STILL too easy...

[BDW]

Me vs. AI is 7-0 now. Played Last Defense again, as the US. I did a set up that I thought would reveal the the failings of the AI, because it foreces the AI to be pro-active. I can send anyone who doesn't believe me the early saves. If you play it smart I am sure you'll win every time.

Basically, on turn 1, I pulled ALL of the US infantry back into the buildings in the "downtown" part of town, sprinting to good hiding positions, so that, with minor adjustments, they were able to cut any advancing German infantry down with wicked crossfire no matter where they attacked from. The key is to get the US squads positioned so that they can only be seen and engage the Germans when the Germans are closer to town, coming down "lanes" that I have covered from multiple angles.

Then, I use all of the US mortar fire to pummel the German AI while it is trying to organize itself. (While still keeping all of my troops hidden in town). The mortar fire in the "backfield" will drive the Germans forward.

Undoubtedly, the German AI will expose its tanks within a few turns. The AI will plod along, slowly and cuastiosly toward the town. In my game, on turn ten, when my Hellcats showed up, this was the state of the German AI advance: the Tiger had moved slowy out into the open field with it's SIDE to the town; the other two German tanks were totally exposed on the road with the halftracks bunched up in between, also exposed; two German infantry squads were crossing the open area to get to the cornfield; some German infantry was moving through the trees on the right hand side of the map (setting up machine gun positions to cover a later, totally ineffective push towards the houses on the right).

When my Hellcats appeared, within 3 turns they had taken out all German armor. Since the Hellcats are the only units I have exposed to the German AI, I know that if it has any arty support it will target my tanks with it. But I also know there is a delay. So you don't move them for a couple turns, then run them down the hill quickly when the arty starts dropping, behind them up on the hill. German AI just wasted its arty support on my tanks that can move super FAST

down that hill! What is funnier is that the halftracks opened up on my tanks from way down there, instead of getting to cover! Bad call AI! The halftracks had a whole turn when they were ignored (I was killing the tanks) and could have sought cover!

Eventually, by turn 20 or so, my hidden guys in town were starting to open up fire on their own against easy, very close in German infantry sqauds that were trying to reach the town by crossing open ground that I had covered from all angles. It was pathetic. Does the AI have no clue how to adjust and rethink and get it's guys to cover and try something else? Squad after squad it sent into the open and I cut them all down.

This set up reveals the failings of the AI. When it approached my totally quiet little town it should have been smart enough to think "Could this be an ambush?" It could have started dropping arty in town and flushing out my guys with HE rounds from it's tanks. I should have AT LEAST not totally exposed ALL of it's armor when it has not yet even SEEN any of my units, yet it knows I can see its units because direct mortar is landing on its positions!

If had had been playing in it's position, I would have stayed behind the trees on the right or left and rushed the flanks of the town, keeping my armor as non-exposed as possible. But the AI chose to advance it's units across the open spaces and it got totally destroyed. Once again I felt sorry for it.

Then it's use of infantry was totally inefective. It was suicidal!

My results? Alied 11 causualties, 1 vehicle knocked out (got way too bold chasing down US infantry on turn 29!). German 63 casualties (13 KIA) 7 vehicles knocked out. (most of the german forces ended the scenario still in the woods where it started out).

If anyone wants the save games from this to see what I mean, just email me.

Fionn/Steve, if you want to try to justify what the AI did and why it did it, I'd love to hear it.

I still have an open mind, believe it or not, and I still think this game is going to be a wonderful human vs. human game. But this AI just does not know how to WIN THE GAME. It may be acting "realistically" but guess what? It can't win this GAME. At least not in my experience...

This all concerns me, because I want this game to be a serious challenge when the full version comes out. I don't WANT to win every time. If the AI cannot achieve this, then it is not ready yet and needs more work.

[This message has been edited by BDW (edited 11-14-99).]

[Fionn]

1. Do you REALLY need a new thread for this? It could simply be tacked on to where we were discussing your previous point. People are taking threads all over the place and its creating a lot of clutter.

2. Ok I can see a few points I'd like to comment on..

a) BDW said "the Tiger had moved slowy out into the open field with it's SIDE to the town; the other two German tanks were totally exposed on the road with the halftracks bunched up in between, also exposed" was the situation at Turn 10. GIVEN that the AI has NO knowledge of when your reinforcements come in this kind of thing is BOUND to happen.

You know, the first time I played the scenario to test it prior to release I had 2 StuGs on the road into town and 1 Tiger on the left of the map shelling the town from long distance. I lost all three German tanks. WHY did I lose all three German tanks? Simple, I hadn't known the Hellcats were coming (same as the AI). Have I EVER lost all three tanks on turn 10 when replaying? NO ! Why? Because I made sure to get them in cover. The AI does not remember this stuff since it plays and considers ONLY what it has found in THIS PARTICULAR play of the scenario.

End result: What happened is EXACTLY what might happen to a human player playing Last Defence for the first time. It's not a sign of a poor AI. It's a sign that unexpected arrivals on the field of battle can screw up ANYONE'S plans

Let me tell you a story.. A tester sent me a scenario to play as the Germans featuring a little long-range dueling. The scenario was set up so that two AT guns had good LOS for about 2 km to fields I HAD to advance a platoon of HTs and infantry across on my left. On my right I had a tank leading another platoon of HTs (with mounted infantry) down a road to a VL about 600 metres away.

As I advanced down the road on my right at MOVE speed one HT got knocked out (I think it was killed by a 0.5 cal HMG in an ambush position about 100 metres in front of the VL). One platoon plus 1 mortar and 1 HMG and 1 Bazooka were in ambush positions.

Quickly I lost another HT to a mortar shell and as my tank rumbled ahead leaving the disorganised infantry platoon behind it hit an AT mine and was destroyed.

In 90 seconds I lost 2 HTs, 1 Pz IV and about half a platoon and only killed 1 or 2 Americans at best.

On the left I was very lucky and survived the intial AT gun ambush and spotted another platoon-sized infantry ambush on the map edge. I manouevred my HTs towards it backed by long-range tank fire (2 Pz IVs).. As the HTs turned the US AT guns got 2 of them and a bazooka got a third.

By the end of four turns I was down to 1 platoon of infantry, 2 tanks and 3 HTs when I started the game with 8 HTs, 3 tanks and 2 platoons of infantry.

I had killed about 5 or 6 Americans...

You know what, when I replayed that game I wiped out BOTH US positions by turn 7 and lost only 7 men. I killed close to 70 US soldiers.

THAT is how much simpler it is when you replay a game. I avoided the minefields, applied force via covered routes of advance used positions which WERE suboptimal by any reasoned tactical assesment BUT which allowed me to hide my HTS from AT gun fire but still bring effective fire onto the hilltop US ambush as my infantry assaulted it.

You can replay and know what the enemy has. The AI can't. That is a simple fact. When Steve says the AI should really only be evaluated on your FIRST play he is right. If it KNEW the Tigers were coming (as you do) it sure wouldn't turn its side towards them on the turn they are arriving BUT it doesn't know.

You should just be glad the AI doesn't cheat and use radar-equipped units to blow each and every one of your ambushes every game.

BTW I'm SURE you used your knowledge of the German OOB to modify your setup based on what you knew of their forces vis a vis the VERY first time you played right? Thought so, I rest my case

The first time I play a scenario to test it I often fall into ambushes etc BUT the second time I play I almost never do. There's a lesson there for your fallacious assesment methodology BDW

2. As for the AI setting up machinegun positions to cover an unsuccesful later assault. Do you know how GOOD the AI is vis a vis most other wargames to actually wait to make its push until its support weapons are set up? Also, I bet you that if your hellcats HADN'T turned up and the German tanks HAD survived (which was the AI's supposition seeing as it hadn't seen any major AT firepower) you would have been in serious trouble.

Haven't you ever had a great plan ruined by the appearance of enemy reinforcements? I know I have. The AI certainly has (as you show in this AAR).

3. As for your comments about the ifnantry rush. The answer is in your own comments. You talk about how your men UNHID to fire. SO to the AI those houses are EMPTY.. I'm sure that you've ambushed human opponents by hiding infantry and having them run into the ambush in trying to get to the houses right?

Just recently I wiped out an entire platoon in 1 turn by unhidding a load of US infantry just as my opponent (PBEM) ordered his German infantry to dash the last 40 metres into the buildings. Since he'd seen no-one in there he figured they were empty. 1 turn and about 50 dead later he knew they weren't

I think you should ask yourself. "Could this work against a human opponent?" If it could and the AI falls for it then don't condemn so quickly

4. As for the infantry rush. COntrary to popular belief MOST towns entered during a war are empty of the enemy. ONLY after a town is confirmed to contain enemy units will friendly forces get all "let's drop arty on them"..

You know, if this was to be a TOTALLY realistic scenario you probably would start the game just as the entire platoon of Panzergrenadiers in the HTs is in the middle of the town in a US AT ambush and gets wiped out.

This would alert the rest of your unit to the presence of the enemy. Remember that you have hindsight and FULL knowledge of the enemy dispositions when you play the scenario for the second time. The AI has zip...

I'd love to send you one of the scenarios I tested today. You'd get creamed so quickly in a few of them you'd never talk about an easy AI again . Unfortunately I can't...

5. I advance two platoons across the wheatfields in most of my games as the Germans in last defence and it isn't suicidal for me. It isn't for the AI either IF you don't have an ambush in the houses. BUT since the AI doesn't see the ambushing men it assumes the houses are clear (as many players would do). If you assume EVERY house is full of enemy then you'll be comprehensively beaten in most of CM's scenarios by the AI since that thinking will get you target fixated and creamed (plus it'll use up your ammo VERY quickly.)

6. It looks to me like the AI suffered about 11 AFV casualties and about 50 infantry casualties. (Some infantry must have been killed when the HTs were hit or by MG fire on the approach mark BTW).

It looks to me like you didn't REALLY wipe it's clock. The AI still had two full-strength platoons (if you look at the figures)... It looks like it was smart enough to realise after your ambush (which would have wiped out 34 infantry (one motorised SS panzergrenadier platoon) NOT to send any more infantry forward.

In FACT the figures you give here tell me the following story:

AI maneuvring into position to support infantry push into empty houses (ambush site but it doesn't know that). Hellcats pop up out of nowhere and ambush and destroy the tanks. The infantry uses ONE platoon to rush the empty houses with the others behind it for fire support.

That entire platoon gets waxed in an ambush. (34 infantry dead). For the rest of the game the AI KNOWS it isn't strong enough to win and stays where it is. Sure it might probe forward BUT the casualty counts show that out of the other 80 or so infantry around it only lost a MAXIMUM of 8 (assuming 11 AFV casualties which is quite reasonable). Some of those losses must have occured amnog HMGs etc SO whichever way you look at it the other two infantry platoons must have been at 90%+ strength.

That's hardly the stuff of suicidal AI charges. The AI knew it couldn't advance and held in place. If this was a campaign those two platoons would have been reinforced and would have attacked later that day or in the night.

Either way I think the statistics themselves PROVE the charge of suicidal AI charges is wrong. ONE platoon was ambushed and anihilated but the AI did NOT repeat the same mistake. I can see ANY human player falling for an ambush/. In fact in one PBEM game I wiped out 1.5 platoons of German soldiers before they even left the woods with a small ambush.

7. So, I think I've shown why

A) the AI is behaving realistically,

why you having played the game is a HUGE cause of imbalance,

C) why the AI is actually being damned smart and PRESERVING ITS FORCE (essential for campaign games) and looking at the bigger picture.

D) Why the AI can suffer ONE massacre just like ANY player can run into an ambush.

E) I've shown the AI was smart enough not to continue attacking when it had no hope. I know a LOT of human players who wouldn't know when to call it quits and would suffer unecessary casualties.

BDW, do you want an email game of Riesburg using a public password so we can do AARs? I'll be US

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Big Time Software]

BDW, you keep forgetting that you are replaying the SAME game over and over again. You have accumulated WAY too much information for the AI to stand a chance, even with a bit of bad luck tossed your way. You *SHOULD* be winning each and every time by now, bad luck or not. So I say once again, you are totally off base to be making the assumptions about the AI based on two scenarios played 7 times. You are just going to have to wait for more sceanrios.

And for the third time, I ask what AI have you played that has behaved more realistically than Combat Mission's? You knock CM's AI without comparing it to what others have done, and that is downright insulting. Trying to judge CM's AI as if it should be a human is irrating to say the least. NO AI WILL EVER FIGHT LIKE A HUMAN FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT 10-20 YEARS, so don't hold us to that standard since it is completely unfair. Couple this with your faulty understanding of probability, and you further wrongly bash the AI. On top of all this, you are ignoring all the posts from people saying they are getting beaten, or at least are having a tense fight. In your very first post you asked if it was just you, yet you don't seem to care about taking the opinions you sought into consideration.

Is CM's AI perfect? NO. Can it be improved? YES. Are we going to make tweaks? YES, we have even outlined some. But is the AI going to beat you after you have played a scenario more than twice? NOT LIKELY.

So I say give it a rest until you have seen the final game. You are basing your judgements on faulty findings and totally unrealistic expectations. So what is the point?

Steve

[MarkEzra]

As I read Fionn and BTS last post I paused to remember How I "won" the first game of Last Defense as US. I lost one intire Plt, including POW's on the East side of Town. Most of the Plt along the stone Wall were KIA or pinned. All that Made me (saved me?) a winner WAS the TD's... of course, You Should See Me Now? I'll hold myself plan of No Opinion on the Game until I actually play the game... No the Beta Demo I suspect was released to keep all us WAR wolves at bay!

[Moonpie]

Yeah, gotta go with the others here. My first time, the hellcats messed up my plans real good. I wasn't expecting them and got clobbered.

Good point. The AI isn't a replacement for a human being that can remember it's mistakes each time it plays.

But if the full version has surprises like that...I won't be winning many battles the first time.

[BDW]

Steve/Fionn - good points here - am beginning to understand. Steve - for the record, I have said before that I think this game is incredible. You are absolutely right - the AI blows away any other (that I have played). But I think it is insutling to comapre CM AI to any other. I have watched this game develop since the early days and I am holding it to a higher standard.

Fionn what you said about the AI's moves being smart in the context of a campaign game shed new light on the situation for me, too.

The posts by you and Fionn make a lot of sense and it has led me to think about the "why" more than the "what". This is what I have come up with:

I think you guys are right about hindsight bias coming into play. However, the first time I played each scenario I also won - easliy. Why? You cannot write it off to pure luck. I think know that it was because I read the intro and I knew what to expect from this game.

I get the feeling that the AI will always be at a disadvantage in any balanced scenario. What I mean to say is that, as a human playing this computer game, I know that BTS is going to provide me with a balanced scenario. That means that if I have tanks, then I KNOW the AI will have some, too. But the problem is that AI does not know it is playing a game. So that gives the human a huge advantage every time, doesn't it?

For example, unlike Fionn, when I played the scenario for the first time, as the Germans, I did not expose my Tiger and my other armor so carelessly. Why? Because I "KNEW" that teh scenario designer made a balanced scenario and that there would be something out there to kill my tanks - it was just a matter of me finding it.

But the AI lives only in the world of the game itself and cannot think that way.

Do I dare say that the AI TOO realistic?

Steve/Fionn - there has to be some way to compensate for this so that the AI is on equal footing with the human.

Maybe there can be some tweak that only happens when you are playing human vs. AI - so as not to mess things up for human v. human. I do not like the idea of editing the scenario to give the AI extra units. There has to be a better way.

What do you guys think?

[billcarey]

--

I get the feeling that the AI will always be at a disadvantage in any balanced scenario. What I mean to say is that, as a human playing this computer game, I know that BTS is going to provide me with a balanced scenario. That means that if I have tanks, then I KNOW the AI will have some, too. But the problem is that AI does not know it is playing a game.

--

Will there be any scenarios that are unbalanced (either for or against the player)? For example, a platoon or two of defending Germans against a couple of tanks and four or five platoons of Americans. The victory conditions for the disadvanteged side would be something like "Don't die for a couple of minutes to let this truck run away"

Throwing in almost unopposed scenarios would make a campaign interesting...

- Bill Carey

[Guest Big Time Software]

BDW, glad you are starting to see what we mean here. Unfortunately you got off on the wrong foot by being "convinced" and in no small way insulting the AI's abilities in your first post. Not the best way to get core issues

Although you certainly didn't win both of your first time battles by luck alone, it certainly had a LARGE role in allowing you to win with the apparent ease. Although it is hard to say how well you in fact did because the victory rating is wrong. I played my first game of Riesberg, lost all 4 of my Shermans, but still managed to pull off a Minor Victory, but we later looked at it and I would have received a Draw using the new victory rating system. Even that was TOUGH to do without my tanks!

Controlling the flags and routing the enemy is not necessarily the way you win in CM. Casualties, time, and other factors are weighed in as well. You *might* have still had a significant victory, but it is hard to say since it is based on the exact circumstances of the games you played.

Giving the AI some sort of material advantage is a form of cheating. It is also potentially something that would basically prevent you from EVER winning. I am playing a campaign right now that someone else made. It is a really good one, but the AI has too many forces at its disposal from the get go. I had a little bad luck too, and now I am practically wiped off the map. Yet I was on the attack Even if things had gone better for me, I doubt I could ever do more than get my ass handed to me. Therefore, unbalancing a battle in favor of one side has the potential to produce VERY unbalanced results. The laws of probability favor the side that gets and advantage early. If the AI STARTS out with that advantage, oh boy. A balanced scenario means that sometimes one side will win, some times it will lose. That is the way it should be.

---

The thing to remember about playing games of CM is that WINNING isn't supposed to be the fun bit, just as LOSING isn't an experience without value. Instead CM focuses on how the game is played out, insted of how it ends. I win more often than I lose, but I *enjoy* the path along the way in any case because I never know if I am going to win or not (or at least to what degree). In other games I win more than I lose, but generally I nod off towards the end of a battle because the thrill is over and it is a predetermined last half of the game for the most part.

Just like any good parent would say to his/her kid, "Winning or Losing isn't important; it is how you play the game that matters". This is very much our philosophy. CM's AI gives you a run for your money even when you are are ultimately victorious. There are still tweaks to do, but we feel the AI is better than we thought it would ever be already. Not a bad place to be for either us or the gamer

Steve

[Doug Beman]

BDW, have you considered yet that your success in the first (as well as subsequent) play of the demo is due to your own skill?

Lest you think I'm yanking your chain, I'll tell you about my first few plays in LD. I decided to play first as the Germans (cause it's FUN to be the bad guys!) and play until I won, then switch sides.

Now, I consider myself a pretty smart guy (good grades, SATs, common sense, played lots of wargames) and so my record at LD is all the more painful: it took me 3 tries before I had anything better than minor Axis victory (and that in a situation in which, given another 10 minutes, it would have been Allied victory.

First run through, I was rolling down the main road, having a merry old time shelling the holy bejeezus out of the US guys, when the Hellcats popped out. I lost bigtime.

Second time through, I thought "I'll just plan better, and be ready for the Hellcats. Unfair, but oh well." I STILL lost, cause I made some stupid mistakes.

Third time, I was able to kill the Hellcats and get my guys into the center of town. Doing so cost me 3 HTs (the 4th was out of ammo, so might as well have been dead) and the Tiger. The Stugs were out of HE and MG ammo, so they were pretty worthless. By the time I got my guys to the bridge, they were exhausted/attrited/LOW on ammo. The US infantry was just starting to push me out when the game ended; any more and I would have had to withdraw. Better, but I still made mistakes (ammo management/pacing, plus stupid things with HTs)

Since then, tho, I've been pretty consistent at winning (for the record, I got a victory on my first play as the US on LastDefense)

So, winning the game on even your first time through by (from your own admission) using sound tactics and some judicious planning indicates that you have some skill.

HOWever, I will take you to task on your "playing a game to show the AI's failings." If you have a knowledge of a weakness in your opponent (AI or flesh) that said opponent cannot correct (as the AI cannot, since it doesn't *remember*) and you act in a manner designed explicitly to take advantage of those weaknesses, does that REALLY say anything bad about the opponent other than "this opponent cannot make alterations in the way it conducts itself"? That's a given, since the AI cannot simply change the way it operates on-the-fly.

It's sorta like car commercials, wherein one manufacturer will say "our car is better than their car in the following ways," and then pick the areas of the other guy's car that are KNOWN to be weak, and ignoring the rest. (Like, "our best-available engine is more powerful than theirs," ignoring that their base engine is better than yours, and your best-available costs 3x more than their best-available) You're finding specific faults and then planning SPECIFICALLY around them; of COURSE you're almost always going to come out a winner.

DjB

[This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 11-14-99).]

[Fionn]

BDW,

Glad to see you took me post in the proper spirit. I argue hard but fairly .

You are right as regards the intro thing: You read it but the AI didn't. You KNEW Steve would have to give some AT capability to the US and so you were very careful. You could have lost by being unlucky but just by reading the intro you ALREADY had a little foresight.

BDW don't worry about the AI. You played a VERY small scenario. Larger scenarios are balanced by virtue of their larger maps and the larger forces so the AI plans are more radically different.

It CAN beat a good player on the first and second plays as it is.

When I played the CC3 demo I won the demo scenario as the soviets using ONLY infantry flamethrower teams. I killed 7 or 8 tanks and 7 squads of infantry and won....

I've suffered a few losses to the AI in CM in balanced scenarios when following good military SOP.

The small scenarios are easier to totally win than the big ones. MUCH easier by virtue of their very nature

I'm sure there will be some unbalanced scenarios.. I'm sure someone will make some.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Doug Beman]

Hhhmm...in the time it took me to type my post (above) BDW came around to the viewpoint I was pushing, and Fionn talked of people being beaten more than once.

Sometimes I'm a little slow...

DjB

[BDW]

Steve - sorry I came out of the gate "convinced" Tell the AI I am sorry if I hurt its feelings. And really, my complaining is akin to someone complaining about the handling characteristics of their Ferarri. Or the guy who is mad because he only got a 99% on his test...

The balance issue is going to be a very interesting one, I can tell. I think I should withhold ANY judgment until I play a campaign game. Also, I totally agree with you on handicaping the AI - that IS cheating and there must be a better way. I think the answer must lie in the dynamics of the campaigns. We shall see....

In the meantime let's make a bet.

Steve, you are open-minded, right?

Well, how about you give us another balanced scenario to play. BUT this time give us ZERO information before the scenario. That way we will be presented with the same exact situation as the computer. It will be clear from the victory flags and our starting positions what we are supposed to do (attack, defend) but we will have no pre-scenario intel. Just a battlefield and our units. This is what the AI is confronted with every scenario, right?

I want a sterile mano y mano game with the AI. No hindsight bias, no information. Just me and the AI for a showdown.

And I'll bet you and Fionn that I can beat it the first time out from either side.

What do you think? If I lose the scenario I'll PROMISE to shut up about the AI...

You game?

[This message has been edited by BDW (edited 11-14-99).]

[Guest Captain Foobar]

you know, as long as we are all taking each other on our word, you can just INTENTIONALLY not read the briefing, that is when the final demo arrives with a new scenario... Tell us how it goes.

[Ron]

Naw I think BDW had another none too subtle purpose in mind

------------------

[SimonFox]

All along I thought the AI was prescient as the first time I played LD as the US it had the 2 StuGs line a breast with the tigger just behind all facing straight down the main road dead on turn 9 result- 3 dead Hellcats. First impressions are funny huh? Of course I didn't jump to any conlusions

BDW,

Given that:

A The AI has long been stated as about equal to an average player and fairly unimaginative (pretty much your average WaffenSS officer- hehe).

B You probably consider yourself above average.

C It is agreed that a first time playing of a scenario is the only reasonable test.

I would suggest that the test you propose is not adequate to give you a proper view of the AIs capabilities. I fact statistically it is most likely to reflect the relative capabilities of yourself and the AI (as stated in A and . A more appropriate test would be for you to play 10 (or more) different scenarios against the AI. Ah! (moment of enlightenment) so that is your cunning plan to get yourself more demo scenarios, fiendish!

Personally I don't expect the AI to beat me much just to give me a good fight, so far it has done a good job when I try to 'forget' any foreknowledge I have. As Fionn has pointed out the demo scenarios are quite small. As I see it such scenarios will tend to accentuate differences in luck, a skilled human player may be able to compensate for such differences but the AI, hardly suprisingly, is generally not.

"played lots of wargames"

Doug,

I reckon this is more of a disadvantage than an advantage. I think I am OK because I've been "pissed off" by lots of wargames and read a lot of military history.

On that subject I am just re-reading Tanks! by Ken Tout and I can't wait to get my hands on some Fireflys and go on a tiger hunt!

[Brian Rock]

BDW and Bill Carey do have a point about balanced scenarios.

It is true that most games will have balanced scenarios, because most games are designed for PBEM as well as against the AI, and most gamers want a fair chance of winning.

Of course it is also true that Real Life is full of uneven battles, and uneven quality commanders.

Fortunately CM will ship with a built in fix: the scenario editor.

I fully expect to see dozens of scenarios (hopefully hundreds, but we'll see), some balanced, some biased towards an Allied win and some biased towards a German win.

This will allow players a chance to get a challenge out of the AI no matter what their standard, and help put superior players on an even footing with less experienced opponents.

It will also help fix the "I've played this scenario to death and know how to optimise my placements" problem.

[Guest Big Time Software]

BDW, this is still not a statistically fair test. Simon's is more valid (10 scenarios, one time each). And the AI is not designed to be unbeatable, just tough. So no matter what, you WILL beat it much of the time. See my previous post about playing for the sake of the gameplay, not the final rating. Personally, I wouldn't mind if there was no victory rating at all.

Hehe... Brian, note my comments above about being slaughtered as the Attacker to to an imbalance in the AI's favor. On turn 15 the German defenders are going over to OFFENSIVE action! So far I have lost nearly all but 3 HTs and a Stuart. I lost 1 Stuart, 1 Jumbo (main gun), 1 Sherman 76, 3 out of 6 HTs, 1 Jeep, and two M8s). 40% of my infantry are pushing up daisies (50% if you count shattered units) and I am basically screwed. I have claimed exactly one pillbox and advanced less than 100m Now there is at least two tanks and infantry coming at me, with a third possible one on the way! Unbalanced scenarios aren't my favorite cup of tea

Steve

[Darstand]

The very first time I played the Riesberg scenario. I played as Germans it was only my second game of CM. I used mostly the preset positions; I moved the HVY SMG squad to the forward most house and the SMG squad to the house right next to it. I totally destroyed the American Offensive. I killed 2 tanks in the first 2 turns and by turn 5 they were all gone. The US pushed hard up the middle next to the road (on the left by the US perspective) well when the game was over; it was Total Victory for me. I held all victory locations. That one HVY SMG squad in the forward most house had 3 men left and had inflicted 28 casualties!

Casualties

US---------------------------------Germans

216 men lost---------------------56 men lost

4 vehicles lost----------------------2 guns lost

Now just recently, I played again as Germans same scenario. By turn 18 I surrendered. I had no fighting forces left. What happened? One tank managed to stay alive and it totally turned the tide of battle. Combined with my stubbornness to retreat from the front line of houses. So remember don't get too cocky. Some stupid mistakes and/or some bad luck and the AI will eat your lunch.

Casualties-----Allied Minor victory

US---------------------------------Germans

135 men lost---------------------136? men lost

3 vehicles lost-----------------------2 guns lost

--------------------------------------44 men captured

------------------

"Armchair Generals never lose any men"-Darstand

[This message has been edited by Darstand (edited 11-15-99).]

[Dmeek]

Because I don’t consider myself a hardcore wargamer, and because I just downloaded the demo and have only played one game of Last Defense, my praise of the AI might come from a different perspective. I was the US and won a total victory that probably wouldn’t be a total victory with the revised victory conditions that new game will have. The game ended with the Germans penned up in the woods on their side of the battlefield and my units lodged in the buildings of the village and along the road, repulsing the German advances across the wheat field with their rapidly depleting ammo. I considered it an incomplete victory, with the village held but no control of the field of battle. And although the results were inconclusive, it was the most satisfying wargame I have ever played, computer or board, against AI, a human or solitaire.

I think the reason for this is that, CM, unlike almost wargames I have played before, CM rewards sound, conservative tactics, where you spend time evaluating potential threats (I think there are reorganizing in that batch of trees, lets send some mortars over there and see what happens) and planning attacks against a questionable enemy (I think there is only one squad on that hill and lets not even worry if he has reinforcements). Before this, most wargames rewarded incredibly complex solutions that the average tactical commander wouldn’t dream of implementing (that squad on the hill is in heavy brush, behind a low wall and contains submachine guns and is shaken, but not broken, let me pull out my calculator and determine the most efficient use of my firepower points to clear that hex before he receives his 2 Stug III’s on turn 7)

I am assuming most real life engagements of CM’s scale resembled two drunken giants grappling for an advantage, not two chess players plotting every move. And whatever leader could get his hands around melee, and somehow cajole his forces into the proper position, would end up the victor (considering the opposing forces were roughly equal, which again I assume was hardly ever the case.) In my brief time spent with the game, The AI acted just like a commander struggling to evaluate the enemy threat, probing for weakness and reluctant to blindly send his troops into an unknown situation. Just as I was doing. The thing that really impressed me was that the German commander seemed to change his plans in mid game. Troops were massing on one side of the battlefield, after a stubborn defense from two dug in rifle squads and an incredibly intense mortar barrage (I couldn’t figure out how to cease their fire, chalk it up adrenaline on the mortar crews ) the emphasis suddenly and noticeably shifted to the other side, on the hill above the wheat field, where the battle ended in a stalemate. Which stunk for me b/c my reinforcements were heading in exactly the wrong direction. I have never seen AI change a course of action so decisively and dynamically before. The move was not a Napoleonic stroke of genius, but it seemed to be sound tactics, and more importantly, it was not a pre-programmed maneuver but a reaction to the AI’s assessment of the battlefield based on his limited knowledge of the situation. If the AI can give me that every time I play a scenario for the first time and plenty of new scenarios will be available I will never grow tired of this game.

Just two cents from an amateur.

[guachi]

My take on the AI is the same as what someone up above said. Equivalent to an average human but unimaginative. Of course, a small scenario doesn't give the computer much of a chance to do unusual things. But there is no way that a computer can do the wacky things a human can and you can't use psychological warfare against the computer.

In sports, it doesn't take much of a difference in team ability to turn a game into a total rout. That's the way I see it against the computer. We are likely better players than the AI and we get the added intel of reading the scenario briefing or playing the scenario again. But just like in sports, occasionally an inferior team can beat a superior team.

I think I'll look at the games against the AI as more of a practice and learning experience. There are so many things that I think most of us have to learn and practice.

Figuring out the capabilities of the multitude of vehicles and squads. Knowing the composition of all the squad and company types. Guaging ammunition usage. Figuring the best use of terrain. Knowing where to set up emplaced fortifications. Timing artillery strikes. Coordinationg movement of units so they don't have a traffic jam.

I could probably go on and on. But practice isn't about winning or losing, it's about learning. And as long as the AI doesn't do completely ridiculous or unrealistic things I should learn a lot.

The real test is playing against a human.

Jason

[This message has been edited by guachi (edited 11-15-99).]

[SS_PanzerLeader]

I had to reply to this because of the reference to other games AI . As Close Combat player AI was my biggest gripe ( til they made cc3 then the list got long lol) As far as this games AI goes I feel it is top notch. I have played it several times and beaten it soundly too BUT .. I never saw the computer make any moves as of yet that I would determine as totally unrealistic nor at anytime did I feel I could make any stupid moves :-P. I do not consider myself inept on the gaming field in the ww2 arena, and did quite well competitively in close combat. I found the ai here to offer me a challenge that has kept me playing> And that is the question I pose to you BDW, if you found this so easy then why have you been compelled to play it over and over again? ( Im not trying to be is insulting in anyway ) I just think that maybe you are looking for a little too much from the Ai as Bigtime pointed out. I havent had the opportunity to play a person yet and would love the opportunity to play a good opponent - I think if you are playing it that much you must be hooked IMHO

SSPL out

[killmore]

I can complain about couple of things in Cm but AI is not one of them. I would same it is quite good!

The only reason AI looses is because it does not read brefings and it does not learn about the battle. (neural net needed?)

I like this fact because it means that I can be making mistakes and win the game anyway.

I should be able to win the battle on the first try without any replays. (As long as I am competent player) In CC I can. I expect the same from CM.

[Richard III]

Hmm.. Wanna compare AI with 'other' games? Let's see a ten jeep vs ten tiger scenario in this game and see what happens? (snicker)

[SS_PanzerLeader]

OIC lol

u must have experienced the 6 stuarts vs the Jagdtiger in close combat lol - close comparison anyhow :-P

SSPL out

[Fionn]

Or my favourite. 15 Soviet flamethrower infantry platoons vs 8 German rifle squads or MG teams and 7 tanks AND the soviet flamethrower squads winning a total victory and routing the Germans off the map in the |CC3 demo

This was when I'd gotten bored picking off the AI with tanks and AT guns and decided to just use FTs

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers