then a second platoon would advance into the open in its segment during the second turn. And so on with a third platoon in the third turn.

What happened was pretty much what I expected. The first platoon took no fire in the first turn, even though it was out in the open a short time after starting its movement. However, it got plastered by a bunch of MGs at the beginning of the second turn. At the same time, the second platoon started out in the second turn -- without a shot being fired at it until the start of the third turn. Same thing with the third platoon. I tried this whole drill a second time and got a slightly different result -- but, as I noted above, there seems to be about a 30% probability of the defender shooting in that first turn, so with three platoons moving, I'd expected something different.

So, there you have it friends. I know this is happening, at least on my computer. Frankly, I don't like it which is why I spent so much time trying to figure it out. But maybe one of our tactical grogs will suggest that this is actually sensible behavior on the part of the AI and that we all should be doing this when we play defense.

[Is this a Stupid AI Trick or what?]

I don’t think this one’s been discussed before, though in a way that’s kind of surprising and really makes me wonder what I am seeing. But here goes anyway:

The theme of this alleged Stupid AI Trick inquiry has to do with the AI failing to open fire as soon as it should. This is not, by the way, the old rant about some tank reversing back into a ravine, without firing, when it sees a Panther or something like that. This is about situations in which the AI has no apparent reason to withhold fire but does so anyway. I’ve done a whole bunch of tests and keep coming up with the same result, in both CMAK and CMBB.

Here is a description of one of these tests (this is using a modified version of JasonC’s Russian Training Scenario 110, if anyone wants to try this for himself – my apologies for using a CMBB example in a CMAK thread, but I do have a CMAK test scenario as well, in case that matters to anyone):

Situation: a single regular German HMG in a trench near the flag, in the middle of generally open terrain, facing two houses about 200m away. Hidden behind the houses is a platoon of green Russian infantry. Two or more of the Russian squads advance into the open toward the trench (with about a half minute command delay). Other parameters: EFOW or Full FOW, it doesn’t matter; no experience bonus for the AI which is controlling the HMG. I am playing this as if the scenario is beginning at this point.

Now, if this situation is played with the AI controlling the Russians (which may mean that the number of squads advancing and where they advance to could be different from what I described), and me controlling the HMG (which I am giving no orders to),the HMG opens up instantly on at least one of the squads within a couple of meters of that squad leaving cover. Similarly, this is what happens if playing this H2H (i.e., Hot Seat Solitaire). In short, in either arrangement, only the TacAI is controlling the actions of the HMG, and the TacAI is happy to fire at the Russians as soon as they stick their noses out in the open. And I think this is what we would all expect to happen routinely – i.e., barring some unusual reason for the HMG to have a short covered arc or something.

So what happens when the AI is controlling the HMG? It turns out that when I run this test (i.e., two squads advancing into the open) multiple times, the HMG will open up on them during that first movement only about 30% of the time. Of course, at that point, they are out in the open and the HMG will start firing at them as soon as the second turn starts. But I’m only concerned with what happened in that first turn – which, most of the time, is nothing!

Let me emphasize that I have now tried this type of experiment with a wide variety of scenarios and QBs, with differing unit configurations, terrain, etc., and I keep seeing this same phenomenon. The only explanation I’ve been able to come up with that fits all of these data points is that the AI is automatically giving its units Hide orders at the beginning of a game (when on defense), and that about 30% of the time the TacAI will overrule those orders in a situation like I described above. If this is the case, however, I think it is not good AI design.

I have also seen some other odd but related characteristics, but won’t elaborate in this first post because I’m guessing we have to get through the “SteveP must be smoking something” phase . Either that, or someone already has a reasonable explanation (I hope) for what I am seeing.

[Is the AI exempt from command delays?]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Well then, we now have two documented exceptions to Steve's statement that the rules apply equally to the AI as to a live player. The next question is how far does this go? I.e., does the exception only apply on the first turn, or all though a game? And does it matter which side the AI is playing or what year, etc., etc.

Lastly, if this is a genuine bug, is BFC taking steps to ensure it won't appear in CMx2?

Michael

It is difficult to be certain what is happening on subsequent turns, because we don't know what orders the AI is giving its troops (including pause orders, which I doubt the AI uses but it's possible). What I have seen is ambiguous, however. On the one hand I have seen units that were not moving at the start of turn 2 or turn 3, for example, suddenly start moving immediately on that turn. That strongly suggests to me that they had no command delay (since even the use of pauses rarely causes a move to start precisely at the beginning of the following turn).

On the other hand, I also saw units that were stopped at the beginning of a turn start moving only in the middle of that turn, which suggests a command delay was involved. I should add that these two behaviors were observed side-by-side in the same scenario (same type of units: Russian green infantry). So, make of that what you can!

Anyway, I've tested this in a variety of scenarios and QBs, from both CMBB and CMAK, so it is fundamental to the game design -- not something that's scenario specific like nationality, unit experience level, year, or anything else of that nature.

Assuming what I am seeing is real and not some sort of optical illusion (and heaven only knows if Steve is going to tell us), my theory that this is designed to offset a lot of starting and stopping behavior in the AI's path-finding system is probably not correct. A better theory may be that the path-finding appears to involve a lot of zig-zagging around (meaning a lot of waypoints). Humans are better at figuring out how to get somewhere on the map with the fewest possible waypoints. Even then, I'd still be more inclined to believe that this is about speeding up game play than to give the AI some sort of advantage (and, anyway, the AI is so handicapped as it is, why not give it an exemption from command delay )

[Is the AI exempt from command delays?]

Originally posted by Wicky:

Steve P,

mmm You might be onto something - I just tested a scenario 'waltzing matildas' and also edited in a couple of sharpshooters, with cover arc, inh overview to watch what happens. I similarly observed that some (not all) the AI (rusky) forces setting off as very promptly from their starting blocks, despite not being under fire or detecting any human controlled enemy threat.

Thanks for checking this out for me. I had stumbled across this while trying to figure out another odd AI behavior that was giving me fits. Between the two, I was really convinced that something had happened to corrupt my game files -- yet I could not seem to repair the problem. I did finally figure out that the other AI behavior problem was an another Stupid AI Trick -- one that AFAIK has never been reported before.

Anyway, it's just possible that giving the AI this exemption command delay does not fall into the category of what Steve would consider instances of "cheating" by the AI.

[Is the AI exempt from command delays?]

OK guys, your responses are very understandable, but what I am seeing isn't that simple. Here's a case in point:

Russian steppe, open terrain, German defender (me) vs. Russian attacker (AI). Playing EFOW. Russian has nothing but green troops (it's a scenario, so I know exactly what he has and where they are starting from). No experience bonus for the AI. My troops can see the entire Russian setup zone. I give my troops short covered arcs or otherwise insure they don't fire at anyone. So, the Russians can't see me and they aren't getting fired at. Here's what I see: Russian infantry and tanks starting to move immediately (i.e., zero command delay) on turn one. Movements are the usual sort of helter-skelter of AI directed troops, though generally consistent with its path-finding methodology (i.e., looking for a covered route to the flags). Some Russian troops don't move in the first turn, although I can spot them. However, they do move in the first second of the second turn (again implying no command delay).

I have now looked at this in several different scenarios and QBs, and I see it every time. I have, for example, tried it in a scenario in which the AI had extensive cover, but I turned off the FOW in order to see what the AI did. In that case, the AI executed very normal moves (e.g., infantry using move commands through the woods toward my flag) but those moves began on the first second of the first turn -- zero command delay.

As I said in my post, I'm having trouble (apropos of Michael Emrys' point) believing this is what should be happening. On the other hand, I am starting to think that possibly it was necessary to exempt the AI from command delays in order to keep the game moving at a reasonable pace -- since the path-finding activity is inherently time consuming with lots of starting and stopping.

Either that, or my software is screwed up in some perplexing way. Anybody interested in running your own test??

[Is the AI exempt from command delays?]

Not as stupid a question as it may seem. Either the AI is exempt from command delays -- at least in the first turn -- or there is something seriously wrong with my software for both CMBB and CMAK. I have now seen this several times under a variety of FOW conditions: when on attack or in any other situation where the AI wants to move in the first turn, its troops are moving from the very first second of game play, even if green or conscript. I don't know if this has always been true, or if I just noticed it for the first time because I've recently been playing some scenarios in which the two sides start out in full view of each other.

My assumption is that the AI does not have this exemption, but that means I've got a very mysterious thing going on with my system. I might add that I even went to the point of totally reinstalling CMBB and its patches but this odd phenomena persists.

Anyway, I'm stumped and it's driving me nuts. Anyone got any ideas.

[Russian Training Scenario 110]

Cuirassier:

I'm sure you've probably ready to move on from this one, but if you really want to fully test your approach, try playing it hot seat solitaire. Don't bother to give the MG any orders. This approach is closest to playing against a human, in that it pretty much eliminates any Stupid AI Tricks that may be working to your favor. I think there is a stupid AI trick involved, although I do not understand it very well. But I noticed at one point that using the Fast command to move close to the MG as quickly as possible seemed to work pretty well with this green platoon. I think this is not too far off what you were doing. Yet, it should not have worked so well, and I found that the method blew up when I tried it hot seat solitaire. But you may have found a solution and it would be good to know if that's true.

[Russian Training Scenario 110]

Originally posted by Loeffe:

I didn't modify anything... Just played it after downloading.

Also the screenshots are from my second go, where I didn't keep initial placement of enemy troops (ie let computer chose setup), as David Chapuis noticed.

This was just to have some variation from my first attempt (where the MG was in the trench). The results were the same even.

I dont know why the MG didn't spot me in any of the games? I try to HIDE my troops on startup and also use MOVE TO CONTACT AND HIDE, when approaching, plus taking the most hidden routes.

If you work your way thru this thread (or the main one covering all these training scenarios) you will learn the answer as to why the MG isn't spotting you (hint: it's not what you think ). Whether you choose to modify the scenario in the Editor or not is a matter of personal taste, certainly, but it is useful to know what's really happening in this scenario, since the circumstances are significantly different from what you would find in any QB and in all but some highly unusual scenarios.

[Russian Training Scenario 110]

Originally posted by Cuirassier:

However, why is the MG not firing at your men behind and in the scattered trees during the approach march? The one tile of scattered trees is not an LOS block, and in my experience, with the MG reoriented, it fires at anything from turn 1 unless an LOS block ( only houses provide it on this map) is used. [/QB]

One possible explanation is this:

Knalla: when you modified scenario 110 in the Editor to fix the side ownership problem, did you check to make sure it was saved as RusTrain110? If not, there's a good chance that it was saved as RusTrain200. Then when you went back to play 110 you were playing the original unmodified version. And if you try to play scenario 200, you would find it looking very much like 110 (except much harder to play ).

If that isn't the explanation, there's another possible answer. When you changed the east side to Allied, did you also change the west side to Axis? If not, the editor will default the parameters back to what they were before when you try to save the scenario (there has to be at least one side allocated to each army). You can check this by looking at the scenario again in the Editor.

These are the only two explanations I could think of, that would explain why your area fire tactic had any useful effect at all on the MG.

[Noobie: Advice about design and scale]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Let me strongly urge you *not* to make another regiment scale monstrosity. They are simply not playable. Designers seem to love them, but they are hell on players. Also, the realism of CM suffers very considerably whenever the scale goes above battalion - indeed it is already starting to suffer at battalion scale.

Amen to that!! I have been one of those with a predisposition toward playing "historical" scenarios, but I have learned over time how the desire to do such scenarios seduces designers away from what works best for CM. I have the feeling that it may be best to let history serve to provide mostly context for a scenario (for example, type of terrain, types of units involved, a particular tactical problem encountered) but no more. Also sometimes (and I emphasis sometimes!) I think a "scale-down" can work -- say taking a regimental engagement IRL and scaling it down to a battalion (which, as Jason says, may still be too big). In short, be content with "semi-historical" and sell your scenarios on the basis of such things as tactical interest, forces involved, period of the war, etc.

[Russian Training Scenario 110]

Originally posted by knalla:

Did someone playing 110 got an automatic ceasefire as soon as the mg panics?

To amplify a little on Jason's explanation, IIRC the parameters in this scenario set it to be a Probe. Because of that, you don't have to get all that low on ammo to trigger an auto ceasefire from your side (don't recall the exact amount, but I think maybe around 40% of your original ammo load). If the scenario was set to an Assault, for example, your ammo would have to get down to a much lower level (I think below 25% or maybe 20%) to trigger the auto ceasefire. The idea is to model the fact that units seldom fought an engagement to the last bullet (this is described in the manual in a section titled Force Readiness).

The key question is why you are getting low on ammo at all, given what the Russians start with (I'm assuming you have not altered the scenario yourself in the Editor). Are you possibly using a lot of area fire from a long range (over 250m say)? Or perhaps have units direct firing but so far away that their fire is less effective and so it's taking too many turns to break the MG? Remember you can advance units as you start to suppress the MG, and as you get closer the effectiveness of your firepower goes up.

[Russian Training Scenario 110]

MadDdog:

The reason this approach worked for you is that you area fired into the trench before the MG spotted you. You are playing the uncorrected version of the scenario, so the MG is looking in the other direction. When you fire into the trench the MG doesn't know where the fire is coming from, and can't react. Eventually he panics and breaks.

It was exactly because this tactic worked so well, when by all rights it should not have, that led me to discover that there was a map orientation problem with this scenario in the first place. You should try playing a corrected version so you can see how impossible it would be to do this under normal circumstances.

On the other hand, I think it may be useful to know that you can use area fire this way in any situation where you can get past the flank of an enemy (assuming you know in what direction the enemy is looking). You have to hit him with area fire first, though, before he spots you.

[Russian Training Scenario 110]

Originally posted by civdiv:

I didn't mess with the German setup at all, I simply played it right out of the box. I'm not sure how changing the orientation would matter much. But then this scenario is a close run thing, so breaking even one squad early would then concentrate the German fire power that much more, so it might be a factor. I did read the mg was setup the wrong way before I played the scenario, but I just assumed that since I had just dl'd the scenario a couple of days ago, it had been fixed, if that was the designer's intent.

[/QB]

This scenario has not been changed since it was originally posted. The only way you can have a corrected version is if you correct it yourself in the Scenario Editor. The way to do that is to open the scenario in the Editor and go the second page of Parameters. There you will see a set of drop down boxes for choosing map side ownership. You will see that the Allies are shown as owning the West side of the map. Because of this, the AI thinks that the Russians will be attacking from the west, and will orient the MG in that direction as part of setup. The Russians are coming from the east, however, so you need to change the map side ownership consistent with that. Unless you make this change, the MG will ALWAYS start out facing to the west, and the Russians end up advancing in his rear (emphasis added, as apparently there are people who think this problem is solved by simply freeing the AI to do its own setup at the start of play). If you want to confirm this for yourself, simply start the scenario as usual, but turn off FOW. Then look at the way the MG is facing as soon as you are ready to start play.

Important, when you make this change and it comes time to save the changes and exit the Editor, be very careful about what file name you save the scenario to. The Editor may give you an incorrect file name (that's only true for some of these Training Scenarios, not a general problem).

Now, as to how much of a difference this change to the scenario makes, the best thing is to find out for yourself

[Russian Training Scenario 110]

Originally posted by NameUsedBefore:

I'm a little surprised that you were able to advance the way you did. Typically a 'Run' commanded troop who is in mid-sprint then is fired upon will fall apart.

Turns out that this works reasonably well given this green platoon. Basically, one uses the same tactics and commands we used to use in CMBO. By using the Fast command rather than Advance, you can spread your platoon out more and not worry so much about keeping them in command range. Also, you will get someone into spotting range more quickly, thereby reducing the amount of fire the platoon takes before it can start returning fire.

However -- and this is a BIG however -- it only works against the AI. As I've mentioned before, for some reason, the AI constrains the MGs fire. For example, it's not unusual for the platoon to avoid getting any fire at all in the first turn they emerge from cover. In the next couple of turns, the MG may only fire 3-5 times rather than 6-7. There is no obvious reason for this that I can determine. I know the MG is spotting the squads from the moment they leave cover. The behavior of the MG in later turns is not consistent with a short covered arc. It's as if the OpsAI (one step up from the TacAI) is able to intervene and control the MG's fire during a turn in a way that we as players cannot do. But why it's doing this is a complete mystery, as if definitely works to the disadvantage of the German.

[Russian Training Scenario 110]

Originally posted by NameUsedBefore:

" Does 111 have the gun facing the right way or...?

The first nine scenarios (100-102, 110-112, 200-202) all have a misalignment of map orientation problem of one sort or another. The effect on play is variable, but in all cases the result is to give the German some a sort of handicap -- that is, the Russians have a more or less harder time when the orientation is corrected. I'm guessing that this was not intentional on Jason's part (though he's never said one way or the other), but I gather that it isn't something he's interested in investigating either. In any event, I strongly recommend correcting the alignment on all these scenarios before playing them. There are some other issues I have with some of these, but IMHO correcting the misalignment of map orientation seems like a no-brainer.

Side note: judging by the postings in a thread in the Proving Grounds web site, it may be that scenario designers aren't fully aware of the significance of properly setting map side ownership in scenario parameters. I've now seen this misalignment in other scenarios besides Jason's since discovering this for myself.

[Russian Training Scenario 110]

Maybe I need to repeat my question:

What did you find out from playing scenario 111 With The Orientation Corrected?

The advice that JasonC gave for 111 was roughly to take out the first MG (the one placed where it was in 110) and either ignore the second MG or deal with it as a secondary problem. With the orientation corrected, you can't take this approach. Between the two MGs, you have absolutely no cover within which to advance from the setup zone -- and in much of the eastern half of the map, you potentially face getting caught in converging fire from the two MGs. So what do you do?

It's true that it's easier to win than 110 (when both have been corrected) but I think there's only one approach that will do it, and it's not like what was recommended for 111 in its original form. I think it's definitely worth trying at least once.

[Russian Training Scenario 110]

Originally posted by John_d:

I agree with Steve here- I honestly don't see the point of this scenario.

In all fairness, I think that JasonC had two objectives with this scenario. The one that may have been most important is this: that a Russian infantry platoon has a lot of FP, which if used correctly can provide even a green platoon with enough cover to accomplish missions that regular platoons from other countries could not. I think this objective was met, even in the uncorrected scenario (and my only real objection to that scenario was that people didn't know they were advancing into the rear of the MG).

The other objective I think he may have had was to prove green troops could advance over a lengthy expanse of mostly open terrain, under fire, without overwatch protection, to take out a single shooter. If this was his objective, then I think this objective wasn't met with this scenario, once the orientation is corrected (which is only way this lesson could possibly be useful in the general run of scenarios and QBs). What I learned is that this green platoon needs a little help. However, figuring out exactly how much help, and of what type, I did find was a very useful "training exercise" for myself. For that reason, I think this scenario has been one of the more valuable that I've spent time with.

Having said that, I can certainly understand people saying that they'd rather just move on.

So ... what have any of you learned from trying scenario 111 with the orientation corrected???

[Russian Training Scenario 110]

Originally posted by Cuirassier:

I should probably do it again to confirm mastery of this scenario. However, I will later... For now I'm going to gloat to myself the hard won victory I achieved.

Congratulations! I hope you do try it again. Even better, try it by giving yourself 30 turns, but also letting the AI be free to place the MG. I tried it a few more times again after reading your post (without success). I still believe this green platoon is too brittle to accomplish this mission with anything like the sort of certainty that JasonC promotes as a reasonable expectation. A couple of specific points:

1. I think your approach assumes you can get the MG to switch firing from a nonmoving to a moving unit most of the time. However, the TacAI's behavior is too randomized to be certain of that. The TacAI may well fire at one of these units long enough to break or rout it (which doesn't take long against a green squad at 200m) before switching to another target . Also, if you were playing a human who gave firing orders rather than relying on the TacAI, I think the chances of getting the MG to switch firing targets so quickly goes way down.

2. The reaction of the units to being fired upon in the open is also randomized. Sometimes they will take three shots and only pin. However, the same unit in the same location may rout after three shots the next time you play. And anytime you have a unit that goes into serious cover panic, breaks or routs, you start to have cascading problems (units bunching up near the same cover, units running outside the HQ's command radius, inability to keep other units advancing forward because they will get beyond the HQ's range -- and green units can't be advanced once they get outside of command).

3. I don't think using the Hide command is providing any benefit. If you look at it from the MG's point of view, you can see that he has no problem spotting your units in the open anywhere in the eastern half of the map, regardless of whether they are hiding or not. These green units simply don't have enough stealth competence.

4. Your point about avoiding movement in a lateral direction across the front of the MG, which creates flanking fire on a squad, is very interesting and might be a real insight. It's something I want to investigate more myself. If there's something to it, I'd also like to see if giving the unit a covered arc in the direction of expected fire might be a mitigating tactic. However, it is relatively easy for the MG to break or rout one of these squads at any range on this map, regardless of which direction they are facing, given the chance to shoot at it for 30-40 seconds.

5. Your approach, if it works for you with any consistency, may be possible only against the AI. For some reason, in this scenario, the AI has a tendency to withhold fire when units first emerge from behind the houses. I can't imagine why or how (covered arcs??) it is doing this, but I know it doesn't happen when you are advancing against the TacAI only (i.e., when playing Hot Seat solitaire). This delay gives you a little time to organize your platoon in the open and prepare your advance pattern. It is is much more difficult when your units are getting shot as soon as they step into the open.

All this is just to help explain why I'm still a bit of a skeptic.