Quick Battle issue

[pcelt]

I play quite a lot of QBs but my last battle has thrown up an issue which has produced a very unrealistic and unconvincing encounter.

The battle was a Medium Attack by Brits v SS (armour only)

QB Medium Hills QB017

The basic issue was throughout the whole attack all the SS enemy armoured units--even after any of my units started firing, remained static and facing in the wrong direction and ended up being destroyed facing away from the source of the attack. Examination of the map after the battle was over revealed all the SS armoured units (though in reasonable defensive terrain and positions) were all facing in the same wrong direction.

I know very little re the AI which is created within QBs but this particular situation was a real mockery of what should have been happening.

It is the first time I have encountered such an unconvincing display by any QB AI and trust it is a real one-off---but I thought it worth bringing to the attention of those vetting QBs and their quality.

I must conclude by stating that I have normally been very impressed and extremely grateful to all those involved in creating these QBs and appreciate the skills and effort invested.

Thanks

[womble]

I've seen a similar thing happen a time or two. It's almost like the defenders are confused as to which map edge/s is/are Friendly.

[Chris Ferrous]

I don't think it is a one-off.

We had a discussion in a thread 'Giving the AI a helping hand' a while ago, and incorrect AFV facing was something that came up. The natural reaction is to think it's a 'friendly mapedge' error, but I don't think it is.

In an AI plan, especially on a QB map, units are allocated randomly to an AI group (orders/movement group) and there is no separation between vehicle and foot orders for groups, so orders which may be logical to infantry but not for vehicles can end up being given to vehicles. What I believe may have happened here is that the group to which the AFVs were assigned had a withdrawal order, i.e next movement towards the rear. For some reason upon arrival at a waypoint, all units, including infantry, orientate themselves for the next movement however far ahead in time that may be. It is a real pain and a problem I'm still trying to work on with the AI system. The main snag is the very low number of groups available (8, one of which is default and can barely be used unless you want battalion HQs and mortar teams to lead charges!).

[pcelt]

Thanks very much for your constructive comments.

I would just add 2 amateur observational comments

1)In the game I was depicting it was an "Armoured only" battle and there should have been no armour/infantry conflict issue for the A.I

2 I have been playing many Defensive battles recently and have seen no issues of this type with AI armour in attack---I suppose it is easier to programme attacks or variety of attacks with predesignated objectives than it is to programme defensive tactics against an enemy which can approach from a variety of directions ,paths and speeds.?????

[womble]

1)In the game I was depicting it was an "Armoured only" battle and there should have been no armour/infantry conflict issue for the A.I

Unfortunately, the AI plan doesn't know what force selection limitations you might be applying, and the groups, randomly assigned, don't get given different orders, so in some regards, picking "armoured only" is perhaps more likely to give you a situation where some or all of the orders in the AI plan are a bit shonky for your force mix.

I have been playing many Defensive battles recently and have seen no issues of this type with AI armour in attack---I suppose it is easier to programme attacks or variety of attacks with predesignated objectives than it is to programme defensive tactics against an enemy which can approach from a variety of directions ,paths and speeds.?????

As Chris Ferrous says, the pointing in a retrograde direction isn't likely to be something that an attack plan is ever going to include. A planned withdrawal is something you'll probably only see when the AI is in defence; Attacker and Defender AI plans are different. Obviously. AI armour in attack has its own issues to deal with, so it's a good job you don't see 'em setting up presenting their rear aspect to the defender...

[pcelt]

Both your points clearly valid and I can now fully appreciate the nature of the problem.

Guess we'll need to accept the current shortcomings and hope that they only rarely cause a battle to really become a fiasco.---------------and also trust that some brilliant programmer can in the future design a more reliable QB AI.for the variety of different battle types which can appear.

[pcelt]

NB--In the meantime , to eliminate these unrealistic defensive moves and facings, it may be the lesser of 2 evils to largely programme at least for the bulk of the defensive force the v. best positional defenses and to defend in situ-------clearly a less than optimal plan but one which at least provides a realistic problem for the attacker and does not produce a ludicrous "wrong-facing" defense and a non-battle and no satisfaction for the player.

[Vinnart]

The reason is because the AI is not very intelligent most of the time, all be it better than CMSF. If you want a challenge play humans. Even the dumbest player I have gone up against is smarter than the AI. It is that way in most games. No substitute for the human brain.

[pcelt]

This is probably true of "most human brains"--but QBs have a number of other important alternative and separate advantages----abilty to fight at any time and however quickly or slowly fits your own life style and current commitments or motivation . No need for waiting on someone elses availability to return mails etc-- and being able to select the exact type or scale of batttle you individually wish to experience or experiment with.

I think that both HtoH and individual QBs have their own advantages and would argue for the fullest development and potential of each-----not an "either-or" but of "both" formats

[womble]

This is probably true of "most human brains"--but QBs have a number of other important alternative and separate advantages----abilty to fight at any time and however quickly or slowly fits your own life style and current commitments or motivation . No need for waiting on someone elses availability to return mails etc-- and being able to select the exact type or scale of batttle you individually wish to experience or experiment with.

I think that both HtoH and individual QBs have their own advantages and would argue for the fullest development and potential of each-----not an "either-or" but of "both" formats

I would contend that if you want to take advantage of the AI features, you would be best served by playing scenarios. There, the designer knows exactly what's going on and can sanity check their AI plans for the forces available, and most of them do. It's true that you then miss out on the team-picking fun (which is a shame), but at least a game won't end in an early turn with "Oh, the AI rolled a 1. Better restart."