Alexander Posted August 21, 2000 Share Posted August 21, 2000 It's so easy setting up test beds in CM, the system is so damn user friendly. Even if the basic algorythms remain under the hood you can check out the mechanics and arrive at a comprehension of what makes it tic -or not tick. I set up a mini-battle: 2 Vet platoons of American '44 inf, a 50MG, 81 mortar, and 1 Sherman(I forget which one). Enemy in foxholes among scattered trees, slight incline: 1 Conscript Volksturm platoon, Vet 42MG, panzerfaust. The 2 forces are 200 Meters apart, V Flag just behind Gers, the Americans advancing across open terrain. IOW, no room for fancy maneuvers on either side. When I rushed the Amis directly on the Gers, no preparation, they were shredded- 60-20 in casualties. Same result when I defended as the Germans. Dramatic difference with 1 minute pre-bombardment by mortars; scenario turned into an American walkover. Black-uniformed Germans standing up in foxholes, hands in the air. Basically, in the Allied role, the AI would do no prep shelling with either the Sherman or the 81. Assaulting, it seemed not to have used any formations, some squads advanced in single file, others lingered behind. I felt somewhat disappointed, I assumed the AI in CM was a cut above, no just an defensive AI as in other computer games. BTW, I ran this test 12 times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted August 21, 2000 Share Posted August 21, 2000 It's true the a/i does not (cannot) function as well as a human opponent. Look how much effort went into creating a computer a/i that could handle a game of chess. Look at how much more complex CM is than chess. On the other hand, the a/i is better than any other game I know of. Enjoy the game -- play humans. ------------------ Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest *Captain Foobar* Posted August 21, 2000 Share Posted August 21, 2000 Or, dont ask the AI to assault. It can do just fine in meeting engagements,probes, and on defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted August 21, 2000 Author Share Posted August 21, 2000 Like all the other computer wargames, in other words. I see the difficulty invovled, believe me. An exeception was the 'Ardennes Offensive' by the AI specialists- SSG. It's a slick, cardboard-counterish recreation with killer, non-cheating, offensive AI- either side. basically an 80's style boardgame brought to date with style, it's nevertheless light years behind CM in terms of innovation, depth, and -that cant term- immersion. BTW, it's a free download at the SSG site. I did find it interesting, when setting up my test, how changing values like HQ ratings and troop quality impacted on the playout. Give conscripts a crack HQ, for example, and they hold out longer. OT, a question: are leadership ratings congruent with HQ troop quality? IOW, is a green HQ with Command+2 more useful than a Veteran HQ with Command+1? Other ratings being equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted August 21, 2000 Share Posted August 21, 2000 To late for me to recreate your test, but a question.... Are the defenders in LOS and spotted at the begining of the turn, or are they hidden? The main thing I'm pointing out is that when the AI is attacking, if it doesn't see that there is enemy troops in the scattered trees, then it will blunder into the ambush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted August 21, 2000 Share Posted August 21, 2000 Normally this would work out pretty well. With a bigger distance the AI would have time to shell your forces properly, while advancing. It's no genious, yesterday I stopped an assault, losing 1 man against 300 lost by the AI. But it has sometimes totally whacked me also, so it's no dullard either. I'd say it's better than many beginner human players. ------------------ Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted August 21, 2000 Share Posted August 21, 2000 Why do people keep saying the AI in the Ardennes offensive was good? It WASN'T. It didn't keep divisions together, it moved around too much on the defense, made unwise attacks, and failed to concentrate its forces on the offensive. One of the scenarios in Ardennes Offensive wsa called 'Cutting off the Bulge' or something like that. It was supposed to be a defensive scenario for the Germans as the Americans reduced the tip of the Bulge. The Americans (AI) passively sat on the offensive and didn't move forces for a concentrated attack. By the end of the scenario, I, as Germans, had more territory than when I started. My second time through the full game as Germans, I had eliminated the ENTIRE Allied Army for no losses on my side and everyone of my units was at full strength. The CM AI may not have the best coordination and may be a bit passive, but I feel challenged. Something I can't say for any other wargame I have played. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted August 21, 2000 Share Posted August 21, 2000 Mikeydz has a good point. Run the test with Fog of War turned off and see what happens. This way the AI can see what you have an will conduct an assult with the Americans. If it doesn't see any troops there, it'll just go and try to grab the flag. In this case it's more like the Germans ambushing the US force.. Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts