AI cheat in CM

[Phoenix]

Originally posted by tank_41:

I know there is a TacAI in the system, but

how come my tank never back off from the

threat?

I don't know what game you're playing, but my tanks, half tracks (whatever) back off from threats ALL THE TIME. Sometimes I think they do it far too often.

Also, the situation I described does not

just show up in the street fighting. I have

seen enemy tanks, for countless times,

disappearing from my LOS and hiding

into houses, trees, hills, etc while

fired upon, but never seen my tanks

taking the similar action.

Again, you must be playing CC3 or something. For as long as I've played the demo and the game I see this kind of reaction every game.

I now come to the conclusion that the computer AI does cheat and the cheating gives computer AI an unfair advantage over human players.

Advantage? I don't know about you, but I rarely ever loose to the AI. In fact I find the AI to have a hard time organizing attacks against my guys.

Anyway, it seems like you're playing a different game than me. And Charles and Steve have made it very clear that there is NO cheating going on by the AI. We have no reason to doubt their word.

Keep playing, you'll get better.

[This message has been edited by Phoenix (edited 07-25-2000).]

[Guest Simon]

Heh don't use that hunt command with Allied tanks, with the exception of putting a tiny bit of hunt at the end of a long "fast move" command to get it to engage a specific target (hopefully!); My allied tank movement orders consist of fast move and halt

This goes doubly for TD's and later Shermans which seem to have relatively good move and shoot ability at close range. Of course use the fast move to get that close range

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

Simon

http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/ammodump/

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra:

So how come when my Tiger takes a gun hit (damaged) from a clearly ID'd Firefly at 500 yds, it just sits there and waits for the killing shot like a lamb to the slaughter? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that's a real problem, and IMHO the ONLY one in this thread.

Seems the AI doesn't realize that after gun damage it's out of game.

That tiger is still going "bah, I'm better than a damn firefly".

[Blackhorse]

Guys,

Play the game against an experienced human via email, and you'll see the exact same behaviors...

Why?

Is it because the computer is smarter? Heck no, you're playing a human. It's because that experienced human knows how to give orders in a way to take advantage of the TAC AI. It's all in how you give orders.

It's pretty cheesy to blame your inexperience on the AI's cheating.

Just because you may not know "how" to give orders in the best way yet does NOT mean the program cheats.

[SK Fish]

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

It's because that experienced human knows how to give orders in a way to take advantage of the TAC AI. It's all in how you give orders.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree but understanding the way the TAC AI will follow orders is somewhat frustrating at times. There is limited info on how the TAC AI work so it is a situation of trial and error, the more you play the better you will become at using the TAC AI to do what you want. The real fineness moves take time to learn and understand, and sometime cannot be done due to the limitations of the TAC AI.

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tank_41:

ALERT! SPOIL INSIDE!

*snip*

Do this experiement, order your Wittman

move directly through the smoke so that

it faces numbers of enemy tanks all of

the sudden, I am willing to bet my

money here (as I tried many time myself)

that Wittman would never back off into

the smoke to avoid exchanging fire with

3 to 5 tanks at the same time. The end result

is mostly likely a dead Tiger on the road

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I read what the AI is doing correctly, it will tend to back off when confronted by "superior" armor. However, it seems to me that if your tank is not being targeted by the "superior" enemy, it is less likely to run. That's why M5A1s can sneak up on and take out King Tigers

Not sure why in the above situation Wittman should not reverse out. Could be a combination of orders given (Fast or move instead of Hunt?) and where the waypoints are placed (It could still be trying to reach a waypoint after encoutering the allied tanks). I, for one, definitely use German armor differently now than when I first started playing CM (a LOT more conservatively!).

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

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

[paullus]

Tankers learned very quickly in Normandy that charging into the brush was a very, very bad idea. Between bazookas, PIATs, schrecks & fausts (not including grenades, close assaults, that guy putting a satchel charge against the engine plate, etc, etc), the life expectancy of a tank (not necessarily the tankers) was fairly short, for both sides....

Look at what happened during Montgomery's various operations in, around, and south of Caen. Goodwood cost the British a full 20% of their tank strength in a single day, but due to the overwhelming stockpiles of arms, all of those divisions were brought back up to almost full strength in 72hrs.

CM has taught me to clear out enemy infantry first, tanks a close second (or first depending on the situation), before bringing my own armor into the battle. Never send a tank in by itself (even with some infantry support). It can and will die a nasty death. I use tanks in twos at minimum, threes is better. The mutual support is mandatory when every tree or building could be hiding an AT team.

[tank_41]

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

Guys,

Play the game against an experienced human via email, and you'll see the exact same behaviors...

It's pretty cheesy to blame your inexperience on the AI's cheating.

Just because you may not know "how" to give orders in the best way yet does NOT mean the program cheats.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blackhorse:

I may be new to this thread, but I have

been playing wargames for almost 10 years.

I have played almost all WWII related

computer games: WIR, COS, TOAW, TacOps, etc

you name it.

I may not be that familiar with CM's

sophiticated system in detail, but I

am not that stupid to just issue a

fast ordering movement to my Tiger

into the smoke and charging onto the

VB. When I played CC on the internet,

I beat my human opponents 8 of 10 times.

Now, after reading some other posts

yesterday and I went back and did

some further experiments and I found

that:

1 While playing like Americans, my tank

does start to back off or fire smoke

for about 50% of the time. So, it does

seem that TacAI takes into consideration

of weak vs strong tank issue.

However, the tactical movement of my

Allied tanks is still far less intelligent

than that of computer controlled ones.

I have seen many many times that a

computer controlled shermans to fire a

smoke, disppear off LOS, AND REAPPEAR,

fire a shot, and then disappear again.

Yet, I rarely see this kind of sophicated

movement by my tanks unless I specifically

order them to do so.

2 I also played German with some PzIVH.

In this case, the firing smoke and retreat

type of movement is even less likely to

occur. In one specific scenario, a PzIVH

platoon (4 of them) were caught by

3 to 4 shermans from the left side from

about 400m away, all my PzIVH were in

hunt mode and unbuttoned.

I tired this setting 10 times, and only

three times I saw 2 PzIVHs retreat back

off from the LOS, all other time, they

were trying to turn its turret and

engage the enemy. Of all the engagement

that occured, 70% of the time PzVHs

lost the battle. I think the computer

controlled PzIVHs under same situation

might have back off much more often.

I really suggest you guys to really go

ahead and set up some situation like

what I described above and try for

yourself.

[Fionn]

"1 While playing like Americans, my tank

does start to back off or fire smoke

for about 50% of the time. So, it does

seem that TacAI takes into consideration

of weak vs strong tank issue."

Yes, it does.

"However, the tactical movement of my

Allied tanks is still far less intelligent

than that of computer controlled ones."

And the ONLY difference in these cases is YOUR COMMANDS. The TacAI for both the human and AI sides is the same so you really only have yourself to blame if tanks under your command react more poorly than AI tanks. I know it is always tempting to blame something else for your own failures but in this case that simply isn't valid.

"Yet, I rarely see this kind of sophicated

movement by my tanks unless I specifically

order them to do so."

I think that if you did a STATISTICALLY VALID number of repetitions you'd see that the TacAI reacts equally irrespective of whether it is playing for the AI or a human. Only your human tendency to want to claim the AI has an "unfair advantage" is leading you to question it here.

" I also played German with some PzIVH.

In this case, the firing smoke and retreat

type of movement is even less likely to

occur. "

That simply is incorrect. OF COURSE vs a type of Sherman of equal ability the Pz IVs will simply sit still and fight it out since they have a good chance...

So, when you say "they faced 4 Shermans" that simply isn't telling us enough. Were those Shermans Sherman 75s OR were they Sherman Jumbos. I suggest you try this same test with two US forces. One force will be Sherman 75s ( the AI Pz IVs will stand and fight). The other force will be M26 Perhsings ( in this case the AI will definitely try to pull back a lot).

You simply aren't conducting the tests properly IMO.

[Los]

"There is limited info on how the TAC AI work so it is a situation of trial and error, the more you play the better you will become at

using the TAC AI to do what you want."

We have about as much hard and detaield info on how the TACAI works as you do about how exactly the human mind works and reacts.

Los

[tank_41]

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

"1

So, when you say "they faced 4 Shermans" that simply isn't telling us enough. Were those Shermans Sherman 75s OR were they Sherman Jumbos. I suggest you try this same test with two US forces. One force will be Sherman 75s ( the AI Pz IVs will stand and fight).

You simply aren't conducting the tests properly IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are Shreman 75s.

OK, I am willing to try it again, and this

time I will set up a scenario myself like

this:

I will put 4 PzVHs on a road with Victory

Point right in front of them about 1Km

away. I am going to put bocage along both

road sides so that PzVHs have no other way

but going straight forward.

I will put a hill 300 M away to the left side

of the road and park 4 sherman 75s on the

reverse side of the hill at the start

of the turn and put a vitory flag just

right on the other side of the hill

so that Shermans would move to the

top of the hill and happens to

see the PvIH collumn down the hill on

the road.

The idea of this set up is that, prior to

the start of a turn, whoever controlls

PvIHs has NO IDEA ABOUT the presence of

the Sherman 75s, and I would assume

the natural movement order AT THE START

of the turn can be nothing but a hunt

or move order. Let's assume it's hunt

mode. This way, we can test how TacAI

reacts given the SAME EXACT ORDER

at the beginning of a turn.

I will try both side for at least 10 times

and issue a report later.

Any suggestions or comments about this

experiment?

[This message has been edited by tank_41 (edited 07-25-2000).]

[This message has been edited by tank_41 (edited 07-25-2000).]

[Eridani]

Be careful with your commands.

by having your tanks fast move you greatly restrict their ability to react.

and don't be afriad to give better orders than just "run forward around this bend", I'll tell you, I OFTEN tell my tanks to move around the bend of a building and then immidiately reverse back if I don't have recon as to what is around that corner. Its just simply smart playing (and often times I'll bet you what the computer is doing in those situations the tac-ai doesn't cut in).

I think the veterans biggest point here is that we've played (Fionn by far having the most experience as a beta tester) countless times, from all different sides, and we haven't seen the problems you encountered, or when we have they have been easily explainable...

And sometimes it sux and ur men don't do what you want them too... but hey, welcome to war.

-EridanMan

[Fred]

The whole thing is very simple.

The TAC AI is at the same level for both sides.

The OP and STRAT AI only works for the computer side.

The AI does not cheat. Steve and Charles said it.

Fred

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Tank,

I would be interested in hearing you flesh out this conspiracy theory. Why would BTS make the AI Cheat? With all the work that has gone into this game, why on earth would they secretly sabotauge their product with something like that? Try and come up with some motives, and you'll see how ridiculous this sounds....

[Guest Germanboy]

If I may chime in (not that you can do much about it), the TacAI, I believe and trust Steve and Charles, is the same for both. The OpAI is different, as Fred pointed out. In one case, it is the computer, who might be doing things differently, and in the other case it is you. If you are not as good as the computer, it is very easy to blame it on the TacAI, b/c you know that it is not your reponsibility.

The fact that you have beaten 8 out of 10 of your opponents in CC (admirably as it is) does not mean anything, b/c CM is a whole different beast. Try to learn how it works, and soon you will wish that the AI cheats, to present more of a challenge to you.

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

Andreas

[Fionn]

Ah so we have all stated that tanks will pop smoke when faced with an OBVIOUSLY SUPERIOR FOE which they can't kill.

And you wonder why the Pz IVs ( who face the Sherman 75 which is quite honestly their equal) don't pop smoke?

Compare the Pz IV and Sherman 75.... The Pz IVs SHOULDN'T pop smoke under these circumstances. I don't see what you're complaining about to be honest. It seems quite correct AI behaviour to me.

[Formerly Babra]

Fionn,

The problem (at least the one that I see) is that too often the tac A/I will not take evasive or defensive measures even when faced with a superior foe. Any tank without a main armament, no matter how thick its armour (or its reputation) is inferior to every other tank period, bar none.

I won't make any comment on whether Panzer IVs should be more timid than they are -- I can see both sides of that argument and frankly can't make up my mind. The combination of great gun, poor (for '44) armour is a peculiar -- what's the word -- dichotomy?

Anyway, I don't think the computer opponent cheats. I did a little experiment of my own in the VB Scenario and used Wittman the same way the A/I uses its tanks: Unpredictable changes of direction, complex movement orders, stopping for shots through narrow fields of fire with good cover. I did better than I usually do. Lesson learned.

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

It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE.

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Valid Babra, but I think that is an ENTIRELY different issue than the one presented by Tank41, that being cheating AI

[Blackhorse]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tank_41:

OK, I am willing to try it again, and this

time I will set up a scenario myself like

this:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you need to set it up with Shermans vs Tigers and PZIVs vs Pershings. All crews regular.

Try that and give us the results

[This message has been edited by Blackhorse (edited 07-25-2000).]

[Mikeydz]

Well, since everyone knows how much I like running tests on some claims, I once again ran series of engagements.

First, I created a map, 800x800. On this map, I created 8 alleys. Each alley floor was 60m wide by approx 500m long. Each end had small hills to provide a block to LOS. Level 19 cliffs, topped with woods, divided each alley from each other.

Next, I pitted 16 tanks against each other in 8 one on one fights.

M5A1 Stuart vs King Tiger (Pz VIB)

M4 Sherman vs Tiger (Pz VIE Late)

M4A3(75)W+ Sherman vs Tiger (Pz VIE)

M4A3(76)W+ Sherman vs Panther (Pz VA)

M4A3(76)W+ HVSS Sherman vs Panther (Pz VG Late)

M4A3E2(76) Jumbo Sherman vs Panzer IVJ

M26 Pershing vs Panzer IVG

T26E4 Super Pershing vs Lynx (Pz IIL)

I ran each of these fights 20 times. I gave each side orders to move to the centerpoint of each "alley" using a move command. I logged if the TacAI decided to continue moving forward and engage when it spotted the enemy, or if it made a defensive move (reverse back behind the starting hill, pop smoke, ect)

In the 2 extreme cases, (Stuart, Lynx) the AI always (wisely) decided the best course of action was to retreat. In the battles with the basic M4 Sherman, and the Panzer IV G and J's, the AI acted defensively about 80% of the time. In the final 3 battles the AI decided about 80% of the time to duke it out.

What does this prove? Well, as others have pointed out, this 100% prove this quote...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I know there is a TacAI in the system, but

how come my tank never back off from the

threat? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

is incorrect. The TacAI will back off a human players tank if it feels there is danger, and especially if it decides the matchup is one-sided.

Now to his second point. I don't think that what tank thinks he is percieving is 100% accurate. I have never seen the AI fire a shot, pop smoke and reverse to break LOS, then move back forward to fire another shot, all in the same turn. What I have seen happen is....

Turn 1...

Opponent tanks spots my tank, fires a round and reverse while popping smoke.

Turn 2...

AI Tank, which now no longer has LOS to my tank, moves forward through his smoke, and regains LOS to my tank, TacAI kicks back in fires a shot, and decideds (again) that matchup is not good and retreats again. Continue this loop.

What we are probably seeing here is not a cheat, but a quirk in the AI. Maybe what happens is that In between turn 1 and 2, the Strat and or Operational AI is forgeting "my " tank is on the otherside of the defensive smoke the TacAI fired, and is replotting the move back where it originally wanted to go. So what happens is a conflict between the TacAI and the other AI. Other AI says go this way, TacAI says screw you when it respots the danger.

As far as you "Wittman" test, I don't know what your engagement range your talking about, but perhaps ole Wittman is getting smoked by the 5 tank onslaught you've created for him before the TacAI can respond and pull his bacon out of the frying pan. Remember, this "situation" is very extreme so you can't expect the TacAI to be able to handle the overload as well as something as simple as my Stuart vs King Tiger test. The more variables you throw at the AI, the more cracks your going to see.

[BasilD]

Um, In my experience, and I am a relatively new player, the TacAI seems to work great...I mean your units screw up sometimes but well so it goes And sure those wimpy shermans smoke up and reverse at the first sign of my Panther high up on that hill dominating the battlefield, as in my last battle. As it turned out I took the first one down, then took an annoying track hit immobilizing my 'cat, then the damn amis invested me with a million smoke rounds so my tank was useless for quite some time...nevertheless before the battle ended the smoke cleared and the other 2 shermans met their doom Anyways I have to agree (and as I said im not someone with hundreds of hours in the game) you must be making tactical errors, in my experience the Computer isnt really too tough, he tends to be susceptible to ambushes and traps, particularly if you are willing (bit gamey I suppose) to sacrifice a squad to lure him into said ambush, which results in the decimation of his armour. Once his armoured elements are destroyed hes generally in big trouble, and a major victory is easily in your grasp...

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

As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity...