I think the AI is pretty good!

[phil stanbridge]

I've just started replaying Normandy. It has certainly rekindled my love affair for the game after a reasonable amount of time out. I am replaying through the single missions that came with the game. One thing I am finding - the AI puts up a pretty good fight!

Playing as the defender in this game is generally hard work. The main problem being how quickly the AI attacks. Even on WEGO/Warrior so at least I get a chance to pause for thought, the AI sends his units into the fray without any apparent concern for casualties - not that that made a jot of difference in this mission!

The AI uses superior firepower effectively, and quite often uses suppressing tactics very well. In fact, I've learnt quite a lot from watching the AI. I've just run through a mission now, which is only a small map granted, but it was effectively over for me within 15 minutes. When I checked the score, I had lost 90 men in total, with 2 guns abandoned. I didn't even get a single shot off from the IG I had due to AI suppression. I couldn't even call in my artillery because I didn't get time. The AI had lost 4 KIA with 8 injured by the time I ceasefired. I used the default setup zones and didn't change a thing except for hiding/cover arcs. But I was surprised how quickly this battle was over. Yet when I played as the Americans, and on the offensive, it was a much more balanced affair. I had tanks immbolized due to mines, one knocked out by an AT gun and many men killed by the enemy IG (the gun I couldn't even fire!). I was obviously not using my firepower as effectively as the AI. Food for thought!

I'm now going to try that again as the defender, but I'm going to try and use my firepower more effectively. I'm interested too see what happens if I focus on one area rather than spreading my force over a much larger area.

[Boche]

I believe the steady increase in quality the scenarios have had since CMSF is mostly due to the fact that scenario designers are becoming so much more experienced in making good and challenging scenarios.

all credit should go to them!

[phil stanbridge]

I believe the steady increase in quality the scenarios have had since CMSF is mostly due to the fact that scenario designers are becoming so much more experienced in making good and challenging scenarios.

all credit should go to them!

You are correct of course, but it is a contentious issue. I've argued the point before. I still feel that the majority of missions in Normandy feel less 'dynamic' than the missions in SF and to a degree, CMBO/CMBB due to the fact the designers are able to control the outcome by using mines/obstacles and unpassable terrain. It has definitely taken some of the fun out of the game for me but I'm not talking about the negatives in this thread. I'm talking about happier things

[phil stanbridge]

Just one other little thing I've noticed playing this scenario - both runs through I've had my AT gun targetted by enemy 60mm mortar rounds fired indirectly. How on earth does it know I'm there? My gun is hidden and behind bocage - Is this pre-planned or something? I've just lost 10 men in the first minute due to mortar rounds. Yet when I play as the attacker, I can't see bugger all. I'm going to restart and move my gun. See if it is pre-planned.

[womble]

AIUI, the AI will, indeed, use pre-planned fire missions against "likely-looking" targets sometimes.

[Wreck]

What battle are you talking about? I should like to try it.

I've certainly not noted the AI doing anything clever on offense. On defense it seems to simply sit where it is placed and fight to the death. It won't move at all so far as I have seen. And this is usually fine -- it allows the scenario designed to create whatever sort of staging he wants.

On offense, though, the AI sucks. It seems to have no notion of "too dangerous", so it will cheerfully push its pixeltruppen into open-ground death zones. Also it doesn't appear to do combined arms, so its armor tends to drive ahead of the infantry, wreaking some havoc but also allowing me to get at it with fausts or zooks.

[Thomm]

How on earth does it know I'm there?

The AI does not know! The human who painted the target zone read your mind in advance!

Happens to me all the time in QBs! When you see a perfect spot for defending ... stay away from it!

Best regards,

Thomm

[phil stanbridge]

AIUI, the AI will, indeed, use pre-planned fire missions against "likely-looking" targets sometimes.

Yes, this must pre-planned. I tried it five times and on all times the mortar rounds fell in exactly the same area. So the designer basically gave you two guns, and then decides to potentially take one away with a pre-planned barrage. Impressive.

What battle are you talking about? I should like to try it.

I've certainly not noted the AI doing anything clever on offense. On defense it seems to simply sit where it is placed and fight to the death. It won't move at all so far as I have seen. And this is usually fine -- it allows the scenario designed to create whatever sort of staging he wants.

On offense, though, the AI sucks. It seems to have no notion of "too dangerous", so it will cheerfully push its pixeltruppen into open-ground death zones. Also it doesn't appear to do combined arms, so its armor tends to drive ahead of the infantry, wreaking some havoc but also allowing me to get at it with fausts or zooks.

Buying the Farm. I'm not saying the AI is doing anything particularly clever really, I'm just saying that it is using its superior firepower effectively by targetting the main threat, ie, the 75mm gun and the AT gun and hammering them with everything despite the cost in casualties. I could not get a single round off because of this, and ended up in a draw. I'm learning from the AI!

I went into the planner and changed a couple of things. I changed my German units from Green to Regular and gave myself one 81mm off-map with 100 rounds. What a difference it made!

I tried to move my AT gun but it wouldn't have it - even though the option was available. Is that intended?

I think this business with Combined Arms is contentious too. My opinion is that the AI is attempting to use armour with infantry support. The problem is the maps are too small to really tell otherwise.

[black_prince]

I don't recall seeing any particularly clever tank-infantry tactics from the AI but I have seen the AI using artillery to cover tank advances (although not necessarily in a flawless manner) in quick battles. I've also seen the AI using smoke in QBs to cover armour and infantry advances-again, not necessarily flawlessly but not in a completley incompetent manner either. I've also seen the AI concealing armour well amongst clumps of trees in QBs. Bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that the AI could still do with improvement but it's significantly better than it was in CMSF.

[Ranger33]

I can't call the AI anything more than "functional". Yesterday I played some scenario where all I had to do was roll a couple scout cars forward and watch them pick off a company of infantry literally one truckload at a time.

With proper scenario design, it can certainly offer a challenge, but it's nothing at all like playing a real person.

[MG TOW]

The tac AI of the individual soldier, and squad on the move is pretty good compared to similar games. The soldier as an individual has a good survival instinct and usually plays the terrain correctly while popping shots off, and other appropriate actions... scrounging, bazooka shots at vehicles and such.

Squads move appropriately without having to can a formation; There's always an exception. But for the most part it is correct.

I wish there were quick arcs tho for quickly setting a range by dropping a premade 180 arc, but I wouldn't want to lose the present method of dragging directional ranges and arcs of fire either.

[PLM2]

The AI in quick battles I find horrendous. Then again I wouldn't expect it to be so great. It seems compared to CMx1 though its a lot worse probably due to the 1:1 representation. Basically I can use 2 platoons to wipe out 2 enemy battalions without armor. In boccage country they simply file through holes/breaks in the bocage in my general direction.

I've tried to see how many enemy I can take on while defending and I've already reached up to a small battle with the enemy having +150% (or whatever max is) bonus points. Soon I guess i'll try only purchasing a platoon or giving the AI more artillery/armor. Half the time the enemy drops the arty on themself so I'm not sure that'll help it.

I also managed to turn the battle in which a lone US company defends a small village into a massacre on the attackers with only moderate casualties mostly to outlying units.

[Wreck]

I had played Buying the Farm before but only on the Allied side -- where I won (of course), and strangely don't even recall the minefields except on the road, or the wire. But of course, unlike the AI, I make it a point not to advance across open ground against an occupied hedgerow.

I played it as Germans yesterday, and I think I understand why you think the AI is good -- it acts particularly sanely in this scenario. It is programmed to shell the obvious location for the AT gun; it is programmed to shell other locations that the German is (a) constrained to be, and/or good terrain.

So, the AI ended up killing my AT gun without it firing; I had rearranged the defenses to be more sensible, but still had problems with the Stuarts. The AI seemed to handle them fairly smartly, but I have the feeling that, also was staged. I.e.: sit in the rear a few turns. On about turn 5, move up to LOS with defense then sit there and fire for a while w/o moving. After about turn 20, attempt to force through.

My mortar was quite effective in crushing the main push on the left, and on the right, the AI's infantry had no hope advancing across the aforementioned open field plus wire against my defenses. One of the two Stuarts there hit a mine and immobilized; the other was killed by my panzershreck team as it attempted to drive past the hedgerow on its own.

On the left the tanks caused more problems, but still the infantry lost the fight so I had a few guys left to faust the one tank that tried to drive past. The other just sat back and never got close enough, although it also kept hurting me to the end.

I ended up getting a tactical victory after 5 minutes of overtime. My force was shot up pretty bad.

I went into the planner and changed a couple of things. I changed my German units from Green to Regular and gave myself one 81mm off-map with 100 rounds. What a difference it made!

You don't need all that. Just try it again, moving around the setup locations of the key units so that they are not in the initial artillery zone, or they are in a trench. (Foxholes are OK for turn 1, but move to a trench before trying to fight.) And then make sure they hide when artillery is hitting nearby -- hide everyone in a hole or trench on turn one until you know where the enemy hits. It's very effective.

I tried to move my AT gun but it wouldn't have it - even though the option was available. Is that intended?

Even small AT guns take several minutes to get packed up to move. (According to the manual, the 50mm PaK takes 3.2 minutes to pack up, 1.6 minutes to deploy.) It does work: I am moving the gun in a second go at it.

I think this business with Combined Arms is contentious too. My opinion is that the AI is attempting to use armour with infantry support. The problem is the maps are too small to really tell otherwise.

I have the feeling the moves are canned, at least on this map. The tanks have tried the same thing both times.

[phil stanbridge]

It's very interesting to see people's responses to the AI. I realise the AI is only ever going to be reasonably effective against a human opponent and I don't expect miracles but I find it challenging all the same. Obviously the longer you play this game the better you become too.

But as I said, I think it's due to the fact it 'rushes' the majority of it's force at you during an attack. So if you're up against the Americans, for example, you can really feel the effect of superior firepower against you. Those quick firing Garands (and plenty of them) can be a nightmare for defending forces.

Personally, I wouldn't want the AI to be any more effective. I don't think I'd enjoy it, and being honest, I'm sure there's a lot of you out there who feel the same. Sure, there's things I'd like to see. I'd like to see bailed crews actually retreating instead of charging the VP by themselves. I'd like to see passengers staying with the HT's and using the MG's instead of fighting on foot. There's plenty more besides. But overall, I think it's a good effort.

[noxnoctum]

I disagree. Unless we're talking "Manstein" level AI or something (don't think that'll happen anytime soon )... the AI getting better can only be a good thing. Right now you have to balance it with giving the AI more units. The need for this would go away if the AI was on par with a human. (not something in the realm of possibility ATM though some games do have excellent AI... haven't played it much but I've heard good things about Achtung Panzer: Kharkov in particular)

Not that there's anything wrong with having the player at a disadvantage (I like that), but I'd rather be playing a "Deep Blue" computer, "Combat Mission edition" so that when I pull off a victory it's truly rewarding.

It's very easy to exploit the AI when you know its weaknesses and it has serious problems in an offense role. The biggest problem being the AI's lack of regard for flanks. The map designer can set it up so its flanks are secure but then if you penetrate its defenses the AI will not be able to reposition accordingly. AI plans can be used to pull AI troops back into another position preemptively or on a timer but still it's not truly reactive: in a recent game I played it was clear the designer had intended for the AI to reinforce a position immediately behind the main front line but I got through quickly I guess so the timing was completely off. Result: 6 fully loaded halftracks driving straight into my platoon of panthers, presumably to unload BEHIND where my units had already passed.

I haven't played against the AI in QBs but I imagine it's even worse.

If the AI ever did become insanely good too I would assume we could have various levels of AI difficulty.

The TacAI though on the other hand, is generally great, and I can't think of another game that compares, at least for this level of complexity. (I was only talking about the strategic level, "overmind" AI)

Really though all this is kinda irrelevant if you have a multiplayer lobby with good matchmaking options (hint hint )

[phil stanbridge]

It's very easy to exploit the AI when you know its weaknesses and it has serious problems in an offense role. The biggest problem being the AI's lack of regard for flanks. The map designer can set it up so its flanks are secure but then if you penetrate its defenses the AI will not be able to reposition accordingly. AI plans can be used to pull AI troops back into another position preemptively or on a timer but still it's not truly reactive: in a recent game I played it was clear the designer had intended for the AI to reinforce a position immediately behind the main front line but I got through quickly I guess so the timing was completely off. Result: 6 fully loaded halftracks driving straight into my platoon of panthers, presumably to unload BEHIND where my units had already passed.

That's an interesting observation. I have seen what you're talking about to a degree. But even still with the flanks relatively unprotected I still suffer casualties above and beyond what I'd expect. I guess that is down to the map designer. At the end of the day, maybe we are expecting too much from simple AI.

[Wreck]

the AI getting better can only be a good thing.

Hear, hear. And really, it is at a level now where it seems like it shouldn't be too much work to improve in modest ways. In particular it seems like it should be easy enough to pre-compute directional choke points for any map, perhaps just for assuming north/south or east-west travel. (This should be done for vehicles and infantry separately.) Then use these, along with cover/concealment and LOS, to compute "goodness" values for all positions on a map. The AI should then prefer "good" positions in its expected attack direction while avoiding "bad" ones. This ought to improve setup, at least, for defenses.

The TacAI though on the other hand, is generally great

Well let's not be hasty. The TacAI is much closer to where it ought to be; I'll agree with that. I think mainly this is a function of not needing to be particularly good, though. Certainly the TacAI has nothing like the problems of the StratAI.

It would be nice for pixeltruppen to be smarter when moving around. For example, units should cancel move orders and seek immediately nearby cover or concealment if they take close range fire. This should be a function of their experience level, and not suppression.

Non-hiding troops who are in any form of cover that would improve if they hide (trenches, foxholes, not sure about buildings) should automatically hide if they come under artillery or mortar fire. And they should also automatically unhide themselves when the artillery ends. Similarly, troops should auto-hide if they come under fire of any kind which they cannot "effectively" return -- i.e. tank, infantry from outside their covered arc, HMG fire from a distance, etc. ("Effective" would have to be fudged, but this should not be difficult with firepower numbers ala CMBO in hand.) As things are, the player needs to micromanage this, which is a PITA plus being unrealistic. Experienced troops in particular did not need to be told to duck. Indeed, it seems reasonable to me to have troops duck even before being shot at by a seen tank, at least if moderately close. As soon as the turret points in your direction, you should not need orders to know to get down.

One other super-easy tweak for the TacAI would be for tank commanders to unhide themselves when they feel it is safe. In fact as of 1.01, it appears TCs are really hard to shoot before they button up, making it a good idea to unhide them every turn even when infantry are 100m away. (The infantry will thus shoot at the TC, revealing themselves, and the tank then can target them without wasting shells as it would if you just area fired.) So unbuttoning your tanks is kind of a no-brainer. But even if the level of TC safety were scaled back to more CMBO levels, it would still be a good idea for the AI to unbutton its tanks when they were reasonably safe.

[Hessian deserter]

I find the AI usually takes a pretty good toll on my unit's. AI arty can be very accurate and make your units dissolve like melted butter.

I kike to try and perform a "ruse" whenever possible on AI unit's [tanks in particular] where I distract an AI unit in one direction and attack it from another,so that it does not see me coming. I recently had a Panther Back up into within 60 meters of an 8 man squad with 7 grenades. I ordered the squad to quick move to the Panther. Since the Panther was looking to it's front it did not see my squad approaching it from the rear. it took 4 grenades to destroy the Panther. It did manage to turn it's turrent around and kill 2 members of my squad before it's crew bailed out and got in a gunfight with my squad! I learned later in this same battle though, that trying that same type of Infantry/tank grenade attack on the front or sides of the tank can be suicidal!

[noxnoctum]

Hear, hear. And really, it is at a level now where it seems like it shouldn't be too much work to improve in modest ways. In particular it seems like it should be easy enough to pre-compute directional choke points for any map, perhaps just for assuming north/south or east-west travel. (This should be done for vehicles and infantry separately.) Then use these, along with cover/concealment and LOS, to compute "goodness" values for all positions on a map. The AI should then prefer "good" positions in its expected attack direction while avoiding "bad" ones. This ought to improve setup, at least, for defenses.

Well let's not be hasty. The TacAI is much closer to where it ought to be; I'll agree with that. I think mainly this is a function of not needing to be particularly good, though. Certainly the TacAI has nothing like the problems of the StratAI.

It would be nice for pixeltruppen to be smarter when moving around. For example, units should cancel move orders and seek immediately nearby cover or concealment if they take close range fire. This should be a function of their experience level, and not suppression.

Non-hiding troops who are in any form of cover that would improve if they hide (trenches, foxholes, not sure about buildings) should automatically hide if they come under artillery or mortar fire. And they should also automatically unhide themselves when the artillery ends. Similarly, troops should auto-hide if they come under fire of any kind which they cannot "effectively" return -- i.e. tank, infantry from outside their covered arc, HMG fire from a distance, etc. ("Effective" would have to be fudged, but this should not be difficult with firepower numbers ala CMBO in hand.) As things are, the player needs to micromanage this, which is a PITA plus being unrealistic. Experienced troops in particular did not need to be told to duck. Indeed, it seems reasonable to me to have troops duck even before being shot at by a seen tank, at least if moderately close. As soon as the turret points in your direction, you should not need orders to know to get down.

One other super-easy tweak for the TacAI would be for tank commanders to unhide themselves when they feel it is safe. In fact as of 1.01, it appears TCs are really hard to shoot before they button up, making it a good idea to unhide them every turn even when infantry are 100m away. (The infantry will thus shoot at the TC, revealing themselves, and the tank then can target them without wasting shells as it would if you just area fired.) So unbuttoning your tanks is kind of a no-brainer. But even if the level of TC safety were scaled back to more CMBO levels, it would still be a good idea for the AI to unbutton its tanks when they were reasonably safe.

Oh ya TacAI could definitely improve, I guess I was thinking as compared to StratAI and compared to a lot of the "TacAI" of many games it's way better.

The problem is with those situations you mention I can think of times when I'd want my men to stay up, exposed (rare situation but still possible). But I agree it'd be good if by default pixeltruppen went to ground when being aimed at by a tank or if arty starts landing nearby.

I can also think of situations where I'd want my men to move through the killzone, ignoring fire.

I guess the best thing would be to allow for different "stances", agressive, passive, neutral etc.: where agressive would have you always be staying up exposed to fight and passive would have you hitting the dirt immediately and neutral woudl be in between. (going to ground if unable to return fire for instance)

At the same time that might be too much control allowed. Maybe if it was only an option for veteran and higher troops?

[Wreck]

I don't feel it should be an option. The TacAI should make the cost/benefit calculation for the troops: if they are shooting at close and/or fully exposed troops, and the fire they are taking is light, you probably want them "up" (and it also in their self-interest if the enemy is close), so at least more experienced troops should stay up. Conversely if they are just area firing, they should probably hide. There is complexity here, but not great complexity.

I am sure any TacAI behavior will sometimes be "wrong"; but I don't feel that is problem unless the troops act in some way that is unnatural. Otherwise it is just colorful antics of pixeltruppen: "I ordered them to advance across the field, but then mortar fire hit and they all dove for cover but this one crazy guy..." What bothers me is what it currently does which is wrong, for example, continuing to stay "up" in a field as mortars hit all around. Every infantryman knew the sound of a shell incoming and they quickly learn to hit the dirt, regardless of what mission they are trying to do.