arpella72 Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Probably this has been discused before but I 'm quiet disappointed with the game AI. It's very clumsy and loose,especially when you see an enemy computer generated attack with waves of infantry advancing in "banzai" style just to be massacred by your troops.They do this even if they have armour support that behaves even worst and in a such odd way with the tanks bunching together like a herd of lambs without any coordination with the infantry attack.I watched this many times. I used to play the IL-2 sturmovik flight simulator time ago.It's a game released in 2001 by an independent russian company and I was amazed about its excellent AI. Why this capital asset in any game hasn't got more attention in CM?.Is the AI improved in the new games? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 There is no AI in the game, apart from the small-scale logic that makes individual soldiers move and choose their targets. Map makers add a "script" to their missions to make the AI do something specific at a certain time. Not sure how quick battle works. Whether or not it's possible to program an AI for coordinated attacks in CM is a matter of debate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 You can't even begin to compare the AI for a few aircraft in a flight sim (by the way, the IL2 AI cheated) to what it takes to control ground forces over uneven terrain and in totally uncertain circumstances. The AI needs to be improved is a statement that will probably be true throughout all of our lifetimes. Scenario triggers are now giving designers a way to make some very credible AI attacks, but it certainly defends better. I know there will always be several orders of magnitude more single player gamers than those that want the challenge of human competition, but playing other people is where CM really shines. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Probably the biggest problem the AI faces, especially on QB maps, is the "gap" between one order and the next. If we humans see such a gap, where the AI has committed to a course of action (and cannot change it), we're much better at jumping on it. If the AI has reached its "time" (triggered by the clock or anything else) to move from "A" to "B", then that's what it's going to do. Any response to adverse occurrences during this time is purely down to the low level TacAI, which will still be operating under the overriding "move" order from the higher level. If the gap is big enough, we humans will stomp all over the poor AI while it's trying to displace and can't do anything else. Something that I think would greatly improve the AI, especially on the attack, would be a more diverse assessment of pathing choices. As it stands, even giving the AI double the points (and double the men, therefore) just means the human gets to have double the targets in the choke points/kill sacks; if the director AI allowed a broader range of pathing, superior numbers on the AI side might have a chance to tell, by finding a less well defended approach route. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 I think that one way to drastically improve the AI-side in a battle would be to give the scenario designers MORE AI-Groups to work with... IMO the AI seems to have a very limted understanding of what the different kind of squads, teams and veichles are supposed to do but rather treats them all of as 'a number of men'...regardless of what kind of Equipment they are carrying... An INFANTRY SQUAD is treated as 8-10 MEN a HMG-TEAM is is treated as 3-5 MEN...not as a SUPPORT WEAPON ! More or less the same goes for a MORTAR TEAM and its AMMO CARRIERS...The AI treats them as a NUMBER OF MEN and pay little attention to what the are supposed to be doing and where they ought to be placed to fullfill their task... If you place an INFANTRY PLATOON, a HMG TEAM and a MORTAR TEAM in the same AI-group and give them a number of ORDERS to attack a possition the result will not be very impressive... If we had more AI-Groups the scenario designer could 'help' the AI to pull this kind of attack of in a more succsesful and realistic way... The INFANRTY PLATOON could be something like 2 or 3 AI-Groups to help it advance in bounding overwatch... using good avenues of approach and timings. The HMG-TEAM could be a sepperate AI-Group to make sure it is in possition in a good overwatch possition before the assultteams move out and also to prevent that the HMG-team participates in the actual assult 'as a number of men'... The same with the MORTAR TEAM and AMMO CARRIERS...They could also be a sepperate AI-team to make sure the keep together and remain in a sutable location.... This is only a small example...but i'm pretty sure that more AI-Groups would lead to better battles vs the AI... A guess that a Point could be made the adding many more AI-Groups would make scenario designing even more complicated and timeconsuming but i don't agree with this. Sure...you will have more AI-Groups to give orders to but i think that the scenariodesigner will have a much bigger chans to get the AI to actually do what he want with his first attempt rather then having to tweak the AI-Groups and their orders over and over again wich is often the case with a limited number of AI-Groups... We have the abbility to have 16 AI-groups right now if i'm not misstaking... If that number could be doubled to 32 i Think it would be a big improvment... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosseau Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 16 is pretty good, but the more the better, if possible. The real suspension of belief I see is in Quick Battles when the AI leads with its HQ, halftracks and vulnerable units first. Certainly, something can, and may have been done with that since last I looked. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wodin Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 If your playing quick battles then your on a path of disappointment. I stick to user made scenarios and campaigns and have never been disappointed yet. The game is very dependent on how well a scenario has been designed when playing the AI. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosseau Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Yes, can't complain. There are a zillion CMSF scenarios, and I have about 140 CMBN battles. It's the mod community that makes these games worth a lot more than one initially pays. Imagine what an AAA publisher would charge for a 200 scenario dlc! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ade670 Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 I play mostly against the AI - so, ok it doesn't think like H2H - I guess it will never match up to a human oppo. I tend to play against a defending AI - I enjoy the game blind, however it would be great if there were several AI plans and a random was selected at the start of the game. Just a few in the data base would give the scenarios more replay value I guess 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Yes the AI needs improvement, but until we get intelligent robots/androids to play with us the best AI upgrade is another human. I have a dogfight going on h2h. Its my 1 Sherman and infantry vs a Tiger and MarkIV that's been going on for 4 turns. Its literally a bumper to bumper dogfight with trees and smoke. Believe me I've been cursing and pounding my fists every replay cursing at my tank crew, saying ********* fire! I can only wonder what the reaction of my opponent is... I agree with OP. User made Campaigns and battles are fun. QB's not so much, but I haven't tries out any with the latest updates applied. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 it would be great if there were several AI plans and a random was selected at the start of the game. This capability is already in the game (IIRC it has always been in the game), and many/most scenarios make use of it to one degree or another. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ade670 Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 against the AI in stock CMBN and addons it seems to be the same can you provide some more detail please 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 p.138-139 of the game manual. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ade670 Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 hey thanks. Never read that- are these in play with the stock games? I still don't see any difference when I replay stock battles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 as I said ... This capability is already in the game (IIRC it has always been in the game), and many/most scenarios make use of it to one degree or another. You can check this for yourself easily enough in the editor. See how many of the plans have associated valid orders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fry30 Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 IMO the AI seems to have a very limted understanding of what the different kind of squads, teams and veichles are supposed to do but rather treats them all of as 'a number of men'...regardless of what kind of Equipment they are carrying... I agree. Maybe if they could implement a Combined Arms option together with some revamped AI grouping, we wouldn't worry about Tanks assaulting a house. AFVs and artillery pieces should always operate under a different set of maneuver guidelines than infantry. 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.