Game Mechanics: Human vs. AI

[JoMac]

I would like to know which kinds of 'Orders' the AI uses in either QB's or Scenarios, and which 'Orders' are used under what circumstances?

This is, because I would like to only use the same 'Orders' the AI uses and nothing more...I simply want to have an equal advantage with the AI.

ex; Does the AI use 'Run', 'Hide', or 'Covered Arcs'.

In addition, It always seems in a Meeting that I will get to the Objective a couple turns before the AI ( usually, because I use the 'Run' for Inf and 'Fast' for Vehicles )...Should I wait a turn before moving to better balance the game ?

How does everyone else handle or balance their QB's or Scenario's against the AI ?

Any info would be appreciated.

Joe

[A Canadian Cat]

ex; Does the AI use 'Run', 'Hide', or 'Covered Arcs'.

Yes, No and yes.

The AI has several postures for moving which includes some that result in Run orders. As far as I know there is no way to make hiding part of the AI script. There are several AI ambush commands that result in covered arcs being added to the orders.

In addition, It always seems in a Meeting that I will get to the Objective a couple turns before the AI ( usually, because I use the 'Run' for Inf and 'Fast' for Vehicles )...Should I wait a turn before moving to better balance the game ?

Not sure what to advise here. You might be more satisfied with a Probe against the AI or being Attacked by the AI.

[Paper Tiger]

I would like to know which kinds of 'Orders' the AI uses in either QB's or Scenarios, and which 'Orders' are used under what circumstances?

The AI can use Fast (Dash), Quick (Quick), Advance (mainly Assault movement orders for infantry squads and Quick for support teams), Assault and Max Assault (which might mean Slow) movement commands. It never uses Hunt and will only use Move when the units are approaching exhaustion. Under which circumstances depends on which order the scenario/QB map designer issues to that particular order.

Important to remember that the AI cannot reverse its vehicles except when the Tac AI determines that they are threatened and tells them to back up. If you want them to back up as part of an order, they will turn their backsides to the enemy to do so.

ex; Does the AI use 'Run', 'Hide', or 'Covered Arcs'.

As above for Run. The Fire order can make the AI group Hide when it reaches its current order. As for covered arcs, we can issue these by giving them an Ambush order with a range. However, these are NOT the same as the covered arcs you are likely to use. They are 360 degree covered arcs so if you want to play by the same rules as the AI, you have to do this too.

One nice thing about giving an AI group an Ambush order is that they will maintain their facing at the end of the movement order rather than swivelling to face their next order.

How does everyone else handle or balance their QB's or Scenario's against the AI ?

Through repeated play, intensive testing, in particular, observing AI units following their orders in Scenario Author mode and making adjustments where necessary. It's a lot of work but, for me, it's fun work. I spend at least as much time testing AI plans as I do creating my maps.

[lowflyer]

Why do you feel the AI has less advantage? I find it extremely frustrating that the unrealistic targeting system prevents me from shooting vast numbers of the opposition whose positions are fully known and visible. The opposition seems to have no problem targeting (and demolishing) my forces. Trying to advance to closer proximity rarely works. I am dead long before I can get to any position that allows targeting. That alone seems to level the field for the AI. For me, it also ruins the game most of the time.

[womble]

Why do you feel the AI has less advantage? I find it extremely frustrating that the unrealistic targeting system prevents me from shooting vast numbers of the opposition whose positions are fully known and visible.

Which "unrealistic" bit of the "targeting" system are you talking about? Note that the AI does not enjoy any advantages in the spotting or LOS/LOF calculations; it is subject to exactly the same rules you are. So:

The opposition seems to have no problem targeting (and demolishing) my forces.

Perhaps the problem is your end. CM treats cover and concealment in a much more precise and accurate way to most games: there's no "-1 for being in a light woods" AS, it measures how much light woods and scrub and foliage each of your elements that might be spotted is behind before adjusting the chances of enemy eyes registering them. For light woods, you want to be well back from the edge of the area to have a fair level of concealment. And it's vitally important to note that the presence or otherwise of trees makes no difference whatsoever to the concealment afforded by the ground type between you and the enemy; the tree trunks and foliage do, but trees tend to be sprouting out of manicured sward (concealment value: negligible) more often than out of heavy woods tiles.

And the other way around, moving troops don't have as good a chance of spotting the enemy as static ones would. Moving troops' situational awareness is reduced for good and realistic reasons (you can quibble about the amount, but not very well, because of where the abstraction layer is designed). So:

Trying to advance to closer proximity rarely works.

follows pretty closely. Keeping your troops stationary, and in their own concealment, and restraining their fire using covered arcs so they don't give their position away is the best way of spotting the enemy. Proximity helps, sure, but it is far from the be-all and end-all.

I am dead long before I can get to any position that allows targeting. That alone seems to level the field for the AI. For me, it also ruins the game most of the time.

If the AI can target you, then potentially you can target the AI. That's graven in stone. Realising that potential in a combat situation takes some basic understanding and low level skill: both can be learned. I don't know whether the concept of the "empty battlefield" was one that was current in the western theatre of WW2, but it can certainly be applied to some degree: don't give the enemy a clear shot at anything if it can be helped; most of your infantry are eyes, not legs or rifles; tanks stay in defilade until they've got a definite target, either spotted or area.

The AI's almost total inability to use area fire, and complete inability to use speculative area fire, is probably its greatest weakness.

[lowflyer]

Some time back I read the threads re. the targeting system. If I recall correctly, it's that you can't target anything unless you have a direct LOS to it's base on the map. That means that you may have sighted enemy positions, but if there is anything between the object's base and your LOS, you can't fire at them, even if they are in plain sight..

For example, a 2-story building stands behind a hedgerow. It's upper elevations are completely in view. You have discovered an enemy element positioned in the building, upper floor, observing your approach and positions. None of your units have the ability to fire on the building unless they find access that allows LOS to the building's base.

I understand why there must be these limitations in the game's design, but it sure eliminates a lot of tactical options.

It's enlightening to find out the AI has the same targeting limitations I do, In which case I would surmise that the scenario designers must find such tiny holes to shoot through, perhaps only a few pixels in area, that it is highly unlikely I will ever uncover them from across a map.

The Allied forces I have been playing so far sure seem to have little ability to do so. In fact, their moral and resiliancy seem more like those you would have found in N. Africa in 1942, rather than the more seasoned troops that might have existed by the time of Normandy. Usually, one hit and

they are scurrying in a mad dash for cover far to the rear. Their firepower at the squad level is pathetic, making them just about useless in most firefights, unless paired with multiple other squads.

Let's not even talk about the armored units that move as though mired in molasses, and seem to be driven by six-yr-olds who can not yet reach the pedals or see out the viewports. I can't count the times I have waited on the edge of my seat, for a precious Sherman to do a simple 60 degree turn

and move a few feet before a Panzer 4 all the way across the map strikes a deadly blow.

In the heavy weapons platoons, only the mortars seem to be of much use. In many hours of play I have rarely been able to figure out how to advance an MG crew into a position where they can set up and fire on a spotted opponent. They can advance only until the first set of enemy eyes is on

them and then they are wiped out.

I suppose if I were playing a defensive position I would have an endless amount of time to discover those tiny holes through the objects and terrain that would allow me the same advantage the AI has been using against me. I don't object to taking a week to get through a scenario, but the idea of a single individual taking a couple weeks hunting down tiny holes and openings in order to triumph, or just to make a series of moves, is ludicrous. I have a real life too.

As repeat player and fan of many years, of the V1 versions of CM, ever since they hit the market, I must admit that these later versions (I upgraded to V2 of the game engine to see if it was better- nope) are rather disappointing with their fantastic and tempting graphics and animations that are quickly spoiled by game mechanics which are no more interesting or entertaining than the old versions.

It's kinda like the old Microprose sub sim, Red Storm Rising, for the Commodore 64. With only 64 KBs of headroom the designers created an engaging game play that I believe, to this day, has never been exceeded by the flashiest of sub sims. I still occasionally boot it up and am amazed at how well it has stood the test of time. It ain't just all about graphics folks. It's about engaging your brain at a level that lets you forget it IS only a game. CMBN is failing pitifully for me in that regard, though I keep coming back, hoping to change my mind.

[womble]

Some time back I read the threads re. the targeting system. If I recall correctly, it's that you can't target anything unless you have a direct LOS to it's base on the map. That means that you may have sighted enemy positions, but if there is anything between the object's base and your LOS, you can't fire at them, even if they are in plain sight..

Not precisely true.

For example, a 2-story building stands behind a hedgerow. It's upper elevations are completely in view. You have discovered an enemy element positioned in the building, upper floor, observing your approach and positions. None of your units have the ability to fire on the building unless they find access that allows LOS to the building's base.

Not true. You have to have LOS (disregarding the building's wall) to the relevant LOS point on the floor where the enemy are. Not the base of the building. There are frequent occasions when the upper storeys of a building are targetable and the ground is not. Outside urban combat, the occasions when a building's frontage cannot be targetted, although a unit within that building can fire out, are rare. 99% of the time you can fire at a window that someone just fired out of even if you can't spot the shooter; I do it all the time. One thing which confounds the assesment of LOS past hedgerows is the turning off of trees, even to "show nearby trunks only". Many bocage lines have lots of trees in them, which aren't visible unless you have the full "show trees" setting toggled.

It's enlightening to find out the AI has the same targeting limitations I do, In which case I would surmise that the scenario designers must find such tiny holes to shoot through, perhaps only a few pixels in area, that it is highly unlikely I will ever uncover them from across a map.

The scenario designers don't find them, the TacAI does. Hint: you have a TacAI to help you, too.

The Allied forces I have been playing so far sure seem to have little ability to do so. In fact, their moral and resiliancy seem more like those you would have found in N. Africa in 1942, rather than the more seasoned troops that might have existed by the time of Normandy. Usually, one hit and

they are scurrying in a mad dash for cover far to the rear. Their firepower at the squad level is pathetic, making them just about useless in most firefights, unless paired with multiple other squads.

Well, apart from the subjective nature of your statements, that doesn't match my experience, there's some factual errors there: not all the Divisions that landed in Normandy were battle hardened. Others have this data at their fingertips, but my recollection is that most were not. Armies don't get seasoned just because a war progresses.

Let's not even talk about the armored units that move as though mired in molasses, and seem to be driven by six-yr-olds who can not yet reach the pedals or see out the viewports. I can't count the times I have waited on the edge of my seat, for a precious Sherman to do a simple 60 degree turn

and move a few feet before a Panzer 4 all the way across the map strikes a deadly blow.

Do you have lots of experience driving Shermans? There are veteran tankers on this forum that don't object to the way the in-game tanks handle. First, you dont' want to be futzing about doing 60degree turns when something can see you; as you have found, AP shot flies much faster than Shermans move. Second, you don't want to be showing your Shermans anywhere that a PzIV is going to be shooting at them from way across the map; that's just fighting the war on the Germans' terms, and even if you're pointing in the right direction as soon as you come into view, you should lose because your gun isn't as good as the IV's. Use your infantry, not your tanks, to find the enemy tanks, and don't pick fights you can't win.

In the heavy weapons platoons, only the mortars seem to be of much use. In many hours of play I have rarely been able to figure out how to advance an MG crew into a position where they can set up and fire on a spotted opponent. They can advance only until the first set of enemy eyes is on

them and then they are wiped out.

So don't let the enemy see them? What do you expect when you show a unit, that the enemy won't fire on it because it's precious to you? It's perfectly possible to use MGs offensively. Keep them behind cover, give them short cover arcs, Slow them to their firing position and Hide them until they're set up and ready to let rip. You can do all this outside the effective range of a boggo infantry squad, or, if the terrain is congested enough that you have to come close, that means there's cover for you to use. That particular problem is your failing, not the game's.

I suppose if I were playing a defensive position I would have an endless amount of time to discover those tiny holes through the objects and terrain that would allow me the same advantage the AI has been using against me. I don't object to taking a week to get through a scenario, but the idea of a single individual taking a couple weeks hunting down tiny holes and openings in order to triumph, or just to make a series of moves, is ludicrous. I have a real life too.

Hysteria is unbecoming.

As repeat player and fan of many years, of the V1 versions of CM, ever since they hit the market, I must admit that these later versions (I upgraded to V2 of the game engine to see if it was better- nope) are rather disappointing with their fantastic and tempting graphics and animations that are quickly spoiled by game mechanics which are no more interesting or entertaining than the old versions.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, in the matter of "interest" and "entertainment".

It ain't just all about graphics folks.

If you think that's the primary focus of CMx2, then you're completely missing the point. The graphics fidelity serves purposes, technical and narrative that couldn't be supported in lesser resolution.

It's about engaging your brain at a level that lets you forget it IS only a game.

If watching the individual fates of your poor pTruppen unfold in real time doesn't engage you, you're missing a chunk of something vital. If you think watching Larry Curly and Moe do their funky thing is more engaging of the suspension of disbelief than CMx2, then I really don't know what planet you're from.

CMBN is failing pitifully for me in that regard, though I keep coming back, hoping to change my mind.

I think you need to change your mind before coming back. Your expectations are frankly screwed up, and your evident misconceptions about what is being depicted, combined with your confirmation bias will never allow you to see CMx2 for what it is.

1. It's a game. Its simulation cannot be perfect

2. It's a pretty good simulation nevertheless, so actions and approaches that are ill-advised on a real battlefield are also ill-advised on a CMx2 battlefield.

3. Better graphics permits more detail, both in calculation and observation.

4. There's no shame in the AI opponent handing you your ass while you get points 1-3 internalised.

[c3k]

I'll echo Womble's well-made comments. He's pretty much spot-on.

I'm playing some of the CW battles for the first time. The battles are brutal. The AI defender is chewing me up. I have a bit of experience with the game. This does not mean that the game is broken (<- that's my shorthand for your long list of shortcomings). All that means is that this particular battle is VERY hard, and that I have made some mistakes. Frustrating? Very.

There are many weapons in your arsenal. If you have had success with mortars, and think machineguns aren't good, then you need to change how you use machineguns. (MG's are good at suppression: use them to area fire on suspected enemy positions for several minutes, for example.) Perhaps your tactics are flawed. Do you spread your men? Do you rush everyone at once? Do you ever use HUNT or SLOW?

In sum, many others have played and not found the problems you've listed. There are many different approaches to how to play. Some approaches are less successful than others. Look at some AAR's and videos and see if your approach is similar to the successful approaches.

Good luck.

Ken

[Peregrine]

Some time back I read the threads re. the targeting system. If I recall correctly, it's that you can't target anything unless you have a direct LOS to it's base on the map.

This is a partial myth that is misunderstood. Just because you can't target the exact square doesn't mean you can't fire in a way that impacts them.

Area firing in the general direction works just fine.

I have done many tests and even area firing 25-40m in front of you (the limit of vision in the thicker forest) units 80-100m away are still impacted significantly as the bullets keep traveling much further than the square targeted. Didn't bother testing longer as it was pretty clear from the test that shooting 60m in front of a target still did the trick.

It is frustrating not being able to directly target but area firing in the general direction works just fine.

For me the real problem is the TAC AI won't behave like this at all.

[Erwin]

lowflyer: I get the impression that you are looking for more of a game rather than a simulation. I recommend you try the CM1 series of games which is more "fun" in that respect than CM2 - which I agree is a lot more work and takes a lot more brain power to master (and has many more frustrating elements).

There are many clubs in which CM1 games and tournaments are still predominant, and they exist because many people are broadly in agreement with your sentiments and frustration.

I find both the CM1 and CM2 game series to be excellent. I enjoy playing each for different reasons, but I burn out on CM2 a lot more often than I burn out on CM1 for the sort of reasons that you outlined. (Nonetheless, after a rest, I always come back.)

[lowflyer]

Thanks for the feedback. Most of the scenarios I have played over and over. I usually find that, eventually, I stumble upon a more successful approach, though by that time I usually know where all the enemy units are located.

I have a decent grasp of basic tactics. guess that's not sufficient. I'll have to find some references that might help me develop better approaches and see if the game feels less one-sided.

[womble]

Thanks for the feedback. Most of the scenarios I have played over and over.

That, to me, means you're playing realtime (because I can't envisage anyone having enough time to play scenarios "over and over" in WeGo).

I usually find that, eventually, I stumble upon a more successful approach...

It might be that your play style would be more suited to WeGo play, or at least that you might have a more structured environment for discovery in WeGo mode.

[aus3620]

Good advice Womble and Co.

Just to restate Womble's last comment. To really enjoy the detail in CMx2-3 you have to play WEGO. Use the infantry as eyes and when you do get a spot, get down in the weeds and examine the LOS. Then decide, what weapon could use that LOS to take out that target. Or bring in a sniper to bump off that Heads Up tank commander. Good idea to have infantry on Hide so they don't give their position away early.

One of the hardest parts for new players is to be patient! Adjust your thinking to the speed of the game. Especially if you have come from "twitch" games.

[womble]

Good idea to have infantry on Hide so they don't give their position away early.

Most important, it seems, for not giving away position, is the restricted Target Arc. Hide is situational: if you want the troops to be eyes, Hiding is suboptimal.

One of the hardest parts for new players is to be patient! Adjust your thinking to the speed of the game. Especially if you have come from "twitch" games.

This is very true. Give your troops time to do their jobs. Don't assume that just because there's clean air between them and where the enemy are that they'll see the enemy immediately. Don't assume that a minute of suppression has got all the enemy heads down. Don't send a squad where a team hasn't been, and all that. This applies just the same in RT as it does in WeGo: the engine's the same, after all, it's just the conditions of your manipulation of it that change.

[lowflyer]

Great tips. I'll give them a try next go-around. I don't play real time. I do feel a lack of patience at times, especially when having to go through the process of moving large numbers of units across the map. I feel I have to micro-manage their movements since the computer's ability to do so seems poor.

In the last year I have put a lot of time into Empire, World at War. I have gotten used to a bit more of the strategic view, in which there is a lot less micro-management, and a faster scale of play. I guess I have to work on slowing down and dropping into a lower gear.

[c3k]

Make believe that it is YOU advancing on that map: how fast would you go? How far in the open would you move? Would you fire your rifle at that tank commander 500m away, or would you hide and call in anti-tank assets?

Mind you, my men refuse to act that way. They vie with one another in performing reckless feats of bravery to gain a modicum of respect from me. They value my respect moreso than their own sad, pitiful, short lives. But that is my burden as a commander, not yours.

Carry on.

Ken

[MikeyD]

There's you, there's the AI and there's the third character in the battle- that's the terrain. Learning to subtly use the terrain to your advantage will greatly assist you in the fight. That's why I cringe watching Youtube clips of folks playing from 20 feet up and 20 feet back. The most subtle undulation in the terrain can mean the difference between victory and defeat. If you're down in the weeds looking over the troops' shoulder you can see that he's either in a dangerously exposed position or is out of LOF. From 20 feet up you're just assuming.

[General Jack Ripper]

Lowflyer:

[JoMac]

Thanks for the info, guys, especially from Ian & Paper.

Basically, for play balance reasons against the Computer AI, I only like to use orders that the AI would use in a game.

Ok, so how about AI Vehicle Crews, do they button or unbutton more then once during a game...It seems once they become buttoned they don't unbutton again during the game.

[Squallion]

I would like to know which kinds of 'Orders' the AI uses in either QB's or Scenarios, and which 'Orders' are used under what circumstances?

This is, because I would like to only use the same 'Orders' the AI uses and nothing more...I simply want to have an equal advantage with the AI.

ex; Does the AI use 'Run', 'Hide', or 'Covered Arcs'.

In addition, It always seems in a Meeting that I will get to the Objective a couple turns before the AI ( usually, because I use the 'Run' for Inf and 'Fast' for Vehicles )...Should I wait a turn before moving to better balance the game ?

How does everyone else handle or balance their QB's or Scenario's against the AI ?

Any info would be appreciated.

Joe

I treat the AI like I would treat any player. It's hard enough, in my opinion. It seems to detect my weak spots and takes advantage accordingly.