Jump to content

AI aggressiveness


Keith
 Share

Recommended Posts

After playing the demos it is my impression is a bit too aggressive in the sense that it will press an attack on an objective flag to the point of destroying all of its assaulting troops. On the other hand, the AI will defend objective flags to the bitter end rather than withdrawing troops to objectives in the rear.

One nice feature of Talonsoft's Campagin Series games is the ability to specify the aI aggressiveness in scenario design from 0% (die where you stand) to 100% (attack to you die).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is getting changed for the final, Keith. Several points were made about the AI doing things TOO aggressively, like leading assaults with support/HQ units, refusing to yield non-critical terrain, etc etc.

BTS has assured us (and I have faith in them) that the AI will be aggressive in the final, but will not be over-the-top, rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, to-the-bitter end like it is now.

DjB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, the AI also seems a little too willing attack piecemeal. If it has to rush across open, defended spaces, for example, it will often send individual squads one after the other, rather than rushing in groups. (Once I had it launch a grand charge across the open and it was impressive). This isn't a case of using the other squads for supporting fire- it looks more as though they rush as they become available (ie, reach the treeline). Still a pretty crafty AI compared to some others I've seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It must be very difficult indeed to write routines for the computer intelligence to attack or assualt, especially using recognized doctrine both sides employed. The relative weakness of any computer intelligence on the offensive has been well documented from many previous attempts at computer wargaming on many different scales. While I have not extensively tested the demo's ability in this regard I find playing offensively against the computer's defense challenging enough (a tough opponent indeed) & more, how shall I say..., fair. I suspect there is less doctrine to the entrenched defense than there is to a combined arms offense. I may be wrong about this because I am not a trained military professional but I would cut the computer more slack on the offense than on the defense. I would urge, however, attempts be made to model the doctrine of the armed service the computer is playing when it is on the offense.

Kilroy out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...