AI's Tactical Competence

[JTMauney]

First off, I want to congratulate the person(s) responsible for the AI algorithms for this game. They're quite impressive; the moreso for putting the typical "tank rush" RTS AI's into their place. =)

Ditto the interface; quick, responsive and simple to use. Nice job.

That said, I've a question for the other players, here: is it just me, or is the AI ridiculously easy to beat? I realize that may sound rather arrogant, but it's not intended that way. It's just that I've yet to lose a battle, and the vast majority have been won by a 70% margin or better. Admittedly I've only played about a dozen scenarios, (most from both sides, playing attacker first, always with full FoW), plus the demo, but it seems like I'm walking all over the AI. It doesn't seem to make a difference whether I let the AI place its forces or make it use the scenario default placement.

I can see a couple of things that may be the cause of this: 1) The terrain and real LOS in the engine make REAL tactics workable. "Gamey" solutions, as has been pointed out in this forum previously, tend not to work here, and that's a good thing by my reckoning. I'll admit to having a slight advantage, since I have nine years of real-world infantry service, but my knowledge is nothing that can't be learned by the typical strategy gamer through reading and practice. I really feel like the engine for CM allows me plan and implement actual tactical solutions instead of trying to guess what sort of goofy move the computer will make next, as is typical in most wargames.

2) The AI does not seem to plan and compensate appropiately. I realize this may be simply a limitation of the abilities of a silicon box, but I'm just curious how many other people have seen this behaviour. The following, in my experience, are the "Cliff Notes" version of basic tactical competence, and the AI doesn't seem to follow them:

In Attack - You MUST study the lay of the land and use it to your advantage. Find the most probable channelizing avenues, and avoid them like the plague with your primary assult force. Feint there if necessary, but don't walk into that beaten zone. You'll get hammered. Figure out where the least likely avenue of attack lies, probe it with your primary force in close reserve, then hammer it if it pans out. In short-- manuever. The AI never seems to do this. It tends to take the most direct route, not the best one. Also; flank. Always try and flank. The AI sometimes makes a half-assed stab at this, but it's always quite predictable and never in force. Concentration of force in space and time is the number one attack principle I had beaten into my thick little skull as a young corporal in Combat Squad Leader's School. The AI seems to be "hedging its bet." That's usually a good way to break the back of your own offensive. Lastly, in open terrain, armor screens infantry. In close terrain, vice versa. I've seen the AI screw this one up several times.

In Defense - Create channelization. Use minefields, obstacles and machine guns to try and channel the enemy into your fire sack. Keep your strong, fast forces in mobile reserve, because a smart enemy is going to avoid those aforementioned channelized avenues of advance. Don't commit your mobile reserve too early, but don't hold back once you do-- the AI often gets tied up in indecision at this point, splitting its mobile reserve to cover all contingencies when the location of the main attack has already become glaringly obvious. Again, examine the lay of the land and it'll usually be fairly obvious where the attacker is going to try and flank you. Have a reserve response route pre-planned; don't just sit back and wait until the flanking attack comes before you consider what you're going to do. Set up Final Protective Fires. If you have arty on call, this is the best possible use of TRPs. Don't HOPE the enemy will bottle-neck at that road intersection in your channelized kill zone. A good one won't. (A small aside: this is one nit I've got to pick with BTS; allow us to set up Supplementary and Tertiary defensive positions in a static defense. A defense plan with no fallback positions is a BIG no-no in the real world, unless you simply don't have time to dig them). Otherwise, use artillery to stall an offensive, not react to one. I've yet to see the AI use arty in anything other than a reactionary manner. Lastly, don't try and defend ALL those pretty little flag markers if you don't have the forces for it. This is where the AI is most guilty. It'll spread its forces too thin in defense and walking over it with minimal casualties becomes ludicrously easy. Pick the most important objective that serves as a keystone, and defend it. This is not to say that you should pack all your forces on that one military crest and bristle up like a porcupine-- that'll get you killed just as quickly. Defense in depth is still important, but don't be afraid to give up ground to conserve forces and tighten the defense on the key objectives. (Again, this is where Supplementary positions come into the picture). If you stall the attacker, you'll have an opportunity to counter-attack. You can't stall the attacker if he's rolling over your smaller forces and defeating you in detail. The AI has an unfortunate habit of spreading itself out like hot peanut butter and then dying in small pockets of resistance. Bad Idea.

Hrm... this seems to have turned into a tactical dissertation. That wasn't my intention, though. Again, while the AI is the best I've ever seen in a wargame, I seem to see a lot of people post here about how tough the AI is for them to defeat. I haven't found this to be the case, and I'm certainly far from the world's greatest wargamer-- by a long way. =)

I'm starting to foam at the mouth for TCP/IP, here, guys... have mercy. 8^P~~~

(Note: this post was probably just my subconcious mind finding a way to add yet another plead for TCP/IP...) Sowwy.

[Ash]

As far as I know, your really not supposed to be defeated by the AI. It would be possible but then it would have to cheat and noone wants that. All the AI is supposed to do is challenge you and get a few close calls.

------------------

The names Ash, Housewares

[paullus]

I have seen the AI flinch when running into my defenses, then move around and try to flank my positions.

I've had the AI overrun me completely, using superior firepower and positioning to dislodge my squads.

I've had the AI recently outflank my entire defense (by repositioning outside of my LOS) and bring 6 HTs, 3 PZ-IV, & a company of infantry on to my inadequately staffed flank position.

Of course, I've also had the AI continue its attack long after any sane commander would have, but at the same time, I've been surprised by the AI's ability to extricate itself from a bad position and counterattack.

Its been an interesting time, and I believe the AI is more capable than any I've seen. I'll be the first to admit its not perfect, but I have lots quite a few games as a result of the AI doing something completely unexpected.

[IntelWeenie]

My $.02 -

The Tactical AI is excellent, IMO. It is worlds better than what I've seen in other wargames. It does funny/stupid stuff sometimes, but so do real people. The higher levels of AI might need some polishing, but I have no major complaints. The tendency of the AI spreading itself too thin can easily be corrected by the scenario designer reducing the number of flags or repositioning them.

------------------

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JTMauney:

That said, I've a question for the other players, here: is it just me, or is the AI ridiculously easy to beat? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, despite your modesty, it sounds like you have the tactics down pat , and it sound to me like you need to play a pbem game against Fionn

Boy, would I like to read the AAR to that one!

Henri

[DanE]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ash:

As far as I know, your really not supposed to be defeated by the AI. It would be possible but then it would have to cheat and noone wants that. All the AI is supposed to do is challenge you and get a few close calls.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ash...Can you please pass this information along to my CPU. Seems my AI hasn't been informed of this yet.

------------------

Dan

[killmore]

Would you move your last tank between 5 buildings where your other 4 tanks got killed? I don't think so. But AI will do just that and without any infantry screen.

Also AI is sometimes willing to push for victory to the last man even if facing impossible odds.

I found AI reasonably competent. I did not see a copetent flanking manouver yet.

I would call it one of the best AIs I have ever played against

[Guest Germanboy]

The AI has beaten me - Berli has not...

But honestly, I have been beaten by the AI in one game I really tried hard to win. It was on the attack and I had selected an assault force, dense fog. The quick battle generator selected a company of infantry, a 57mm AT gun and two Stuarts for me, at least a coy of Fallschirmjaegers, five Stug III and two or three HTs for OPFOR. I was overrun in the end. It was interesting to watch the AI reassemble after running into my ambushes and rush my positions.

Apart from that I only lose when I am not concentrating on the game.

I think it is challenging, but normally you should beat it, if you bring your head to the party.

------------------

Andreas

[Hakko Ichiu]

In my experience, the AI is best on defense. This should come as no surprise, as defense is the easier side, at least IMO. One advantage it has over the human player (at least I think it does) is the ability to find the precisely best fields of fire for guns and AFVs. It can also always find a hull-down position if one is available. To get a sense of the AI's abilities in this regard, try the "Fire & Maneuver" scenario on the CD.

I have to say that I've never encountered an AI defensive emplacement where I've said to myself, "Why the heck did it put that there". This is quite unlike any other tactical wargame I've played.

------------------

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Peterk]

Personally I've been really impressed with the AI pretty much all around. I always give the AI +25% forces and +1 skill level (it's so nice to have flexible handicapping like this BTW) and have a good challenge almost every time and I get beaten too.

I'm playing a really difficult operation in the bocage and am just blown away by how the computer is working the terrain to ferret out my defenders and trying to attack me from many sides at once. And yes...it looks like I will be losing this one decisively after a long hard fight.

I guess my advice would be to start playing with the handicapping until you start to struggle a bit and then use those settings each and every time.

p.

[demoss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu:

In my experience, the AI is best on defense. This should come as no surprise, as defense is the easier side, at least IMO. One advantage it has over the human player (at least I think it does) is the ability to find the precisely best fields of fire for guns and AFVs. It can also always find a hull-down position if one is available. To get a sense of the AI's abilities in this regard, try the "Fire & Maneuver" scenario on the CD.

I have to say that I've never encountered an AI defensive emplacement where I've said to myself, "Why the heck did it put that there". This is quite unlike any other tactical wargame I've played.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have. I played more than one scenario where the defender got guns, and when I first spotted them, I wondered what the heck they were doing THERE. It turns out they were towed guns, in at least one case as reinforcements (probably not in the other case, but I don't know for certain). The AI can't handle reinforcing (or perhaps any) towed guns competently - it seems to just unload them immediately when they appear, no matter the situation and no matter how useless the position.

It also seems to leave the transport right there to help draw attention to the area.

------------------

-Doug

[This message has been edited by demoss (edited 07-19-2000).]

[Guest olebooya]

I have noticed the AI gets better when....

Its past 3:00 am.......

The number of Beer Bottles (Bush-Lite for you NAASCAR fans) on my desk is twice the number of hours played.........

The AI has Tiger II's

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by olebooya:

The number of Beer Bottles (Bush-Lite for you NAASCAR fans) on my desk

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err, what exactly is the connection between Bush-Lite (or any bush product for that matter) and beer? Thoroughly confused by now.

------------------

Andreas

[Jeff Pattison]

Yes, I've complained about some of the same things myself on this BBS. The answer I got was that to improve the AI in that manner would:

a) Take way too much time to program.

Wouldn't add enough value to be worth pursuing.

AND

c) 10 or so obligatory messages from other posters telling me that this is the best AI on a computer wargame and that I should be happy with that.

But, at least I got a response. Try that on any other board and see what happens.

BTW, I found a couple of cute little AI tricks the other day. If your defending, hide everybody and reveal one unit with a limited line of sight to an enemy AFV. Most of the time, the AFV's will all crowd into the same area to get a shot. Then, you can dump artillery on them. The AFV 's really seem to like crew served heavy weapons and will often go out of their way to duel one of these even when others have fallen victim turns before.

You also have to be careful when your designing scenarios to not include units of the limited movement class if your planning to let the computer attack. The AI seems to advance at the speed of the slowest unit to try to keep it all together and all the other units mill around in the open waiting for the slow guys to catch up. At that point, you can put on the marching music and watch the parade and fireworks display.

For the most part though, the AI is pretty solid for practice, but the real challenge comes from human opponents.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Pattison (edited 07-19-2000).]

[MH]

Definitely the best AI in a war game on the market today. Period. And like most, it does best on the defense where it's choices are more limited...less coordinated. Handicapping it is the only way to go.

I suspect what would raise the AI to the next level would be "tactical profiles" the scenario designer could choose to best fit the situation. These profiles would define the tendencies of the AI choices/actions and if selected correctly by the designer could go a long way in improving its tactics. Probably a coding nightmare I'm sure, but short of this, a "thinking" AI is a long way off.

[chrisl]

Wanna PBEM? I can do about a turn a day-- my email is in my profile. I prefer double blind, so either a quick battle (combined arms preferred) or pick a scenario and I'll tell you if I've played it (I've only played a few).

[Törni]

I have beaten the AI several times really bad. In defense a well placed counter stroke seems to toss it off balance just about ecery time. As in other games that I have played, computer is just unable to use vehicles for quick troop moves (riding on a tank etc). But if the AI was as good as a human player, the programmers of this piece would be doing something else than games...

[Chicago Boy]

I have been beaten by the AI, I played a quick start game and chose 3 Panthers,1 King Tiger and 2 Marders and let the computer pick the Americans. After 6 turns I had destroyed 9 Shermans and 2 Stuarts but then I noticed the swarms of advancing US infantry and I had none-not even a MG. The AI did the smart and tactically sound thing. It stalked my remaining armor and knocked it out with bazookas and suppresive fire. The Tiger was bogged on a reverse slope so they just stayed out of its field of fire and they took out the the last Panther and the Mrder with a bazooka shot from 60 yards away. I seem to recall something about shooting quail with cannon. I love this game!!!

[Slappy]

Although I have some AI gripes, it has handed me my ass on a number of occasions. In fact, it is currently chewing me the hell up in a scenario that I designed!?!. I thought that I had this one pretty well figured out, but the AI came up with some novel unit placements and ambushes that I didn't expect, including some localized counter attacks. Several times, I have been forced to deploy a much larger force than I wanted to to screen my advance. The AI is putting up a classic delaying defense in depth and may hold on to most of the flags when time runs out. Of course, my brilliant set up area allocation allowed the AI to do this, but I really didn't think that it would take advantage of it. To say the least, I am impressed.

------------------

Slappy

[Stefan]

Competence! Well it sounds like you are giving spoilers about the way the AI thinks! Still, my thoughts are that the AI is very good compared to other games - in fact, its very good and can give you a challenge.

Still, at the end of the day, it remains an AI. JT, it you want a real challenge, take up a human opponent in a game of double blind It's real sobering when you are faced with so many unknowns. I've gotten trashed (Pat, Waffen, BJ) and returned it in kind lots of time(Pat, Waffen) . I think that's the real beauty of CM and something to give extreme praise for... It really IS a game to play against another human.

[WendellM]

In brief: yes PBEM is "better" but I hope the AI continues to improve.

I agree that PBEM games are more challenging. Well, I've only tried one, which I won due to some luck at the beginning, but the experience up until the very end was much more suspenseful knowing that there was another human mind directing the opposition.

While I, too, have found the AI rather easy to beat, it still wins sometimes (largely depending on the equipment both sides have: several Shermans vs. a couple of high-quality AT guns/Panthers often yields predictable results ). But, I must say that I can play many AI games in the time it takes to play a single e-mail game due to limited "play windows" in the real world and my (limited) experience that an average turn takes about an hour to complete: each player takes around half an hour on average to view the movie from several perspectives then compose his turn and attach it to an email with some relevant text.

So, I'm glad to have a reasonably competent AI to enjoy quick gaming fun with. I haven't yet entered the realm of handicapping, but that's the next step (I've been more interested in evaluating the AI's merits on a level playing field). I'd be pleased if improvements in the AI were made so that such artificial measures weren't needed for a more challenging game, but I fully recognize how hard it must have been to make the AI play as well as it does now.