Humiliated by the AI!!

[Placebo]

I have read some posts about the poor A.I so have to own up to being surprised and soundly beaten in a quick battle (wego).

I setup an assult on a village with panzergrenadiers and a platoon of the Nazi wonder weapon Jagpanthers vs US mixed formation (auto selected).

The attack on the village all goes according to plan but there is no sign of the platoon of shermans I know are out there. So I send my tanks to the ridge at the back of the map to flush them out.

My first tank is taken out with a side hit, wasteful but i know where they are now and send in the tanks head on to finish them. The first tank over the ridge is hit with 3 or 4 frontal shots and the 105 manages to distroy the wepon controls so my tank is now useless. Then to my surprise the shermans come flying out of their hidden positions in a flanking maneouver. I take out 1 sherman but the speed leaves one of my tanks open to a side hit which takes it out. Desperate to keep my last tank fighting i reverse while targeting another sherman, however do to the limited angle of fire it moves out of my line of sight while reversing and another faster sherman is now behind me and finished off my last Jadgpanther.

I am gutted about being shown up against the AI destroying my superior force but had to post on the forum as I was so impressed with the way the AI acted!!

[skogtroll]

I was watching something like this a few times . Unfortunately more frequently i was flooded by the unstoppable mass of humans and vehicles (often terrible QB maps don't help). A think that AI is much better in meeting engagements and probes/attacks.

[John1966]

Then to my surprise the shermans come flying out of their hidden positions in a flanking maneouver. I take out 1 sherman but the speed leaves one of my tanks open to a side hit which takes it out.

I had this happen to me and it wasn't a QB. Panther up against the bocage and two Shermans come out in front of it. One stops to engage and the other goes flat out around the bocage and takes my Panther out with a side shot. As was playing WEGO and it all happened within a turn so I couldn't intervene.

[Rocky Balboa]

Yeah, I've seen the AI do some smart things from time to time but most of the time its decision are not very good ... Such as running straight down a road in an HT loaded with a squad of inf toward 2 waiting Shermans that had already been previously spotted. Of course you can imagine the outcome and the carnage which ensued.

[Ryujin]

Yeah, I've seen the AI do some smart things from time to time but most of the time its decision are not very good ... Such as running straight down a road in an HT loaded with a squad of inf toward 2 waiting Shermans that had already been previously spotted. Of course you can imagine the outcome and the carnage which ensued.

Those AI couldn't do anything but follow the script and go down the road, deviation from zee Script ist VERBOTEN! *throat cutting gesture*.

There isn't any AI commander making decisions in CMN. Nobody is home on the other side, the units just follow a pre-made script by the designer. Sometimes that script works out perfectly, but most of the time it doesn't work out well if the script doesn't perfectly match what you're doing. The AI is probably best a defense, as it doesn't have to do anything other than sit where the designer put them.

Personally I'd rather have some AI added in a modual instead of market garden or anymore units. Its a really noticeable issue for me as I play SP most of the time.

[Bradley Dick]

The tactical AI in this game does pretty well usually. It's the planning and adapting part that it can't seem to fake. That being said, I hardly notice it in some of the better campaigns and missions.

[dpabrams]

That's what you get for taking a uber Tank Destroyer on the attack. I learned never to assault, attack or probe with a tank destroyer.

[Kommissar]

I find that the AI is almost better at attacking than it is at defending (quite the opposite from CMx1). I think the reason is, as has been noted by many previous posts, the AI doesn't have the ability to adapt, which creates more of a problem for a defense than an offense.

I took my first major loss to the AI in the CW Linking Up mission. Sticking to the scripted attack plan (and three times my numbers!) was enough to beat me.

[Placebo]

That's what you get for taking a uber Tank Destroyer on the attack. I learned never to assault, attack or probe with a tank destroyer.

I am sure i read somewhere that Hitler diverted Jadgpanther production away from the eastern front to units preparing for the Andennes offensive. Taking from its ideal role of defending in open countryside to the offence in forest and hills!

[MattMulder]

Damn AI.

Sometimes while defending the AI sends a whole platoon running in the open towards your machine gun positions and they get cut down in a minute.

Sometimes the AI defends like a pro.

I was playing a couple of days ago a small attack with a grenadier company and three Stugs against AT positions and a little infantry, in a hilly map with bunches of trees to offer a little protection. Well, my infantry got hammered with shots from what appeared to be a concealed Sherman, so I launch two of my Stugs in a flanking attack...right in the LOS of a 76mm which took them both out. My 3rd was killed by a couple of mortar shells, leaving my infantry virtually alone to cover 500m of open ground under fire from unforgiving AT guns and a couple of machine gun positions...20minutes later, I ceased fire and got a minor defeat, and when I looked at the enemy positions, they were perfectly in place to get me from every angle...Damn I was stupid

[Loaf]

One of the biggest differences between CM1 AI and CM2 AI is the way armour is handled... In CM1 it was common to end a battle against the AI and discover armour assets that it had kept tucked away in dead ground for the entire battle, and in combat armour was generally employed in a tentative fashion. The first time I saw an AI armour "rush" in CMBN my jaw hit the floor! I too have had the AI chop me up by this type of aggressive action - at first just because I never considered it a possibility.

It seems to me that this type of tactic has a greater chance of success in CMBN than it did in the CM1 games... Maybe it's the lack of Borg spotting?

[skogtroll]

My jaws also hit the floor . I had never seen so many burning vehicles . For example: my Stug III is overwatching the main street in the village. Computer player know about my vehicle, but he is moving his tanks, trucks etc. in area in the front of my assault gun. After a few minutes I usually have several kills. Computer player doesn't try flank my Vehicle with tanks or bazooka squad.

Another irritating me thing is the way computer player deploying his forces. I'm assaulting village and finding tanks deployed on the firs line, hidden behind low wall :mad:. This is often repeating in the next games.

[Vinnart]

The A.I is better in CMBN than it was in CMSF, but I haven’t found it too much of a challenge for the most part. I find I take most of my casualties to artillery. In this it is good on getting rounds on target. I have had some tough battles against the AI, but they were scenarios that were very unbalanced such as armor vs infantry. In order to really get challenged you have to play against humans. HvH is where the game shines the most.

[tarzan]

The problem with AI is a simple one...

The first law of warfare is that your original plan often goes out the window as soon as combat is engaged - and that sticking with an obsolete plan that doesn't take into consideration the currently happening reality is a recipe for sure defeat. At least it sure is for me!

Isn't that the problem with AI? - it never modifies or gives up it's first pre-contact combat plan and appropriately adjusts - kind of like a perpetual motion violation of the first law of warfare?

[Ranger33]

This all highlights why the scenario editor needs triggers. I know the suggestion has been brought up repeatedly (and just as often argued against ) but that's because it would be such a massive improvement.

Right now scenario designer's have to design the AI around a timer, with every movement a shot in the dark relative to the player's actions. Some simple triggers using the already existing objective point system (taking casualties, destroying enemies, touching objectives, spotting units, etc) linked to the existing strategic AI options, would add a ton of flexibility.

Just imagine: an AI defense that would fall back when outflanked or after taking a certain number of casualties, an attacking AI that would retreat or take a different route after losing a given number of tanks, sneak attacks where enemy reinforcements are only triggered after your units are actually spotted, and so on.

Of course, this would make creating a scenario more complicated, BUT it would likely result in map makers crafting one or two well done semi-dynamic plans, instead of 5 static plans. I know we won't see this in a module, but it would be great for the Bulge game and onwards.

[skogtroll]

This all highlights why the scenario editor needs triggers. I know the suggestion has been brought up repeatedly (and just as often argued against ) but that's because it would be such a massive improvement.

Right now scenario designer's have to design the AI around a timer, with every movement a shot in the dark relative to the player's actions. Some simple triggers using the already existing objective point system (taking casualties, destroying enemies, touching objectives, spotting units, etc) linked to the existing strategic AI options, would add a ton of flexibility.

Just imagine: an AI defense that would fall back when outflanked or after taking a certain number of casualties, an attacking AI that would retreat or take a different route after losing a given number of tanks, sneak attacks where enemy reinforcements are only triggered after your units are actually spotted, and so on.

Of course, this would make creating a scenario more complicated, BUT it would likely result in map makers crafting one or two well done semi-dynamic plans, instead of 5 static plans. I know we won't see this in a module, but it would be great for the Bulge game and onwards.

Yes, yes yes ! This is merits of the case IMO. Unfortunately now we can only set that the attacker will move his ass after 20 minutes and before 25. No matter if he has still strong forces or only one section.

[Bradley]

Though fond of the tank destroyers, I will not purchase them for the attack or probe. They are quite vulnerable to well placed Sherman's either stationary or on the move.

[skogtroll]

I quite often attack with dank destroyers:). I think there is much fun where you are trying to win with for example stugs. I usually try to build my forces like they was build in 1944:). But why StuG III is more expensive than Pz IV ?

[MattMulder]

The problem with implementing scripts is that it would render the editor pretty hard to assimilate. I have spent countless hours on the scenario editor and if it has some flaws, I prefer this aspect rather than having to check trigger events and test over and over again the same scenario, which is already time-consuming.

[tarzan]

"Just imagine: an AI defense that would fall back when outflanked or after taking a certain number of casualties, an attacking AI that would retreat or take a different route after losing a given number of tanks, sneak attacks where enemy reinforcements are only triggered after your units are actually spotted, and so on"

Sounds like DEEP BLUE Combat Mission - I love it!

Wouldn't want to design the scenarios but would love to play it!

[Rocky Balboa]

The problem with implementing scripts is that it would render the editor pretty hard to assimilate. I have spent countless hours on the scenario editor and if it has some flaws, I prefer this aspect rather than having to check trigger events and test over and over again the same scenario, which is already time-consuming.

No doubt the editor would need to be re-designed to handled triggered events but I don't agree that it would necessarily make scenario design more difficult or time consuming than it is now. Keep in mind, I think what Ranger33 was talking about is some basic trigger events, not full scale scripting.

Depending on how it was implemented and if the editor redesign was made with an eye toward making AI testing quicker and more efficient, then It would be a great improvement for the CMx2 series.

[Ranger33]

No doubt the editor would need to be re-designed to handled triggered events but I don't agree that it would necessarily make scenario design more difficult or time consuming than it is now. Keep in mind, I think what Ranger33 was talking about is some basic trigger events, not full scale scripting.

This is indeed what I meant. My ideal editor (in terms of AI) is the one from the ArmA series, which dates back almost a decade. Any idiot (ie. me) can use it to link simple events to movement orders and create a fairly complex scenario in a matter of minutes. Of course, ArmA is much more open to modding, so people can add in their own AI scripts to create much more complex behaviors.

I'm not looking for a total rewrite of the AI, I just think there must be some way to expand on the existing system. Introduce some more variables, make the AI less static and predictable.

[MattMulder]

I was referring earlier to the complexity of a mission editor not accessible to 'average' gamers with little or no insight of a mission creation. However, a fully scripted AI wouldn't be good of course, but remember what the guys from Flashpoint / Arma did ? they rendered their editor pretty hard to handle with conditions and so on...If BF finds the mix between the AI we have now and the Arma one, we will be playing vs AI only

[Doug Williams]

I have read some posts about the poor A.I so have to own up to being surprised and soundly beaten in a quick battle (wego).

I didn't read any further in this post, or this thread, not because I was not interested, but because I am very busy and do not have the time.

The AI can, and will, win. There are so many variables in CMBN that, like poker, even if you play a perfect game, you will lose occasionally.

The AI cannot hold a candle, over time, to a real human opponent, assuming the human is of average or above average intelligence, and has taken the time to learn the basics of how to play the game.

That is why I joined a gaming club (WeBoB, in my case). I prefer playing human opponents. They are much more unpredictable.

Nuff said.