Actual Tac-AI complaint about the Gold (spoiler alert)

[Spook]

Well....on a added experience with smoke usage, I have been seeing some recent AI behavior in the Gold Demo that has me a bit disappointed.

This was in the "Chance Encounter" scenario which I played as US against the German AI. On two occasions, when I approached German positions, the AI used the off-map mortar unit to drop a large barrage of smoke around my troops.

Now, I could recognize that the AI was probably trying to break up LOS to defending German units being spotted & targeted. But in more "realistic" usage of smoke for defenders, this would only make sense to me if the German defenders needed a screen for bugging out or to reposition themselves. This wasn't the case. If anything, the smoke proved far more beneficial to me in the attacking (advancing) role than for the Germans. I've also seen a bit of this too in the other scenario (VoT), but not as significantly. (This game is still in progress.)

I wouldn't classify this to be a "bug", but it definitely leaves me with the impression that the AI can still act pretty "stupid" on some gameplay aspects. Such an assessment is unfair to make yet on this preliminary experience with the Gold Demo, and on an added replay occasion of Chance Encounter, an HE barrage was applied to one of my platoons. But for now, Steve, some "tweaking" of the AI MIGHT be needed to reduce its tendency to apply smoke in a DEFENSIVE role. I don't have some magic answer as to how the AI should be tweaked, but at present, the AI seems to think as if smoke rounds grow on trees.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

> Scott - in that file you sent me, it

> appears that the Sherman was on the

> extreme edge of LOS of the AT pillbox, not

> (only) the MG pillbox.

Huh? The Sherman fires a smoke shell in front of the MG pillbox not the AT pillbox. It does this everytime I replay that file (and I have done it quite a few times).

I don't get it... And I am 99% sure that the LOS to the AT pillbox is blocked anyway. I an 100% sure that the AT pillbox NEVER targets or fires at the Shermans in this locale.

Oh well...

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 05-17-2000).]

[RudeLover]

I have noticed the difference in the AI's use of smoke from the beta demo (maybe the first change I noticed). Both the Strat and TacAI seem very fond of the stuff. In most cases I think their use of smoke is pretty savvy, but there have been times that I've wondered what it/he/they was thinking. As the wise man said, though, sometimes there's a very thin line between clever and stupid.

In particular, the thing that surprised me most was the use of smoke shells by individual units to screen single enemy positions that were not a threat to the smoke-firing unit. For example, one frequently sees mortars firing one or two smoke rounds to blind a pillbox or enemy AFV, presumably to keep the enemy from engaging other friendlies. Often I'm glad of this in retrospect, but in CE as US my Shermans have gotten fixated on shrouding the German woods with smoke, despite repeated profanity-filled radio messages from their CO to use High-Bleeping-Explosive instead. Due to FOW, I don't know what exactly what led to that choice…schrecks, or a MG42 hammering US infantry? (Or did the commanders think they had White Phosphorus NO I'M ONLY KIDDING REALLY .)

I think many of us are watching the new AI very carefully right now, and it's easy to fixate on one or two weird things. It's like watching stats from the new baseball season and getting prematurely excited or bummed out; just because Jason Bere has a couple of good starts, it doesn't mean my Brewers have a Cy Young candidate on their hands… This smoke thing may bear watching, but it may settle down, too?

[TZEENCH]

The Ai s use of smoke is Weird at the most, it dosent use it to cover the units moving forward under mg fire or inf, But when that panther shows up i coudnt even see the hill. The whole hill was coverd in smoke (REALLY) "hell, i had to turn off smoke to give orders" It kept poping that poor panter with smoke where ever it went. (guess the americans are trying to kill them with second hand smoke )I think the ai is alittle to libral with the smoke at some points. I need to try CE to see what happens there.

Hey does the Voodoo 2 have the same blocky smoke with the Directx 5 drivers? Dx7 does

[Kraut]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Kraut, I don't know what more we can do about this. For ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction. We think we have a happy medium here, and that more stickiness would create perhaps as many problems as it is supposed to solve.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why an extra order would be nice. Give us the option to "lock" our units on a target. If this target doesn't go out of LOS the players' unit will continue to fire on that target unless it is directly threatened.

It'll just be something extra to give the player more control.

And don't start telling me "more control is not always better". That's why it would be an optional order. You can choose to have more control in a situation like that, or you can just ignore it.

Anwyays, we'll see how everything works out in the final version. I'd have to play a couple random battles and get used to the game completely before i could really comment on the overall behaviour.

Thanks for the steady and quick responses btw. Keith Z. hates you for it ... lol

MK

[This message has been edited by Kraut (edited 05-17-2000).]

[Lee]

I don't think there is a need to have a target "lock" command

for the simple reason that that is the way the tac-AI is supposed

to behave all the time. Steve and Charles have said many times

before that the tac-AI is supposed to follow your targeting orders

basically at all times *unless* the unit perceives an immediate

and serious threat to it's existence. With perhaps a tiny dose of

random chance, for good measure (mind you, just a *tiny* dose will do ).

Now, I have no problem with this at all. It makes perfect sense. If

I order one of my tanks to shell some infantry 300 yards away

and they start firing on them but all of a sudden they spot an enemy

tank round the corner 150 yards away, naturally they are going

to immediately switch their attention to that enemy tank. And I don't

blame them, they are looking out for their own skins and I wouldn't

expect them to be stupid enough to just sit there and let the enemy

tank destroy them just because I told them to shell those infantry.

The whole problem is that all too often the tac-AI is changing targets

on it's own when there *isn't* an immediate and deadly threat to it's

existence. And since this is the only reason it should be changing

targets, it says that something must be a tad off in the tac-AI. So

thanks, Charles, for adjusting the AI in this regard, hopefully this

will solve the problem.

[Moon]

Scott: Huh? The Sherman fires a smoke shell in front of the MG pillbox not the AT pillbox. It does this everytime I replay that file (and I have done it quite a few times).

Well, in the four or five replays I did, the Sherman has targetted the far AT pillbox on the hill with smoke. Everytime. I am confused...

I don't get it... And I am 99% sure that the LOS to the AT pillbox is blocked anyway. I an 100% sure that the AT pillbox NEVER targets or fires at the Shermans in this locale.

The AT pillbox LOS is not blocked. It's hard to check out from the US side, though. I have fired the scenario up in the editor and put the pillbox into the exact same position (well, as good as I could reproduce it anyway.) I was able to track LOS to the position of the Sherman, but juuuussst barely. It was blocked a few inches (pixels) further back.

I also erased the woods in the editor to see the general arc of fire and yes, the Sherman is within the arc.

Martin

[Morthomme]

hi bts,

don't change anything on the ai,well i was soldier some times and i can say you when you're on the practice ( don't know wartime) you have order and you try to make this, BUT there always something who come and make you life very hard!

so a unit under fire ( small arms, heavy weapons, tanks......)make what they can not what they want!!

if they shoot something and get retunrfire from lot of, they make there head in the dust and return fire very carefully and on the first target they see, not on the best!!

i saw that on training ground, i lived this when i was soldier, corporal and sergeant so i think the ai make a great job and give us a view more real than any wargames are make to this day.

Charles don't loose your time on this, go to drink a beer it's better at this time of the game

ADJ

sorry if my english is not good.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

> Well, in the four or five replays I did,

> the Sherman has targetted the far AT

> pillbox on the hill with smoke. Everytime.

Hmmmm...not for me. It always focused on the MG Pillbox. Never even turned the gun toward the AT gun Pillbox. Perhaps I will try and run it a few more times. Maybe it doesn't like either one????

> I am confused...

Me too!

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Scott, I haven't seen the game but I can tell you for sure that I have driven that Sherman 105 to within 100m, in the open, of the MG Pillbox and my crew never flintched for even a second (as they shouldn't!) The difference was the pillbox with the big nasty thing in it was already KO'd

Sometimes things can just work out that the pillbox is seen by the crew for only a split second, and the crew decides to back away before you even know of it. This has to do with spotting and targeting cycles matching up just right. It is also something that isn't all that variable in the kind of situation you have described. So many replays of the same turn are likely to come up with the same result. Try tossing a Pause Order on the Sherman first and see if that does anything, or button it up if already buttoned. It would be interesting to see if you can get different behavior or at least spot the 75 getting the drop on you.

Steve

[HAL]

I kind of enjoy the fact that at times the AI doesn't quite target the way that you told them to. I makes it feel more like real life, where nothing ever seems to work exactly like you plan it . I do have a suggestion though. Charles you said that you made some tweaks to make units stick a little more to assign targets, but that you don't want to take it to far (I agree. Maybe you could tweak say Veteran troops to stict to a assign target more then Green troops. That way when you assign a Veteran unit a target you know that they are more likely to stay on target through out the action phase. I think this correlates with real-life.

Just a thought.

[Lee]

Interesting idea, Hal. I agree that there should be a certain random

factor involved in targeting, that's realistic. But most of the

time I think you should be able to rely on your troops to fire at

who you tell them to. Especially if they are not in some sort of state

of shock or something.

I kind of like the idea of the more experienced/highly trained

soldiers sticking to their targeting orders better. Similar to how

good troops are more likely to wait till the enemy trips the ambush

marker before firing, while green troops are more likely to spoil

the ambush by firing too soon.

[Darstand]

I have to chime in on the Targeting Retargeting issue. I managed to keep my IG alive for 2 whole turns, fat lot of good it did me. It fired only ONE shot. It spent the rest of the time moving from target to target. And what is this deep seeded desire of the AI to kill Arty spotters. A whole US platoon was sitting exposed on a hill in LOS did my Panther want to shoot them (even though I targeted them) heck no it spent is valuable time try to kill that Arty spotter.

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

"Armchair Generals never lose any men"-Darstand

[Lee]

This is just the sort of thing I hope Charles' tweak fixes.

They shouldn't be changing targets at will like that.

[Mark IV]

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

And what is this deep seeded desire of the AI to kill Arty spotters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In VoT there is no one I'd rather kill. For the price of one soft target, I can eliminate a bunch of the big guns that make life hell. If the infantry was close assaulting, different story, but the spotter represents a greater return on investment.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Well, last night I ran it another five times.

Every time the Sherman reversed, and fired a smoke shell in front of the MG Pillbox and popped a smoke mortar shell.

A targetting line from the 75 NEVER occured. So, I can only assume (since it is in the middle of the turn) that the 75 never had LOF.

Maybe I will try a 'pause' order tonight and see what happens.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Doug Beman]

Count Sessine, you can "lock" the behavior of a tank now by giving it an ambush command. Simply target a spot close to where you think the enemy vehicle will appear and the tank will concentrate on that spot; it takes a very dire threat to make it change its focus.

DjB

[kmead]

Ron said: "Another thing I just had happen was the strange behavior of the Sherman 105 while targeting the AT bunker. I had screened the bunker with smoke and moved the tank around the bunker's flank, outside of it's covered arc. When the smoke cleared I targeted it with the Sherman but instead of firing the Sherman popped smoke and reversed away. Shouldn't the tank 'know' that it is safe to fire? The bunker had been fully spotted. I realize the chance of knocking out the bunker was rare/low but still it shouldn't be acting like it is threatened should it?"

One might keep in mind that the Sherman is unlikely to know what the exact firing arc the pillbox has. You the all knowing war god do because of the way the game works. I would find it unreasonable to expect a tank to assume the gun could not target it. I mean they are driving around in a Ron(son) after all. Just because we know something and order an action does not mean that the unit absolutely will choose or be able to carry out an order. Karl

[Guest Big Time Software]

We will not be tying targeting to experience. That isn't the point of targeting at all. In fact, if we were going to change things it would be to make lower quality units less likely to switch, not more. You are looking at this the wrong way. Switching targets makes the unit more flexible and therefore a bigger threat in the grand picture. Target fixation is just about the worst thing a unit can exhibit. Obviously there is a middle ground, and we think we have reached that overall. Otherwise CM would be unplayable. True, there are probably more tweaks to be made, but that is always the case if you look at a few individual instances without the context of the whole being looked at.

As for killing the FOs, we agree with PzIV. The most that enemy infantry squad is likely to do is cause a crew to abandon its weapon and inflict an equal number of casualties. And if it doesn't, there are something like 14 other Squads that could do the same. However, that FO can wipe out perhaps as many as a platoon and a half, as well as their positions, in just one or two turns. So while I agree that perhaps we still need to tweak the target switching, do not blow off the value of greasing the enemy's FOs as a waste of time. Even causing them to Panic is worth a heck of a lot.

Scott, I don't know what to tell you. The MG bunker simply does not cause armored units to flip out. Try it yourself in a hotseat game. And since we have never seen a unit pop smoke and retreat at random, SOME threat must have caused it to do this. If you can't see it then you should simply assume that it is the Pillbox.

Steve

[Lee]

I can understand an FO being seen as a big threat because they might

be getting ready to call down arty on the 150mm. But the 150

shouldn't be breaking targeting orders just to fire at some infantry

it happens to feel like shooting at. Unless the infantry were very close

and/or putting a major hurting on the crew, I don't see how they could

be seen as so dangerous it warranted breaking target orders. This is the

sort of thing I would like tweaked against. Kind of hard to put your

tactics to work in your units feel free to change targets on a whim,

even if those targets don't pose any particularly great danger.

Tanks, FO's, *nearby* infantry, nearby flame throwers and such would

obviously fall into the "very dangerous, death may be near" category.

And I can understand their being real attention getters for the

tac-AI. It's all the other "lesser" threats that would seem to need

to be ignored a tad more.

I'm sure you guys will find the right balance of tweaks.

[DEF BUNGIS]

I sort of enjoy the liberal targeting of my direct fire units. Especially when playing against the AI. Most of the time I just let my units target what they feel is the priority target. It seems %99 percent of the time my tanks and infantry will fire at the same thing I would have ordered them to any way.

However, when I give an indirect fire order to my mortars or ARTY units, I expect that order to be strictly carried out. If they are threatened, they should only take cover or hide. Then continue the mission once it's clear, or I move them if need be.

One thing I don't understand is how the enemy can identify any ol' GI with bino's to be an ARTY spotter, when in fact almost any HQ unit or officer can call in an indirect fire mission.

So if your spotter bites the bullet.....there goes your ARTY support.

This is not right.

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

Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all

[von Lucke]

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

Charles don't loose your time on this, go to drink a beer it's better at this time of the game<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Words to live by, I must say.

Oh, and congrats to everybody for maintaining such a reasonable tone in such a lengthy thread!

I've played through the Gold Demo a couple of times now (VoT and CE, both sides), and I have to agree with most of the points brought up here:

The Tac-AI still seems a tad too quick to change from closer threats -- that are probably rated lower on it's internal threat scale -- to ones across the map that are probably rated higher (like FO's). Saw this alot in VoT: Playing as the Germans, the Ami's tried a major push through the South Valley --- but the MG-42's and Bunkers I had placed there were constantly ignoring the Engineers at 200m in order to shoot at MG's and bazooka teams on Hill 216. Same with the 75mm AT --- the gunner probably had a sore head from the commander smacking him to change targets every 30 seconds! As for the sIG 150, I would think it's slow rate of fire would lead to it's being much less likely to switch targets so often --- takes even longer to retarget!

Also valid point about the AI's propensity to pop smoke at the slightest threat --- and usually to it's detriment: When used against mobile offensive targets, it does the attacker more good than harm --- and if used against stationary defenses, it's useless unless the attacker changes position! Maybe this could be tweaked too? I know it would have hurt me much more if some of those AI bombardments had been iron instead of smoke...

Minor complaints, to be sure, but every little bit goes into making a more perfect whole --- and it's damn close already!

[This message has been edited by von Lucke (edited 05-19-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

I forgot to tell you all that we DID slip in a minor tweak to make the kinds of targeting orders we have been discussion here "stick" just a little bit more. Charles and I have agreed on what needs to happen to head off other minor (in the grand picture) things from happening. However, it involves a decent amount of coding. But it will come into being.

Basically a unit right now DOES remember its human assigned target so long as it does not go out of LOS. In other words, if the TacAI switches because of an opportunity or threat, it will return to the original human designated target SO LONG as the second target doesn't go out of LOS. If that does in fact happen, then the TacAI looks for its own target.

Another thing that we might have to work on a bit more (will have to see what you think of the tweaks we made) is to "stick" more to human targets when not threatened.

Oh, and Charles also did a minor tweak to hopefully less the chance of breaking away from indirect fire targets. However, the above two things also have an effect, so this isn't a one tweak change.

In conclusion, two out of three tweaks have been made already. So when you get the Gold, check and see what you think. As always, we strive for perfection even if it isn't there to be reached

Steve

[Lee]

Sounds great, Steve. Looking forward to seeing the new adjustments

in action.