Newb a little shell shocked

[W1ndy]

Hi there. I'm still on the demo but I played those battles many many times.

My record is Invasion at Gela victory with only two dead !

My problem is that it seems the AI is deadly to a point that my armor is taken out too easily.

I stay hull down - I got the victory at Gela by being very very careful - but for instance at Viscemi, the Shermans there will kill anything half visible, and remain with tracks damaged to go on to kill after many turns of being hit by my armor.

It just gets a bit frustrating that the AI is so resiliant and so accurate.

Any thoughts on that ???

BTW happy thanks giving to any Americans out there , and plus 1 to the thanks Battlefront thread. This really is a great great game/sim

[JonS]

In this timeframe the Sherman is a supertank, so don't be surprised if it appears dominant.

[theFightingSeabee]

Hi W1ndy,

I've been playing for a long long time and I think you hit the nail on the head... you always HAVE to be super careful. I always try to play and recommend playing as if you had to write letters home to your pixel troopers' Moms and Dads if they die. If you are sloppy or let your guard down, you're going to pay for it. But with only two dead, I think you are doing a pretty decent job!

[womble]

My problem is that it seems the AI is deadly to a point that my armor is taken out too easily.

It just gets a bit frustrating that the AI is so resiliant and so accurate.

The AI is precisely as deadly, resilient and accurate as you would be if you were controlling those forces. It gets no "AI bonus" in the mechanics of the game.

[c3k]

As others have said, the AI uses the forces very well (no secret bonus for the AI), the Sherman was a good tank at that time (it has been disparaged for later performance, perhaps unfairly), and the game is unforgiving of sloppy tactics.

Use infantry, in scout teams, to find the enemy. Using that information, use the weapon most suited for the target, and take the time needed to get the weapon in the most advantageous position.

Of course, in WWII, casualty sensitivity was not the crippling concern it is now.

Enjoy,

Ken

[John Kettler]

W1ndy,

Welcome aboard!

I've been hacking my way through CMBN, and am most glad to have it, so I can't comment directly on what you've done and/or encountered. As JonS notes, the Sherman, in this time period, is indeed a fearsome beast. In terms of proper tanks, the Germans have only two which can deal with it at long range: the Panzer IV/G and the Tiger 1. The AI is most unpleasant on the defense, but far less of an issue when attacking.

womble,

I understand the AI gets no bonus, but what it does do, in my experience, is read terrain so well it's all but terrifying. I got shot to pieces in "Closing the Gap" because the AI found one "impossible" shell path after another. Meanwhile, I was going nuts trying to find a way to shoot something, anything. The AI isn't all that hot on the attack, chewed me up, fine, though, when I was getting started, but I think it's very effective in solving the gunnery problem. I think it can do, lightning quick, the LOS path analysis that takes a human player a lot of time, work and intense focus to accomplish. Therefore, while the AI gets no direct bonus, I think it has a marked advantage over a human when it comes to reading the terrain for gunnery. Further, it never gets tired, has its mind wander or is degraded by domestic disruptions. Thoughts?

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

JonS,

Did you do some Kiwi riff on Rutger Hauer's speech in BladeRunner for your sig, or is that simply the way you recalled it? When I went looking for the speech, I unexpectedly found myself in a strange new world of Kiwi and Maori expressions (hangi pit, bogans, taranaki gate).

theFightingSeabee,

If we use your criterion, then I'm going to be writing a lot of letters, given the savaging my Armored Cavalry unit took!

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

I understand the AI gets no bonus, but what it does do, in my experience, is read terrain so well it's all but terrifying. I got shot to pieces in "Closing the Gap" because the AI found one "impossible" shell path after another. Meanwhile, I was going nuts trying to find a way to shoot something, anything. The AI isn't all that hot on the attack, chewed me up, fine, though, when I was getting started, but I think it's very effective in solving the gunnery problem. I think it can do, lightning quick, the LOS path analysis that takes a human player a lot of time, work and intense focus to accomplish. Therefore, while the AI gets no direct bonus, I think it has a marked advantage over a human when it comes to reading the terrain for gunnery. Further, it never gets tired, has its mind wander or is degraded by domestic disruptions. Thoughts?

I'd not so much say "terrain", generally, as "foliage" specifically. The AI does seem to be able to thread its projectiles through apparently solid walls of tree foliage with disturbing frequency. However, for the AI opponent in general, it's not too much of an advantage, because if you leave a tank without target orders, you'll find the TacAI can work nearly as well for you. Plus you can fire HE at known (but unseen) or suspected enemy positions, which the AI won't ever do. I just the other day got a kill on a Sherman that was at the front of the queue when it came to frontal armour quality and crew resilience (several non-penetrating hits, couple of spalls, couple of partials and a couple of actual penetrations and it was still going, but panicky) by herding it into the field of fire of a second tank, by using HE area fire at its last location from the first to maintain its Panic state so my opponent couldn't stop it doing something stupid.

[W1ndy]

Thanks for the replies chaps. I've read them carefully and absorbed.

I think it can do, lightning quick, the LOS path analysis that takes a human player a lot of time, work and intense focus to accomplish. Therefore, while the AI gets no direct bonus, I think it has a marked advantage over a human when it comes to reading the terrain for gunnery.

This is the issue then. I guess it needs hard core careful play in opposition.

Plus you can fire HE at known (but unseen) or suspected enemy positions, which the AI won't ever do..

I missed that in the manual. How do I do that ?? Also those mobile artillery units the Germans have - can their fire be directed to unseen targets ??

[Splinty]

W1ndy if you just target the terrain as close to the suspected enemy with a tank, AT gun or on map arty gun you will often get the results Womble is talking about.

As for using on map arty (as opposed to using an FO or HQ to call for fire) you can only direct fire with them. The exception is on map mortars, which can be used by FOs and HQs as indirect fire assets.

[womble]

As for using on map arty (as opposed to using an FO or HQ to call for fire) you can only direct fire with them. The exception is on map mortars, which can be used by FOs and HQs as indirect fire assets.

Also, Infantry Guns can sometimes be used in indirect mode (their muzzle velocity is low enough that they can clear some obstacles without winging clear off the playing map), but they can't fire very high arcs, so will often be unable to clear trees on a hill they're trying to fire over. So using them in this mode is a bit hit and miss. Or "hit and hit-something-you-weren't-aiming-at".

[John Kettler]

womble,

Those are good ideas. I'm glad I didn't imagine the AI's all but unholy ability to find fire paths, and I like your herding approach, which I've never done with direct fire. I have done that, though, with mortars and field artillery.

Regards,

John Kettler

[eltorrente]

What are you guys talking about?!?!?!

The AI doesn't analyze LOS and search around for firing paths. The AI doesn't even exist, really. There is TacAI for units, of course, but the "AI" never decides on it's own to move this unit here, and this unit there, and go through these trees and flank this tank and blah blah.

The scenario designer places units in good spots and issues orders for them. That's it! Your own units have the exact same TacAI as the computer does.

"The AI's all but unholy ability to find fire paths"?!?!? What the heck are you talking about?

[Broadsword56]

The AI also crawls through stone walls, which I didn't realize until I watched my AI plan execute and saw the AI Germans assault that way. Actually, I would have liked them to stop and use the defensive benefit of the walls. But I didn't realize they ignore them.

[womble]

What are you guys talking about?!?!?!

The AI doesn't analyze LOS and search around for firing paths.

"The AI's all but unholy ability to find fire paths"?!?!? What the heck are you talking about?

The reason the AI opponent gets to find pinholes in foliage is it lets the TacAI (in that there's nothing else) do the targeting, rather than, as I had been, giving everything a target order. If you give the tank that hasn't got a spotted target an area target because you can't (at the turn break/pause) draw LOF to the tank you really want to kill, the TacAI doesn't get the chance to fire through the fleeting gaps in the wind-blown tree canopy. Since the AI opponent doesn't give "speculative" area fire commands, the TacAI is free to fire on targets of opportunity.

[eltorrente]

The reason the AI opponent gets to find pinholes in foliage is it lets the TacAI (in that there's nothing else) do the targeting, rather than, as I had been, giving everything a target order. If you give the tank that hasn't got a spotted target an area target because you can't (at the turn break/pause) draw LOF to the tank you really want to kill, the TacAI doesn't get the chance to fire through the fleeting gaps in the wind-blown tree canopy. Since the AI opponent doesn't give "speculative" area fire commands, the TacAI is free to fire on targets of opportunity.

Ahhh I see what you mean.

I very rarely give target commands to any of my units. No need for that 99% of the time.

[womble]

Ahhh I see what you mean.

I very rarely give target commands to any of my units. No need for that 99% of the time.

Ar. It's something I'm still trying to get out of the habit of doing. I'm finding that in Normandy the ranges are short enough that usually the troops will open up on targets they spot, so the only need for Target orders is to prioritise things, but in Sicily, and on larger Normandy maps, sometimes the pTruppen seem a bit reluctant to open up on things over 300m away. I know that's a long range thing, but when your harrassing retreating Broken troops out of a VL, any near miss is a Good Thing . Also, if you want to conserve main gun ammo (or RGs and ATR), Target Light commands are quite commonplace; sometimes when I remember, I'll give Fire teams TL area commands just so they don't waste their HE on targets of (small) opportunity.

[eltorrente]

I target light area fire with mortars, and target area fire with MG's. I almost never directly target an enemy unit directly with my fire teams, because as soon as the enemy cowers and they lose sight - they'll stop firing.. Best to just area target with them, and let "normal" troops fire on their own when they see them.

[Michael Emrys]

The AI also crawls through stone walls, which I didn't realize until I watched my AI plan execute and saw the AI Germans assault that way. Actually, I would have liked them to stop and use the defensive benefit of the walls. But I didn't realize they ignore them.

Yeah, it's really odd behavior. In my current game, I noticed that frequently enemy troops will position themselves in front of a wall instead of behind it. Even stranger in a way, and my troops do it as well, is that a team will start to set up behind a wall and one or sometimes two members will jump over the wall and then crawl back behind it, going through solid stone in the process. Or maybe they have just discovered the secret of passing through the spaces in atoms, I don't know.

Michael

[GreenAsJade]

What are you guys talking about?!?!?!

The AI doesn't analyze LOS and search around for firing paths. The AI doesn't even exist, really. There is TacAI for units, of course, but the "AI" never decides on it's own to move this unit here, and this unit there, and go through these trees and flank this tank and blah blah.

The scenario designer places units in good spots and issues orders for them. That's it! Your own units have the exact same TacAI as the computer does.

"The AI's all but unholy ability to find fire paths"?!?!? What the heck are you talking about?

I'm actually curious what are _you_ talking about.

Of course there is a strategic AI

It is described in the Game Engine Manual in a chapter called.... wait for it...

o ARTIfICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) EDITOR

Do you think that the scenario designer has planned the move of every unit in the AI force, during a scenario? That the scenario designer somehow has given the "move" orders for each unit in every turn, and so the finding of the LOS was done by a person, not the AI?

No.

The scenario designer gives the AI specific goals. Again, I quote:

Most Artificial Intelligence (Computer Player) systems in games are based on highly scripted, reactive behavior. The scenario designers program very specific instructions for even the most basic behavior, often to the point of “if the enemy moves here, attack, otherwise don’t do anything”. The game play tends to be quite predictable over time and potentially easy to fight against because the designer has to correctly anticipate what the player will do.

Other game AIs, including the one in the previous Combat Mission series, are dynamic AIs that act and react on the fly. Since its behavior patterns are more generic, it is more flexible when playing a specific mission/battle. Unfortunately, the same generic attributes preclude the Computer Player from taking advantages peculiar to the battle being fought. The designer can set up a perfect double pincer envelopment and watch the AI decide to conduct a frontal assault instead.

CMx2’s Computer Player is a sort of hybrid of scripted and dynamic systems. The scenario designer has the ability to customize the higher level, and to some extent lower level, behavior specific to the tactical considerations of the battle. However, the AI can improvise, to some extent, within the designer’s parameters.

I don't have an opinion about whether the AI's ability to find LOS is unduly uncanny, but to assert that it doesn't even do this is (apparently, in the face of the above quote from the game manual) nonsense.

So... can you clarify what are you talking about? "The AI doesn't even exist really"?

GaJ

[eltorrente]

^ for all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist.. It doesn't "think", and has no concept of strategy. It's all based on what the scenario designer has planned out.

To quote what you quoted: "However, the AI can improvise, to some extent, within the designer’s parameters. " so within the designers parameters, the TacAI will take over sometimes and react to a threat. Maybe it'll backup out of danger - maybe it'll stop and shoot at someone. It WILL NOT react and respond to the strategic moves that you make and has no clue what is going on strategically. It will only react, to some extent, WITHIN THE DESIGNER'S PARAMETERS.

[womble]

^ for all intents and purposes, it doesn't exist.. It doesn't "think", and has no concept of strategy. It's all based on what the scenario designer has planned out.

To quote what you quoted: "However, the AI can improvise, to some extent, within the designer’s parameters. " so within the designers parameters, the TacAI will take over sometimes and react to a threat. Maybe it'll backup out of danger - maybe it'll stop and shoot at someone. It WILL NOT react and respond to the strategic moves that you make and has no clue what is going on strategically. It will only react, to some extent, WITHIN THE DESIGNER'S PARAMETERS.

That boundary, though, does include the exact positioning of its forces. I don't know how many iterations the AI algorithm permits of "set waypoint > scan LOF", but it's potentially a lot more than the player will ever bother with. Some "problems" can be brute-forced.

[John Kettler]

womble,

I think that's how the AI gets those needle threading shots. It can test LOS AND LOF (not necessarily,the same, depending upon who's observing and from where) far faster than I can and worse, do so invisibly without resort to mouse movement, GUI and other actions for every such attempt. The AI may indeed be strategically (how I hate that word when applied to this level of combat!) dumb, but it's hellishly good at shooting when I can't find anything engageable. But then, who's got the time to go through such gyrations for every direct fire weapon at every potential target, every turn? The mind boggles! I'd love to see what BFC has to say on this important issue.

Regards,

John Kettler

[GreenAsJade]

... which is the opposite of what elltorrente was saying. There _is_ an AI, and it does choose, itself, where to place units. This is not the Tac AI.

GaJ

[LongLeftFlank]

GaJ is correct in that the AI will decide on its own (and the Order cannot influence):

1. Which squares in the Order's painted destination zone will be occupied -- as many as possible, it seems. Each unit's specific destination square(s) are selected randomly from among those in the zone (i.e. without reference to how near that destination is to its present position -- this is a gripe of mine).

2. The timing and route (generally fastest) of the AI Group's movement. Generally weapons teams and HQ units in an AI Group move later than infantry squads/teams (provide overwatch). When the Order objective is distant, units will pause every 75 (?) meters or so, creating a series of "bounds"; occasionally they will leapfrog each other (bounding fire and movement), although this seems random, not deliberative.

3. What speed to use on the moves: Quick, Hunt (rarely) or Slow, depending on the volume of enemy fire. Quick will become Move (walk) once units are Exhausted. The type of Order selected seems to impact that choice a little, but I haven't been able to discern how (i.e. Max Assaulting units will often run, Fast units will often crawl)