How are people doing against the A.I. ?

[Philipp]

I play WEGO on Iron and the AI is a nice chellange in most battles. I typically win with plenty of total and major, for the American campaign I had only total and major victories for example. Oh, and I never reload or play the same battle twice except for small battles with plenty of variety. And I don't care too much about winning either, a good battle for me is one were what happened was believable and dramatic.

If that is the case or not depends very much on the scenario though. In the WW2 games I almost only played PaperTigers campaigns since I just loved the difficulty level and the immersion. I probably also learned a lot from that because some of them are very clever designed and unforgiving.

In BS the quality of the campaigns and battles seems very high and the scale less daunting than in RT. Hardly played that game because battles with more than a company and gigantic maps are not my thing so much.

But I digress. Bottom line is I think that beating the AI in most scearios in BS is doable, with some practice. The AI is only as good as the scenario designer and some scenarios are meant to be hard. And some scenarios are decided by some lucky ATGM hit, which is also fine by me as long as the fight is believable and dramatic.

[Vinnart]

I handle the AI relatively easy for the most part in all cmx2 games no matter the game mode setting ( Iron, veteran ect..) as there is no difference in the difficulty of the AI. In other words it is not any more intelligent in one mode over another. However, I do find CMBS a bit more challenging than the ww2 titles mainly because the weaponry is so much more deadlier/ sophisticated, and thus less forgiving of mistakes. The spotting is much better too because of the technology, and so is the range things can be taken out. Depending on how the scenario designer uses triggers to act, and react is also an advancement in making the AI more challenging. More than once I have had an attack come out of nowhere, so it does just not sit there like it has in the past. Like others have said if you want a real challenge you have to play a human.

 

The QB system is certainly designed with multiplayer in mind, but i like to play it time to time single in real time which can be a lot of fun since it almost impossible to get a real time HvH game. If you want a good way to try real time set up a tiny, 30 min QB ME battle, infantry only letting the program select the units for both sides. The AI will at least make a push for the objectives, and again depending on how sophisticated the AI plan is for the map it can be somewhat challenging. Real time is less forgiving too than WEGO for more challenge if you do not pause often. 

 

As far as an approach to winning in the game, which I believe i have in all the scenarios I have played so far, I think you have to know when to be patient, and when to be bolder and more aggressive. Be patient to use your technology, and air assets letting it do its thing before you advance. Be patient to recon properly. Be aggressive when decisive, or quick action is called for, or when being too cautious isn't going anywhere. It is something you just have to have intuition for like a good poker player. From my experience I tend to favor being more cautious in the modern war environment preferring shorter moves mixed with speed where warranted.  Anyway you slice it there are always gambles, and being lucky helps too. 

[Jammersix]

I really don't understand why solo players bother with QB..there are plenty of scenarios and alot are a challenge.

Because if a scenario doesn't interest me, it doesn't interest me.

 

There are only so many scenarios. QBs are unlimited.

[z1812]

I just achieved my second victory playing "Phase Line Green". I used my normal tactics and it worked. I also played "August Morning" that I skipped over at the beginning and got a Major Victory.

 

Thank Goodness for that........................I thought I had completely lost my touch.

[Pelican Pal]

An important thing to remember is that the AI is essentially done by the scenario designer. QBs by their random nature will have worse AI than scenarios all things being equal.

 

It also means that the AI can vary in difficulty greatly between any scenario.

[Jammersix]

It also means that the AI can vary in difficulty greatly between any scenario.

 

The last thing it means is that a QB map with a dozen real AIs would be a real map.

 

The implication is that the QB map designers had other priorities than good AIs.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Jammersix

[BlackMoria]

Steamrollering the AI, as I usually do.   I have noted that the AI is better that CMSF.  The battle plans by the scenario designers is also much better, making many CMBS scenarios challenging.  And I am challenged and some of my victories are hard won as a result.

 

Which is good in my book.

[Pelican Pal]

The implication is that the QB map designers had other priorities than good AIs.

 

 

I didn't mean to imply that and I don't think it is true.

 

Doing AI design for a QB map must be an incredibly hard task. I've done it for three scenarios with hand picked units. It was tough and time consuming then, I can't imagine what it would be like not knowing what is on the field.

 

For example, in one AI plan I made I had two platoons of infantry attacking a fortified position with the support of 2 T-72s. I know that the infantry alone cannot take the position. So I have the infantry move to a concealed location and then wait for the tanks (using a trigger) to reach an overwatch position from which they can lay fire into the defenders. Thereby suppressing them. On top of all of that I know what the defender has so I know that the overwatch position won't be watched by a pair of ATGMs, and that the enemy has no heavy armor.

 

So the tanks arrive at the overwatch position and begin engaging enemies. The 2 platoons of infantry are triggered and begin their attack. The AI attack works out really well and looks pretty intelligent. It took me about 2 hours to get it working perfectly. Now imagine planning that attack when you don't know what the attacker or defender will have.

 

It might be 5 tanks and some LMGs, it might be 3 platoons of infantry, it might be a platoon of infantry and a battery of 105s. There are an almost infinite number of combinations that could be fielded and on top of all that your AI groups are necessarily limited.

 

And what might be an intelligent attack when your enemy has only Mechanized infantry might look incredibly stupid when they are packing a bunch of elite Abrams.

[Sulman]

Esim's Nils Hinrichsen mentioned that scripted AI with some simple tactical rules  (of the kind Steelbeasts Pro PE uses) is heavily dependent on the designer. It can make the computer look like a very convincing opponent, or a total moron dependent on the player behaviour. 

 

I have to say I've found the AI's withdrawal code a lot more aggressive. APC's frequently get the hell out of dodge if they spot infantry now, much as you would expect. I though CMSF did this in a similar fashion but it seems a lot more aggressive in Black Sea. 

[Jammersix]

I didn't mean to imply that and I don't think it is true.

 

You didn't need to, I did. And I do.

[Daroc]

Side note hope Ukraine does better then the AI.

[SlowLarry]

Now my 2cents, whatever its worth. Ive been playing CMx2 games since CMSF was released and it is my feeling that ever since the difficulty level gets ramped up with every title. This goes for the scenarios and campaigns that come with the game. I play quickbattles rather seldom.

 

This may have also something to do with the difference between modern vs 3rdrate, ww2 vs ww2 and modern vs modern. My impression is that since the introduction of triggers the ai plays or at least feels a lot more fluent and really interacting. Compare for example the first mission of the us campaign in BS to the turkey shoot in SF. Feels like a totally different game( i know, it is...). Now, with BS and RT i feel that every single mission is a very tough nut to crack, simply no more easy going. It also is more rewarding when you pull off a clever move and it works out. On the other hand, since SF i picked up the habbit of being pretty closely tied to my guys, on an emotional level. This often leaves me speechless watching the desaster i ordered...

[De Savage]

I got beaten by the AI all the time.

 

My typical mistake is to move my guys to building next to spotting APC or tank. AI fire couple of rounds and kills most of my team. APC and tank fire is so devastating. It's hard to find good spot to fire back before you are dead. It seems I need to learn more about modern battlefield. IMHO scenarios are more challenging and amount of artillery and air power is overkill sometimes.

 

Looking forward to see more scenarios with infantry and less armor and arty.

[Agua]

Definitely not experiencing the same success vs ai in scenarios as I had in all previous titles.  While the inclusion of triggers surely have added to the challenge, I'm pretty sure it's my lack of ability to appreciate and exploit the relative capabilities of the weaponry.  It is all very deadly.