[Preplanned arty and spotting rounds]

You get spotting rounds if the pre-planned barrage is from mortars (on or off the map). I gather this is considered a bug, at least for the off-map mortars.

Don't know if that helps.

[Bocage and cover/concealment: Part 2]

In another thread, I noted that concealment for defenders in a bocage was good but not excellent -- some significant portion would give away their positions before anyone even fired a shot. Cover was also good, but not great, and defenders there were particularly vulnerable to small mortar fire (which was generally too impractical or dangerous for use IRL) that could be dropped on them as soon as they revealed themselves.

There is a way to solve the problem of getting very strong cover/concealment in a bocage defense line, but it can only be done in scenarios and has some quirky impact on graphics.

While it is not possible to place a trench under bocage, it is possible to place bocage on top of a trench. The same with foxholes.

With a line of trenches underneath the bocage, the defenders have excellent, perhaps even complete concealment. Cover from mortar fire is also very good, and certainly good enough if they aren't getting spotted in the first place.

With a spread of foxholes under the bocage, the defender gets better concealment -- almost as good as with the trenches. Cover may be better as well, but not much better for mortar fire. Still, if they aren't getting spotted, they have a much better chance of doing some damage before getting mortared.

Unfortunately, there are some artifacts in the graphics that people may find objectionable -- particularly the foxhole option. Also the graphics tend to give away the location of trenches and foxholes, so you would need more of them than required by the number of units in order not to give away positions.

In any event, I think either of these options would make it possible to create a bocage defense that was truly scary.

I plan to experiment a bit further with this, to see if there are other issues, but I thought others might want to experiment as well, so that's the reason for this post.

[Bocage and cover/concealment]

As a lark I tried playing Busting the Bocage (which I had never played before) as the U.S. using only the infantry. I let the tanks sit in the set up zone. Obviously, I wasn't going to win with that kind of handicap. Still, I ended up with only a minor defeat, and I think would have gotten a draw if I had studied the map more carefully.

Again, it was the same two factors that allowed me to get a good way across the map: lack of concealment in the bocage and the effectiveness of my mortars against every contact I spotted. I just needed to do a better job of protecting my rifle squads as they moved up.

[Bocage and cover/concealment]

I know this is probably a post in vain, but FWIW:

I am not looking for advice on how to defend a bocage line when I am in charge of the defense.

This is about the AI being in control of the defense. I edit the AI scripting in an existing scenario in order to test different tactics, etc. I have not found any reasonable way to script a defense of a bocage line given a well-managed attack by an infantry company. No tanks required (in fact, they may just end up being target practice for any shreks in the area ).

OTOH, I am now curious to see if I can script a well-managed attack by the AI, given what I have learned about bocage defenses. Could be interesting ...

[Bocage and cover/concealment]

I don't have any objection to what directions this thread might take, but ...

I imagined that bocage defense would have near perfect concealment and excellent cover -- hence the rhino. I could be wrong about this, of course, and if I am I would like to learn more about that.

In CMBN, concealment is good but not excellent. Some significant portion of the defending force will reveal itself, at least as contacts if not full spot for a brief time (exception: Hiding, but Hiding presents some significant AI scripting problems if the AI is controlling the defense). It's just a matter of waiting awhile for the contacts to appear.

In CMBN, cover is good but not excellent. Mortars can take out the contacts that appear, and a well-managed, patient assault by the rifle squads, with overwatch by MGs, can handle what's left.

From what I see, give me a vanilla rifle company and any rhinos that appear can just head on down the road ...

[Bocage and cover/concealment]

I've been spending a bunch of time noodling with one of the included scenarios (small/tiny one), using the editor, etc, and doing lots of testing and trials with it.

I've been struck by the ease with which the US infantry can advance across a bocage field against a vanilla infantry defense much of the time. What I find most significant is:

1. Given a couple of binocs and a few other spotters, the attackers will start to spot guys in the opposite bocage pretty quickly (within a minute most of the time -- at least with a contact). I have the defense set to a short ambush, but they often seem to give themselves away pretty easily (regular troops, but bonuses and C2 can vary).

2. Given a few mortars (along with the fire from everyone else), those guys behind the bocage die or are routed pretty quickly.

So far, I haven't figured out how to optimize the defense to prevent this from happening. Possibly I will get some ideas as I look at other scenarios, but perhaps someone will be able to point out something that I might be missing.

[improvable AI behaviour]

I have been studying the AI scripting feature quite a bit since getting CMBN, and there is a lot of depth to it, but also some notable handicaps, which are hard to work around sometimes. Still it can produce a more challenging AI than was the case in CM1, especially when the AI is attacking. However ...

The criss-crossing movement is a puzzle. I assume this behavior is an artifact of the path-finding program in the OpAI. And I assume the path-finding is done unit by unit (not formation by formation). But I can't think of any reason why the OpAI would choose a longer path over a shorter one, assuming cover/concealment are equal. It would be great if BFC would comment on this at some point.

[Rotate units in the setup phase.]

Ok, my concrete problem is a follow:

In the Busting The Bocage battle on the by-pass road between la Terre a Deshayes and OBJ EULE I can not place a trench so that is it normal to the by-pass road. From there, I would like to attack the incaming enemy tanks on the main road.

How to solve of it?

I had some problems with this as well. Too bad the manual doesn't cover this. Eventually I found that you could use a second trench (or wire) to "pull" the first one in the direction you want. Takes a little practice I think. After you've got it going the right way, you can build a line or move the second one away, leaving the first one pointed the way you want. Unfortunately the facing symbol underneath doesn't change direction, so you have to get up close to see if you have everything going the right way.

I don't know what you would do if you only have one trench or one wire. Maybe the experts will post on that one.

Edit: I was wrong, I think you have to have at least two trenches or wires connected to keep them facing in the direction you want.

[Area fire by the AI: a pleasant surprise]

I am playing a scenario in which for a extended period of time, the volume of shooting is very low, making it easy to detect who is shooting at whom.

I have seen very clear evidence of a Tac AI-controlled unit on my side firing at an enemy unit that was only a contact. The firing is slow and spaced out -- clearly just suppressive -- but effective and sustained. I believe that in every case, the enemy unit was fully spotted by someone (not necessarily by the firing unit, but by someone in the same C2 net) and then reverted to being only a contact (to everyone, not just the firing unit). IOW, the platoon HQ is ordering the platoon MMG to fire at something the HQ previously spotted, either to keep the enemy unit suppressed or to make him show himself again.

This may not be a surprise to everyone, but to an old CM1 player, it's a terrific thing to see.

[A concern related to AI scripting]

I was wrong on one point.

I had said that infantry using the Advance order would always cause the HQs to reach the next Map Zone first. I think this is true only for US paratrooper platoons (which, unfortunately, were my test subject before -- I hadn't considered that the behavior might vary by type of unit ). With other unit types, the behavior in this regard is variable, but I can only guess about why.

It still looks to me like Advance and Assault produce the same behavior (with infantry), except that Assault protects the HQs in every case, and I believe it protects some key support teams like MGs (but not all).

I would still like to know if there are any positives to using Advance that make it a better choice than Assault (or Quick for that matter) in certain situations. So far, in my (limited) experiments with editing the AI Plans in existing scenarios, I have gotten significantly better results for an attacking AI force when using Quick and Assault, and never using Advance. But -- as others pointed out in the thread -- I am new to this territory.

[Illogical AI Formation when Attacking]

i have to admit, that i extremely rarely play QBs against the AI (i can't remember more than 2 such battles) - although I play CM now since CM:BO ...

AI is always too stupid without the help of a scenario designer. So better leave it. QBs are good in PBEM - that's where i use them.

I haven't done anything with QBs in CMBN at all yet, other than to note that they make heavy use of the Advance Order, so I would edit that for any QB that I wanted to play defense on. However, that is as much as I can say about QBs at this point.

I am also concerned about tank force attacks by the AI, in either scenarios or QBs, but that's another one I haven't tried any real editing on either. So, we will see.

[Illogical AI Formation when Attacking]

I saw the same thing, but with the explanation BF gave in the other thread i now understand what is happening. If you separate the units into two different groups it works perfectly. you just need to fiddle a bit with the timing or the "running" HMGs will overtake the advancing infantry.

just fine with me. and I hope BF will give us more groups 16 or 24 would be nice ...

Won't work with QBs. I agree that there are workarounds for scenarios. However, I think that Advance is worse than useless, so it makes more sense to apply the workarounds while using the Assault order (IMHO). At least then you only have to worry about the support teams.

But for an AI attacking in a QB, the AI would still have high casualties in Support Teams like MGs, even if you edited the AI Plans to take out Advance and substitute Quick or Assault. But the HQs would be safer and that counts for a lot.

Edit: Actually, I think that it may be only the bazooka/shrek teams that commit suicide when a group is using Assault. The MGs may be protected sufficiently. That seems like an OK situation, especially in an infantry only attack.

[Illogical AI Formation when Attacking]

I have given up on my other thread on this subject, but here is what I have seen after testing it many, many times:

1. With Advance, squads move with Assault and everyone else moves with Quick. The HQ and all support teams, except mortars (which have long delays), arrive at the next Map Zone first (if they aren't killed or pinned along the way).

2. With Assault, you get basically the same behavior as Advance, except that HQs (which include FOs) hang back with the mortars.

3. I still haven't quite figured out Max Assault, except like Dash it probably should be used infrequently and over very short distances. Perhaps you have looked at this?

[A concern related to AI scripting]

When we issue this mixed group an ADVANCE movement order to move to its first map zone, this is what we see happen generally:

1st - The FAST units get QUICK movement orders and fly off ahead of everybody else.

2nd - The ASSAULT units get Assault orders at the same time. Obviously it's going to take them a bit longer to get there.

3rd - The HQ and mortar units will hang back until at least one unit in its group reaches the first map zone. Then they get QUICK movement orders.

I have never seen this happen, as you describe, with a group executing the Advance order. Also, I would never use the Advance order for any purpose, if that is what it does. I would like to have on order that causes the AI units to use Move or Hunt. None of them do. I think this is a handicap for the AI.

But enough is enough. I am a bit disappointed that no one else has actually taken a look at this since my OP, but sometimes that is that way it goes.

[A concern related to AI scripting]

Otherwise its a general question.

No. The Advance order works the same in every scenario/QB. I am proposing that it does not work the way it is supposed to work, or otherwise it is not a useful order and tends to get the AI troops into trouble.

I expect someone who is reading this thread will actually investigate for themselves. I'm happy to wait on that development.

[A concern related to AI scripting]

AI orders is something of a black art, even to the old hands. You open scenarios by different designers and find entirely different 'personalities' to their AI orders sets. Some fill all the slots in the AI orders set with finely choreographed troops movements. Others paint with a broad brish (quite literally) and rely on the AI's situational responses to drive the action.

MikeyD: Please read my post just above your post. I am not trying to create a scenario. I was trying to understand why the AI attacker in a scenario included with the game played so badly. There are a number of reasons, but I don't believe they fall into the "black art" category. One of the reasons is that the Advance order does not do what it is supposed to do (IMHO).

[A concern related to AI scripting]

It's interesting how difficult these things can be sometimes.

Don't worry about what you think I am "trying to do".

Thank about what the Advance order in an AI Plan is supposed to do (if you know). Then look at an actual battle using Scenario Author Test mode and see what the troops actually do when they are executing an Advance order.

That's just for starters, but it's a good place to start.

I am not going to respond any more to people who are telling me that I not seeing what I am seeing, or that I don't understand what I am seeing. Check it for yourself or decide that I'm delusional and move on to another thread.

[A concern related to AI scripting]

However:

That all depends upon how far apart your waypoints are. The main thing about waypoints is that the AI is at it's most vulnerable to the player when moving between waypoints.

No, from my tests, the distance is not a factor

Yes

OK, we agree.

Hmm, sometimes they do, but not always.

Well, in my tests they move close to the same time.

Platoon HQs usually lag way behind. Small units like scout teams, independent bazooka teams, HQ support, and XO teams generally will lead the way - that's true. I suspect this is to allow small units to sniff out ambushes rather than having an entire squad get ambushed.

Using the Advance Order, the movement is always the same. Platoon HQs are always the first ones to get to the next Map Zone.

Yes, that's true. I suspect that it's because the AI isn't smart enough to know when the enemy will engage them, so if your group gets surprised in between waypoints your truppen will continue on to the next waypoint regardless of what the player is doing to them. So if you gave your truppen a 'walk' command and the player ambushed them, well the AI would just keep on walking while getting annihilated. At least if they are doing some bounding overwatch they have an opportunity to return fire while getting annihilated. edited to add that the Hunt command as currently designed cancels the order when the truppen make contact. Obviously with the AI a cancelled order wouldn't work too well since the truppen who were hunting would then just sit in place after making contact for the rest of the scenario.

This part I think is not related to the AI Plan scripting, or at least I can't think of how to respond to it.

Depends on what you are trying to do

Well, OK, but I was inviting someone to tell me how they would fruitfully use the Advance Order, as I described it.

I think it's safe to say that it's working as designed. It's just not designed to do what you would like it to do.

No, I do not think it's safe to assume that. I would like an Order that caused the AI to use Move or Hunt. In that respect you are correct.

Different waypoint location choices might make it less of a turkey shoot too. Perhaps if the American tanks stopped just after the hedgerow and delayed for five minutes rather than moving straight up to the buildings your result might be different. You're going to get out of the AI what you put into it. If you want to put something together that's quick and dirty it's going to be easy to defeat. If you spend a lot of time with it you will get an AI plan that's a little more robust.

No, it's a turkey shoot, because the tanks rush up to the Panther, when I think the scenario designer thought they would Hunt their way up there. And I have spent a lot of time with the AI Plan scripting feature. More time than I have spent playing the game.

[A concern related to AI scripting]

By waypoints I am indeed referring to the points painted onto the map.

OK. The manual, etc., calls them Map Zones. Waypoints generally refer to something else in the manual. It's difficult to respond when you use different terminology.

[A concern related to AI scripting]

ASL Vet, just to keep confusion at a minimum, I assume by waypoints you mean the orders "painted" on the map, right?

No, I think he hasn't been following this thread correctly. I have to assume he thinks I am talking about giving commands during a battle. But, of course, I am talking about scripting the AI Plan when creating a scenario or a QB.

That's OK. I just don't have any way to respond to his post.

[A concern related to AI scripting]

The differences between AI movement types are subtle and situational.

I believe that what I am seeing happens every time, in every scenario and QB. I am sure that, at some point, people will start to check this out for themselves. If anyone sees contrary results, I will be happy to try and figure it out why that might be the case.

[A concern related to AI scripting]

SteveP, I PMd you my email address, send me your scenario and I will see what the problem is and report back. I have an idea what the problem is, but it will be quicker if I can check it out.

No need. As I said in my first post, I am using one of the included scenarios (Vierville) and doing small edits to see what happens with the included script and with slightly different scripts. You can take any of the scenarios. Check out the groups and the AI plan for a group, so that you see which ones have Advance orders and where. Then use Scenario Author Test mode. Set it to Show All Paths. Click on any of the AI run units, and you will see all of the paths for all the AI units. Look what paths you get when a group attempts to execute an Advance order.

While you are at it, you can attempt to see any evidence that an AI-run unit ever uses Move or Hunt. I have never seen it, but I'm willing to be agnostic on it.

[A concern related to AI scripting]

Hmmm ... This isn't working, but perhaps I need to give a specific example:

If I have a group consisting of a infantry platoon, and in the AI Plan I give that group an Advance order to another Map Zone, this is what happens:

1. The Squads all move using Assault. Which is slow and tiring and usually inappropriate to the situation on the map.

2. The HQ and other teams, such as mortars and bazooka, all move using Quick.

3. They all start moving at the same time, except for the mortar(s).

4. The HQ and the bazooka team outrun the squads and arrive at the new Map Zone first. This usually means they get shot at first.

5. There are no units (AFAICT) that will move using Move or Hunt, no matter what order you give for that group.

6. So far, I have not been able to see any place in a scenario where Advance, as I have described it, is useful.

7. I think the Advance Order may not be working as designed, but perhaps it is only in the Mac version of the game.

If the game is working as designed, then my conclusion is that 95% of the time the only useful orders are Quick and Assault. But I have not been able to script the AI to produce good results using just those orders most of the time. I got into this investigation because I noticed some strange behavior by the AI when it was the attacker, so I wanted to figure out why that was. One of the key reason, I believe, is that the AI Plan was using the Advance command quite frequently.

I hope that doesn't sound aggressive.

Edit: Checking out a couple more scenarios makes me think that what I am seeing is not a Mac-specific issue. For example, the American Tanks in Barkmann's Corner move using Quick even though they are given the Advance order in the AI Plan -- so they move the same way as if they had been given the Quick order.

2nd Edit: Actually, Tanks given the Advance order use Fast -- Advance = Dash. Tanks given the Assault order use to a combination of Fast and Quick. As with infantry, there is no way to get the tanks to use Move or Hunt. Which is why Barkmann's Corner turns into such a turkey shoot for the Germans.

[A concern related to AI scripting]

Advance is usually the best compromise to get the AI to move where you want it too.

So you are saying that Advance is working correctly? You are saying that it's OK that there is no AI Plan order which directs the AI to use Move or Hunt (meaning AI units can only use Fast, Quick, or Assault)? You are saying that it's OK that Advance causes HQs, bazooka teams, etc., to rush ahead to the next Map Zone even when that zone is subject to enemy fire? You are saying it's OK for mortar crews and bazooka teams to end up in buildings?

I'm just repeating some things in my previous posts, because I am still hoping to get specific answers to questions such as this. So far, I have to been unable to see any way to make a logical AI Plan when the AI is on the attack, at least with infantry. But I am willing to be educated. I have not yet investigated how all of this works with armor.

[A concern related to AI scripting]

In addition to the above, the AI apparently does not have the programming to keep a mortar or bazooka unit out of a building. If an AI platoon is on the move, and the map zone includes a building plus open space, the mortar and/or bazooka unit is likely to end up in the building. There is no work around except to create separate groups for them, which is an impractical level of micromanagement.

There is also no programming to keep a unit from slow crawling until it is too fatigued to fight. This was also true in CM1, but may be a more common problem if the AI scripting calls for maximum assault.

And the mortar crews take way too long to catch up to their platoons when they are on the offensive. A 90 second to 2 minute delay is not uncommon (using the Quick order). It's possible that this problem would go away if the Advance order worked differently.