tank AI broken in 1.1

[CMplayer]

It's really noticable if you play a

scenario like Villers-bocage as the

Germans. Wittman doesn't seem like

much of a tank ace at all, the way

he gets distracted back and forth,

starting to target one thing, changing

his mind, probably taking HE rounds out

by hand to change to AT, and back again

instead of at least firing off the round,

and finally rotating away from 4 or 5

tanks because he noticed some infantry somewhere.

I totally agree with the people that

have been complaining about this. It

can't be explained away as 'war is

confusing' etc; it's just an attempt

at an AI improvement that had the

opposite effect.

It might work fine at long ranges, but

not in the infighting.

regards,

--Rett

[Horncastle]

I thought the Tiger wasnt primarily an inf or close support tank so shouldnt be too effective at close range surrounded by teeming inf and tanks. I think this is more an accurate model of a Tiger than a bug.

When I play this scenario I find young Witty to be a dab hand if you place him nicely, say next to a building where the Brits stick their long green snouts from behind. if one leaves him out in the open to see hundreds of threats appearing then dissaperaing all around, like I have done before he does become a bit indecisive. however when you think that some of the threats could be firefly's and 95mm guns firing hollow charge, it pays to switch targets

[Loki]

I too am starting to think that there is a problem with the AI in 1.1.

I had a Sherman in scattered trees turn around a corner of a building to see the REAR end of a Tiger just 60m away.Instead of getting off a shot he sat there for 10 seconds and went into reverse and turned ro put the building between him and the Tiger.

I knew the Tiger was there and knew this was my best shot, but the AI got scared and ran off.

Next turn I tried the same thing.Same result. A few turns later the Tiger was back on the road and destroying me,all because the AI wouldn't take a rear shot from 60m.

I may not be a veteran of tank warfare, but commen sense dictates , 60m + rear = one round in its ass.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Maybe it happened like this:

Sherman comes around corner. TC yells "Target, tank!", gunner has a problem getting breech closed, driver is sitting there looking at Tiger (doesn't matter which end), wetting his pants, when gunner doesn't fire real quick, driver says to hell with this and reverses, gunner finally gets round off late.

You had bad luck. Often happens in the loud, scary business of war.

[Maximus]

I don't know guys, I seemed to have a problem with this with my last PBEM game using v1.05 where my StuG refused to engage a Churchill in about the same manner Loki described with his Sherman. Again, I don't really see this as a problem, it may just be chalked up as smart AI or really scared TCs or just bad luck.

[Loki]

I originally thought it was bad luck. I have been playing CM for 6 months now and this chicken Sherman really stands out in my head. Overall I love the 1.1 patch, but I am now starting to question tanks in it.

Hopefully I won't have a repeat of the chicken Sherman again. Guess I'll know by this evening when I've done 2 more games today.

[CMplayer]

villers-bocage spoilers

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

I thought the Tiger wasnt primarily an inf or close support tank so shouldnt be too effective at close range surrounded by teeming inf and tanks. I think this is more an accurate model of a Tiger than a bug.

Of course, but ineffective shouldn't

mean that the tank starts doing a new

version of the CC2 tank dance.

When I play this scenario I find young Witty to be a dab hand if you place him nicely, say next to a building where the Brits stick their long green snouts from behind. if one leaves him out in the open to see hundreds of threats appearing then dissaperaing all around, like I have done before he does become a bit indecisive.

A bit? He has a complete collapse, like

captain Kirk in that old episode where

they split his good side and his aggressive

side into two Kirks. He's trembling in

the turbo lift saying 'I'm losing control

of the ship...'

however when you think that some of the threats could be firefly's and 95mm guns firing hollow charge, it pays to switch targets

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, here is a concrete example. He has

just seen some tanks on the other side

of some newly layed smoke. I want him to

move throught the smoke and engage the tanks.

I can not find a way to make him keep his

turret pointed forwards towards where the

tanks are going to be when he comes through

the other side. He always starts rotating

his turret to try to shoot some grunt despite

the fact that by the time he can shoot at this infantry target he will be in the smoke and lose LOS anyway. Some 'ace'. Now I'm not

using the 'hunt' command, but move or

fast move. I tried tricks, like targeting

the tanks on the other side, but the game refuses to let me target them in advance since Wittman can't see them. So, of

course, I come out of the smoke, to

confront a couple of stuarts or whatever,

and present them a rear turret shot at less than 100m which gives them a pretty good chance.

Later, after the reinforcements came,

they rotated their whole danged hulls to

shoot at some dudes, when _we all know_

the fireflies and 90mm tank destroyers

and stuff are coming from the town. So,

again, its butt-exposed to the most

dangerous threat. Those infantry weren't

important. I had my inf platoon back there

to take care of them, and the tigers should

remain in position to bushwhack allied

tanks that may be coming up. I think

they worked better before.

regards,

--Rett

[Urban Shocker]

(1) Does anybody have data on crew hesitation or decisiveness? Has anbody ever talked to tankers to find out how much time it took them to select between two somewhat equal targets? Is there any data on the subject?

(2) I find it hard to believe that the computer would consider two targets totally equal in threat unless the programmer put some "fuzzy math" logic in the code. A computer (TacAI) should be able to compute to the 54th significant digit the relative danger more accuartely than a person could.

(3) If all of these hypothetical scenarios people are proposing to explain the lack of firing (e.g., breech door not closing) are the reason then some message should be given so we know this is going on, otherwise it appears buggy or inexplicable!

[CMplayer]

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

Maybe it happened like this:

Sherman comes around corner. TC yells "Target, tank!", gunner has a problem getting breech closed, driver is sitting there looking at Tiger (doesn't matter which end), wetting his pants, when gunner doesn't fire real quick, driver says to hell with this and reverses, gunner finally gets round off late.

You had bad luck. Often happens in the loud, scary business of war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this kind of thing happens sometimes

because the game is supposed to include

it, then that's great. It makes it a better

game. But if the game has defective code,

and people try to cover it up as 'fog

and confusion of war' then it's not so

great.

I mean, in cc2 when the fleeing 88 crew

suddenly locked up along the canal, frozen

in the 'hand to hand combat' graphics

pose and stayed there, I could say maybe

they were boogyin' down and dancin' in

the streets because they knew they were

going to die and wanted to have some

fun. I mean, war is weird, and it COULD

have happened. Maybe the crunching sound of bayonets was them smashing empty champagne bottles.

Or maybe cc2 was buggy.

--Rett

[Pvt. Ryan]

CMPlayer,

Would you drive your tank through smoke to engage unseen targets? You know what was there before the smoke popped, but you can't be certain that more and heavier armor isn't coming up behind that smoke. What I would do is back off from the smoke and be ready to plug whatever appears from behind it. Advancing armor through a smoke filled city street is asking for trouble.

And later on, YOU know from where the Allied reinforcments are coming, but Wittman has no clue. It is always his first time fighting the battle, even if you have played it 100 times. Wouldn't you give your infantry a hand if the enemy armor threat has been taken care of (as far as you know)?

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:

CMPlayer,

Would you drive your tank through smoke to engage unseen targets? You know what was there before the smoke popped, but you can't be certain that more and heavier armor isn't coming up behind that smoke. What I would do is back off from the smoke and be ready to plug whatever appears from behind it. Advancing armor through a smoke filled city street is asking for trouble.

And later on, YOU know from where the Allied reinforcments are coming, but Wittman has no clue. It is always his first time fighting the battle, even if you have played it 100 times. Wouldn't you give your infantry a hand if the enemy armor threat has been taken care of (as far as you know)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't matter whether or not Whitman *should* drive through the smoke. The fact is, he *did* drive through the smoke.

Given that he *did* drive through the smoke, he shouldn't have his turret pointed 90 degrees off the axis of advance.

You are making a tactical argument that is irrelevant to the problem. This has become a common defense of CM on this forum.

Whether or not it is good tactics has no bearing on whether the AI is doing something that makes no sense.

As far as 1.1 is concerned, I thought this problem was mostly fixed back in 1.03 or 1.05. It seems to happen a lot more often now, and combined with the hull turning behavior makes armor a sitting duck.

The "easy" solution to this problem:

A tank/TD/SP Gun should *never* turn its turret or hull more than 10 (20?)degrees to engage a non-threat target unless ordered to do so by the player giving it a target command. Non threat targets being defined as:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

* Any infantry type at greater than 250m

* Any identified vehicle or gun that does not have a credible chance of penetrating the vehicles side armor.

Unidentified vehicle or guns (other than HTs) are considered threats.

Note that this would mean that you can still engage infantry and such, you just have to explicitly order the tank to do so.

Jeff Heidman

[Phoenix]

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

I too am starting to think that there is a problem with the AI in 1.1.

I had a Sherman in scattered trees turn around a corner of a building to see the REAR end of a Tiger just 60m away.Instead of getting off a shot he sat there for 10 seconds and went into reverse and turned ro put the building between him and the Tiger.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I had almost an exact same thing happen as you did just last night. Except for the outcome. In a big city scenario I deliberatly moved a Sherman II around the corner of a block to get behind a Panther that I had seen with other units. The Panther was buttoned, but somehow noticed the Sherman behind it and began to swing it's turret. But the crew loaded up that 75 and popped him in the side, knocking it out. The range was also about 60m

I've played some 5 or so scenarios with 1.1 and have yet to see any odd behavior from tank AI.

Just my .02

[This message has been edited by Phoenix (edited 01-18-2001).]

[CMplayer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:

CMPlayer,

Would you drive your tank through smoke to engage unseen targets? You know what was there before the smoke popped, but you can't be certain that more and heavier armor isn't coming up behind that smoke. What I would do is back off from the smoke and be ready to plug whatever appears from behind it. Advancing armor through a smoke filled city street is asking for trouble.

And later on, YOU know from where the Allied reinforcments are coming, but Wittman has no clue. It is always his first time fighting the battle, even if you have played it 100 times. Wouldn't you give your infantry a hand if the enemy armor threat has been taken care of (as far as you know)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

Those are interesting and helpful tactical

comments, which I will give a ponder. Still,

I think that when he starts driving into

the smoke (for better or worse) that

he should point his turret forwards.

Especially because he never even gets

time to aim at whatever he is trying to

target behind him.

I mean, your comments sound smart, but

the game ought to allow us to make our

tactical errors, and yet still be able

to do what we are trying to do, without

the AI making such screaching howlers

as this one was. (Probably the AI has

also saved my butt many times without

my knowing it, of course, but that's

another story)

regards,

--Rett

[Head Mahone]

If find the AI to be slightly improved in 1.1. I also find Wittman to be a complete and total bad ass in Villers-Bocage! Much like he really was, but I don't remember such precise gunnery from him in ver 1.05.

-Head

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

"No man ever won a war by dieing for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

-General George S. Patton, Jr.

[Heathen1]

The problem might be due to the fact that the AI has an intermittent case of dumb ass. Some opponents AI might be more susceptible to acting dumb. I mentioned TCPIP before, but maybe that's not it. It could me the color of the mouse pad for all I know, but some is causing the Tac AI not to react while my opponents Tac AI deals swiftly with my units.

Yes I too have written many 1000s of lines of Code, so I know that misused syntax like a ";" vs ":" can topple any good program.

Is easy to keep rationalizing why these problems are with the player and not the AI. Perhaps I am just a whiny crappy player, or perhaps there is a problem with the AI.

[Gordon]

I just suffered the reverse problem in a PBEM QB. My Puma decides to trade shots with a Chaffee at over 500m instead of backing up and getting the hell out of dodge. Result? One dead Puma.

Gordon

[Monte99]

Having played it about two dozen times now, I have to agree that the Villers-Bocage scenario exposes certain weaknesses in the AI. The target-rich environment forces the Tiger into all sorts of bonehead turret and hull rotations that I am certain the great tank ace Wittman would never make. That's the main reason this scenario is so difficult to win: you can minimize the problem with short hunt-and-reverse commands, but you need to be more aggressive to shorten the odds.

That said, I think it's an overstatement to call the tank AI "broken." In fact, it works quite well in nearly every other scenario I've played, where my armor is being used more in its proper place on the battlefield. It may be that scenarios like VB simply pose more of a challenge than the AI can handle.

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

"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."

-Bertrand Russell

[Jasper]

"The problem might be due to the fact that the AI has an intermittent case of dumb ass."

Yea well the same thing could be said of tank crews as well. Personnally I hope that the AI doesn't treat all situations exactly the same - people arn't that uniform.

[Guest Madmatt]

One thing that always gets under my skin to some extent is the "Why can't I repeat what Wittman did, the Ai must be broke" style of argument.

Okay, here are some thoughts on that case study. What Wittman did was bold, arrogant and STUPID AS HELL! He placed his Tiger tank, which is not in any way designed for close-in fighting and took it down a road choked with men and machines that could kill him at close range and went hog wild.

Nobody, ever repeated his exploits and his tactics that day went against just about every tank use doctrine I can think of. He was basically alone, and got amazingly, incredibly, monumentally LUCKY. One soldier with a steady aim could have popped Wittman, unbuttoned as he was, as he and his tank went flying down that French lane. Any one of the numerous AT guns and tanks could have put him out of action, and lets not forget that he DID in fact get his tank knocked out once he got into town.

What he did wasn't brilliant, it was utter stupidity and I am amazed that people complain that they can't replicate the same behavior in the game all the time.

Think of it this way, if what he did made so much sense, how come no one else was ever able to replicate it?

Now, having said that I will agree that there is nothing wrong with closely analyzing the TacAi behavior, we encourage it in fact. Perhaps we will make another tweak, perhaps not. But rest assured that using Villers Bocage and Wittman's exploits as a baseline for arguing for or against any type of Tank behavior is not a good way to convince us. The issue with the Sherman and Tiger is much more interesting to me, for example.

In the end though, what I need is specific examples backed up by either movie files or autosaves. So much is going on in a normal run of the mill Combat Mission turn that it is easy to overlook something important and focus instead on the results of that action.

People sometimes also neglect key information when retelling an issue "Oh the AT Gun crew that wouldn't fire? Well yeah they had just taken two hits and were paniced, is that important?!". I get stuff like that all then time.

If you think there is a problem then do some homework, get the files to me and clearly explain what you see and which units are seeing it in. I will always take a look at what you send and more often than not, I will respond back with my thoughts or request for more info. I can't promise that you will always get a indepth report from me, but I WILL look at whatever you send me and take action as needed.

Thanks!

Madmatt

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 01-18-2001).]

[Jasper]

"The problem might be due to the fact that the AI has an intermittent case of dumb ass."

And how's THAT different than the pseudo-reality the CM is mocking ... err ... faking ... err ... aping ... I wonder?

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

Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ for military documents written during WWII

[JoePrivate]

I don't think labelling the TankAI as 'broken' is justified at all, as others have said there are variables going on you may not be aware of. Personally I can recall a couple instances where a Sherman(Green) had a flank/rear shot on a Panther but popped smoke and reversed. I just shrugged it off because I know it doesn't happen all the time.

Anyway I setup a test scenario where a Regular Sherman moves around a building to take a shot into the rear of a Regular buttoned Tiger. In 10 hotseat plays the Sherman never once popped smoke and reversed, it fired everytime. I have said this before but the reduced spotting ability of armour in 1.1 is really noticeable, in the tests the buttoned Tiger was really blind and slow to react as was the Sherman in targetting. Just for kicks I fast moved the Sherman across the street between the buildings, about 35m behind the Tiger's rear. Both times the Sherman never even spotted the Tiger! and the Tiger only got sound contacts on the Sherman.

[Pvt. Ryan]

I wasn't aware that Wittman *did* advance through the smoke, but as Matt said, it was a pretty stupid thing to do and did end up costing him his tank (did he get killed too?). I have been playing this scenario the past few nights and I find that every time I push Wittman too far forward he either gets shot, immobilized, or knocked out. I have tried to keep him further back so as to keep him alive until his friends arive.

I do hate it when a tank starts aiming its turret backwards to shoot at a panicked crew off in the distance. But, as Matt pointed out, Wittman is surrounded by targets if you move him up the street. He is going to pick whatever he thinks is the greatest threat, even if you know there is something more lethal behind the smoke. There are times when he has sat there with his gun pointing forward even though British infantry was firing at him from the side.

This just isn't a good situation to judge the AI. Perhaps there should be an "ignore target" or "ignore infantry" command, but I think this would lead to other problems. The AI in CM is very good, but it does have its limitations.

[Lordfluffers]

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

I thought the Tiger wasnt primarily an inf or close support tank so shouldnt be too effective at close range surrounded by teeming inf and tanks. I think this is more an accurate model of a Tiger than a bug.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Tiger was an inf or close support tank???? The Tiger was designed to compete with the T--34's and KV's in Russia and later the Russian TD's and Stalin I and II's. It is massively armoured especially when it entered service, and possessed one of the most capable anti tank guns of the war. What made you think it was primarily a inf support tank? An Inf support tank generally has less armour and a larger caliber though lower velocitied gun e.g. StuH42, Sherman 105, Churchill AVRE. Cleared the situation?

[This message has been edited by Lordfluffers (edited 01-18-2001).]

[jhtrickey]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Urban Shocker:

(1) Does anybody have data on crew hesitation or decisiveness? Has anbody ever talked to tankers to find out how much time it took them to select between two somewhat equal targets? Is there any data on the subject?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well from modern experience, I can say that multiple engagments are difficult and definitely require that the entire crew work together as a team. In tank combat, hesitation or indecisiveness can end your career in an instant. When I had multiply target engagements, I would have my gunner lay the gun on the targets closest to where the gun tube was. I would keep track of the other target, check his final lay and as soon as the gun went off, get him lined up on the next target. I am simplifing some things here like how each target is threatening me (i.e. facing/seeing me), but the idea is the same, shoot quick, move on, shoot again, check your work and be ready for any follow up shots.

Another thing I might add, it is surprising how long it seems to take for the round to go down range to the target, but even through the sound, the smoke, the muzzle flash, you have a fairly good idea if your round it going to hit home or not.

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

[Diceman]

Having participated in the public beta and really not understanding what all the fuss is about I just played 12 turns of "Villers-Bocage Tiger!". I must say I was quite pleased with the tank A.I. Whittman raked up quite a kill record, in a very efficient and workman like manner, just before the Fireflies showed up. Unfortunately he was near the first "Y" in the road and was overwhelmed.

I think the A.I. handled the situation quite well. Yes there was some target switching, but it was always for the better, and nothing like some kind of Tiger dance. The trick in this scenario, as with any, is to not get in too deep too fast. Get in over your head and you're going to get your tank confused. Just like in real life - they'll suffer from situation overload.

Villers-Bocage Tiger!" has a very target rich environment. You have to take such situations one step at a time. I don't think it's fair to expect a single tank to be able to judge which target out of an entire company of targets, spread out on an 180 degree arc of fire, is the most important to its safety with great efficiency. Actually I think the A.I. in this regard is superior to human intelligence because it doesn't have to deal with the "Oh sh** factor. In my opinion to say the A.I. is broke is a gross exaggeration. In fact I think it's better than ever. Just my two cents.

Eric.

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

Pair-O-Dice

"Once a Diceman, Always a Diceman."