Attention Battlefront! Frustrated... Threshold for Surrendering Too Low for AI!

[MisterMark]

When I'm playing an attack against the computer and I'm seemingly winning the battle (but it doesn't seem quite for sure yet), the battle often times comes to a somewhat unexpected stop and I end up with a major victory due to the AI throwing in the towel.  However, many times I find I haven't taken all the objectives and upon looking over the fully revealed map and the AAR, there were still a fair amount of capable  enemy units still holding key ground.  

I'm not 100% sure on how it works but from my rough estimation, it seems once you have inflicted greater than 70% casualties on the enemy, the AI just gives up.   And I get it... it's practical to have some sort of threshold for when it's time for the other side to give up.  But when this happens too soon, it feels disappointing to get the victory without taking all the objectives.  Furthermore,  it robs you of the satisfaction of getting to 'mop up' the last of the hold outs... which despite any kind of numerical advantage you would have at that point, wouldn't guarantee you would just easily root out and roll over any remaining defending units.  It seems completely possible that you could take a fair share of losses that could still sway the outcome of the battle from a major victory to a minor victory. 

Does anyone from Battlefront have any idea on the criteria and details for the algorithm that dictates when the AI surrenders?  Is it based on purely casualties/points?   Or does the algorithm take into account the percentage of units that have a shattered moral state? 

I've seen this complaint brought up before but wondering if there has been any work-arounds or mods out there that will fix this?

If not, it would be a welcomed update for Battlefront to add some sort of option to raise the threshold for full AI capitulation so you could extend the battle to through a mop up phase.  Maybe it's a slider that you can pre select the percentage of casualties or shattered units to get a full surrender?  And to take it a step further, a really awesome feature would be to have the option to randomize the threshold so you wouldn't know exactly how far you needed to take the battle to get the major victory.  If this isn't possible in a future update, at the very least, make it where all the objectives have to be taken to get the major victory.

Not sure how the surrendering threshold could be update for defending or meeting engagements but one way or the other, I believe a lot of players would appreciate some update or tweak to this aspect of the game.

Would be curious hear other's thoughts and opinions on this.

-Mark

 

 

 

 

 

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, MisterMark said:

Would be curious hear other's thoughts and opinions on this.

Up to the designer to set the tress hold @Combatintman could it explain it to you.  He explained the finer points some time ago.

[kohlenklau]

I think I remember there have also been complaints on the forum when you play the AI and the scenario goes on and on and on. You have all the objectives secured, the enemy seems totally crushed and they just will not surrender. I think you painstakingly hunt down that one enemy soldier holed up in the 2nd floor of the village whorehouse and finally the game ends.

 

 

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, kohlenklau said:

I think you painstakingly hunt down that one enemy soldier holed up in the 2nd floor of the village whorehouse and finally the game ends.

I think to avoid surrendering too soon there maybe reinforcements which never show up. 

[Centurian52]

On 8/13/2023 at 8:49 PM, MisterMark said:

When I'm playing an attack against the computer and I'm seemingly winning the battle (but it doesn't seem quite for sure yet), the battle often times comes to a somewhat unexpected stop and I end up with a major victory due to the AI throwing in the towel.  However, many times I find I haven't taken all the objectives and upon looking over the fully revealed map and the AAR, there were still a fair amount of capable  enemy units still holding key ground.  

I'm not 100% sure on how it works but from my rough estimation, it seems once you have inflicted greater than 70% casualties on the enemy, the AI just gives up.   And I get it... it's practical to have some sort of threshold for when it's time for the other side to give up.  But when this happens too soon, it feels disappointing to get the victory without taking all the objectives.  Furthermore,  it robs you of the satisfaction of getting to 'mop up' the last of the hold outs... which despite any kind of numerical advantage you would have at that point, wouldn't guarantee you would just easily root out and roll over any remaining defending units.  It seems completely possible that you could take a fair share of losses that could still sway the outcome of the battle from a major victory to a minor victory. 

Does anyone from Battlefront have any idea on the criteria and details for the algorithm that dictates when the AI surrenders?  Is it based on purely casualties/points?   Or does the algorithm take into account the percentage of units that have a shattered moral state? 

I've seen this complaint brought up before but wondering if there has been any work-arounds or mods out there that will fix this?

If not, it would be a welcomed update for Battlefront to add some sort of option to raise the threshold for full AI capitulation so you could extend the battle to through a mop up phase.  Maybe it's a slider that you can pre select the percentage of casualties or shattered units to get a full surrender?  And to take it a step further, a really awesome feature would be to have the option to randomize the threshold so you wouldn't know exactly how far you needed to take the battle to get the major victory.  If this isn't possible in a future update, at the very least, make it where all the objectives have to be taken to get the major victory.

Not sure how the surrendering threshold could be update for defending or meeting engagements but one way or the other, I believe a lot of players would appreciate some update or tweak to this aspect of the game.

Would be curious hear other's thoughts and opinions on this.

-Mark

 

 

 

 

 

I've frequently made the opposite complaint. Realistically the threshold for surrendering is way too high. No army fights to the last man (at least not usually, the Japanese in WW2 were the conspicuous exception to this). Usually a loss of 10% of your forces in a real battle is a pretty bad day, and the bloodiest battles in human history rarely go above 25% casualties (remember that real armies have to fight multiple battles, and if you are losing 10% of your forces a day then you are down to just 48% after only a week (also human psychology is a factor, and 1 in every 10 people you know becoming a casualty in a single day is going to severely shake your confidence)). The fact that the AI doesn't know how to retreat naturally pushes casualties above what they would be in real life (in fact I think this is the main reason why casualty rates in Combat Mission are so much higher than in real life (IRL losing armies retreat, while in Combat Mission losing armies keep taking and inflicting more casualties)). But even taking that into consideration, 70% seems way too high. Even cut off and surrounded units which, like the AI in Combat Mission, are unable to retreat don't normally take such heavy losses as that before surrendering.

I do know the threshold for surrendering is not a fixed value. It seems to fall somewhere in the range of 70%-80% casualties (I think I've even seen it peek above 80% once or twice when facing really fanatical troops), and seems to be influenced by moral and remaining heavy assets such as tanks (more than once I've seen the AI surrender as soon as I destroy their last tank).

edit: Thinking about it further, 70% may not be so absurdly high as a threshold for surrendering. Zooming in to historical engagements at battalion level or below (Combat Mission scale), it isn't so hard to find examples of units, once cut off from any hope of retreat, enduring more than 50% casualties before surrendering. It is definitely way higher than any normal casualty rate. But I think the principle problem remains that the AI has no idea how to retreat. And even if it did, most scenarios don't have exit zones to accommodate a retreat unless the scenario is explicitly a delaying action. There's probably some rather gamey thinking going on in the scenario design there, and I'd wager that most Combat Mission players probably have no more idea of how to conduct a retreat than the AI, since no scenario has ever asked them to try. So both AI and player alike keep taking and inflicting casualties long after any real force would have withdrawn, neatly explaining why casualties in Combat Mission are so high compared to real life.

Edited August 18, 2023 by Centurian52

[chuckdyke]

Instead of surrendering the 'losing AI should be able to withdraw from the area of operations. The threshold of a surrender should be way higher. Like two human players saying to each other I will break off the engagement better call it a day.

[wolfgang500]

I think MisterMark and Centurian52 are both right from their respective point of view. I also feel the AI gives up way to early sometimes, and that casualties are much higher (on both sides sometimes) than a unit in reality coud sustain. I am helping myself with imagening that the point when AI surrenders early this ist he point when a combat unit in reality would start to retreat, so the combat would actually be over.
But this is a game however and I would be happy if there was a setting where you can set "AI surrender" to "Off". If no enemy units are present anymore and there is still time left the player can push Ceasefire and will have his victory.

[Artkin]

Ahem the Soviet army in 1942 would like to have a word with your theory