Lanzfeld Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I am really starting to think that the AI has a accuracy advantage over a human player. Let me tell you why I suspect this. I just played the same battle from both sides 8 times each. I noticed the uncanny ability of the AI troops to inflict more casulties to me than I would to them in the same situations. What I mean is I would have my troops where the AI would have thier troops when roles were reversed yet I would inflict less hits on them than they would on me...EVERY TIME. This wasnt some freak situation, this was one squad in a building shooting at another squad fighting on RR tracks. Same stances, was always in command yet I ALWAYS suffered more caulties than the AI. The common knowledge around here says that there is no AI advantages but that is not true. Now not many people know this but the AI already has an advantage over the player when you play in iron mode. The AI is not held to the same LOS rules as the player is in iron mode. I have confirmed this with Steve. For C&C purposes the AI is held to warrior level so the AI can remain in C&C alot easier than an iron mode player. So it makes me wonder if there is also an accuracy bonus for our AI friends. My last 16 game test sure makes me suspect but I have no proof. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I am really starting to think that the AI has a accuracy advantage over a human player. Let me tell you why I suspect this. [snip] What battle? Got a save game? I'm assuming this is RT, though, so probably not). Maybe the AI just micros its troops better (using Face or whatever to get better cover), or because it's not limited by human reaction speeds, opens fire sooner and therefore gains fire superiority. The common knowledge... And BFC's statements on the matter, to my recollection. ...says that there is no AI advantages but that is not true. Your anecdote doesn't prove that. Now not many people know this but the AI already has an advantage over the player when you play in iron mode. The AI is not held to the same LOS rules as the player is in iron mode. I have confirmed this with Steve. For C&C purposes the AI is held to warrior level so the AI can remain in C&C alot easier than an iron mode player. Can you imagine the difficulty of programming an AI to remember "roughly" where all the elements of its force are only when it's considering the specific moves of one element? The "handicap" you're assigning to the player in "Iron" mode really doesn't exist in WeGo anyway, it's just a matter of embuggerance while you click off your current selection to see where the other elements are. So it makes me wonder if there is also an accuracy bonus for our AI friends. My last 16 game test sure makes me suspect but I have no proof. My experience tells me that the AI's pTruppen are just as poor shots as mine. Give us more details about the situation, post a savegame or at least the scenario into your Dropbox public folder or somesuch, and perhaps your observations (they're not even really "results" at the current level of reportage) can be duplicated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted December 11, 2012 Author Share Posted December 11, 2012 Thank you for you view Womble. This was WEGO. You are mistaken when you call iron mode just an "embuggerance" in WEGO, however. This is another common mistake when I hear people talk about iron mode. It is much more than just clicking on the map to see you units. There are many many many situations in levels below iron mode where your troops can stay in C&C using "long range visual" whereas is iron mode you lose "long range visual" at closer ranges. The AI doesnt suffer this in iron mode. I have no problem with this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 What I mean is I would have my troops where the AI would have thier troops when roles were reversed yet I would inflict less hits on them than they would on me...EVERY TIME. This wasnt some freak situation, this was one squad in a building shooting at another squad fighting on RR tracks. Same stances, was always in command yet I ALWAYS suffered more caulties than the AI. How are you measuring casualties dealt out in a single firefight? Unless you are playing in scenario test mode you do *not* have complete information about the enemy's disposition. I cannot count the times that I thought I was hammered by the enemy and hardly scratched him only to find out after the battle that I hammered them pretty hard too. If you are playing anything other than scenario test mode or hot seat you do not really know what kind of damage you are inflicting on the enemy. This is one of the best parts of this game. If your men do not have eyes on the enemy falling over dead they do not get to see the little red crosses. Now not many people know this but the AI already has an advantage over the player when you play in iron mode. The AI is not held to the same LOS rules as the player is in iron mode. I have confirmed this with Steve. For C&C purposes the AI is held to warrior level so the AI can remain in C&C alot easier than an iron mode player. So, I have seen BFC confirm many times that the different levels of difficulty do not change the way the soldiers behave in the game. The only differences are those that are specified in the manual (artillery call times for example). I have also seen BFC state unequivocally that the tac AI that controls individual soldiers is the same for both sides. I have extensive experience playing at the Warrior level and Iron. I see no evidence from my experience that supports anything you have said. BTW I am not an Iron level fan because all I get from Iron is more clicky, clicky, clicking to manage my troops. But an opponent of mine is a fan, so I play lots on Iron. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 The AI doesnt suffer this in iron mode. How did you determine that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted December 11, 2012 Author Share Posted December 11, 2012 How did you determine that? Well I first noticed it way back in CMSF. When you would surrender or ceasefire and review the AI units you can see if they were in C&C or not. I noticed in iron mode that the AI would still have "long range visual" C&C across the map and I would not. I BROUGHT THIS UP WITH STEVE AND HE CONFIRMED THAT THE AI IS NOT HELD TO THE SAME RULES AS THE PLAYER IN IRON MODE. This is NOT anecdote Womble but a confirmed fact. I am a tester for CMBN and CMFI and I have never seen in the notes that this was changed. Like I said, I dont mind this at all. The AI needs all the help it can get. My OP was about shooting accuracy. Just because the manual says one thing doesnt always mean it is always trrue. This is one case of just that. Maybe it was change but I never saw that it was. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I am a tester for CMBN and CMFI and I have never seen in the notes that this was changed. Like I said, I dont mind this at all. The AI needs all the help it can get. My OP was about shooting accuracy. Just because the manual says one thing doesnt always mean it is always trrue. This is one case of just that. Maybe it was change but I never saw that it was. If you are a beta tester, then why are you bringing this issue up out here rather than on the beta boards? :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted December 11, 2012 Author Share Posted December 11, 2012 No...not beta....3rd waver. I just wanted to get some opinions if people thought that the AI had any bonuses in accuracy from their experiences. EDIT: Well I went back to try to find a confirmation and I cannot. Maybe I am remembering it wrong. I can find a thread talking about it but not the one where Steve confirms it. It could have been a PM I sent him. Not sure. Sorry. Carry on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Thank you for you view Womble. This was WEGO. Then sharing some of the turns which demonstrate this extraordinary claim shouldn't be much difficulty. You are mistaken when you call iron mode just an "embuggerance" in WEGO, however. This is another common mistake when I hear people talk about iron mode. It is much more than just clicking on the map to see you units. There are many many many situations in levels below iron mode where your troops can stay in C&C using "long range visual" whereas is iron mode you lose "long range visual" at closer ranges. The AI doesnt suffer this in iron mode. I have no problem with this. So, the AI gets a slightly longer range on the most tenuous level of C2. I vaguely remember this coming up before. It's hardly a game-winning advantage, is it? I BROUGHT THIS UP WITH STEVE AND HE CONFIRMED THAT THE AI IS NOT HELD TO THE SAME RULES AS THE PLAYER IN IRON MODE. This is NOT anecdote Womble but a confirmed fact. Sorry for confusing you. The largely worthless, so far, anecdote is your observation that the AI is causing more casualties whichever side of identical situations it's in. I don't dispute that there's a teensy, tiny difference in the way the AI handles an edge condition of the game. Steve wouldn't lie to you, and I don't expect you're lying to us. I'm pretty sure that BFC have said categorically though that the AI doesn't get any such advantage in accuracy or lifting of FoW, and I trust that statement as much as I trust the one about how Iron affects morale range less for the AI. Your reportage of "AI beats human" is worthless though becaue weapon accuracy is so far from the only factor to consider in counting casualties in a firefight. Post the games up somewhere so other people can see 'em, or you're lumped in with the "shrapnel seeks out leaders" Chicken Littles. So, we need some actual evidence and analysis. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMinistry Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 ^^ umm.... Que? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted January 9, 2013 Author Share Posted January 9, 2013 LOL! A bot talking about AI !!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Considering that bot looks like it was searching on "AI" as an abbreviation for something unrelated to unnatural cleverness, I'm surprised we've not seen more of its clarty wellington boot prints on the forum. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Artificial Insemination. It is what happens to your pixeltruppen when the AI kicks your butt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I have tested different aspects of the game from time to time. I have also heard BF clearly state that the AI gets no accuracy advantages. But I found running test that if I ran both sides vs the AI and did multible runs from each side, that my numbers would have a patterns that showed differences depending on which side the AI was on. So I now run test using hotseat mode where the AI only factors in as it overrides the players commands. When I run test that way, I have found my numbers to be more consistant as to how each side plays. So it might not be accuracy. But I do think he might be seeing some effect that does accure when playing against the AI that does favor it slightly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brindlewolf Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I replayed a scenario the other day and had a platoon obviously observed in woods and had spotting rounds coming down.Now behind the woods was a large field away from LOS and another large field over the road on the left,so over the next 3 to 4 moves i moved my guys way back and eventually way over to the next field. So down the comes the arty and quite literally over the next four moves the arty followed my guys to wherever i put them.Even if the AI had LOS which once my guys were moved back,it wouldn't have.It should have still taken a few minutes for adjustment of fire. Into the bargain,arty fell on whoever these guys passed,mortars,jeeps,etc. It's as if the arty was stuck to their backs.Nearly rage quit lol.The scenario was "Bloody Dawn" i think. I struggle to put arty down when i have LOS half the time whereas the AI can put it down where and when the **** it likes.I've seen this numerous times in scenarios.Even if you see the spotting rounds and even if you could move your troops two miles away,9 times out of ten-it'd still land right in your lap. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Can't speak to that particular scenario, but I have included in mine placing TRPs to allow the AI to make up for it's inability to relocate to try to get eyes on an enemy. Otherwise the AI is being unfairly restricted relative to the player. It might be worth a look in the editor to see if that designer has done so as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brindlewolf Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Good point.Never thought of Scenario make up.It does happen a lot in the original early scenarios for CMBN,not so much in CW or FI. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.