tank AI broken in 1.1

[jhtrickey]

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

Being a tanker, I guess Wittman is one of the people I studied most and he had a strong following at the Armor Center when I went through. That said, I would argue that what he did was amazing, but that he did use some sound combat principles and used the his tank to the best advantage it had. If I recall correctly, Wittman engaged that column before he ever got on the road. Taking out the front and back of the column, on a road on which they could really not manuever. He used surprise, shock, and aggession to sow confusion among the enemy. The smoke from the burning vehicles blocked LOS and gave him some cover as he moved in to clean up. The first move on the town (I beleive there were two, but I could be wrong) was using his inititive and the disarray to break the back the the allied thrust. Also, this all occurred over several hours. Although Wittman was finally pushed out of the town, he held it long enough for stronger reinforcements to be brought up. When his commander asked Wittman what he wanted after the battle, he replied that he wanted his tank back!

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

[:USERNAME:]

While people focus on the exploits and daring of this one man on that day, most people dont realize the absolute cowardice and incompetance of the British high command. Whittman's blunting of the tactical advantage of the british forces that day was indeed stuff of legend, but the fact is that IF the british commanders had utilized their overwhelming superiority in numbers and material, they would have quickly gone on beyond villers and put a hurt on the germans.

I like to punch people in the nose. Really. Nothing stuns an attacker and gives him cause to pause and reconsider. Just the smack of a flat punch to a loudmouth's snotlocker is good stuff. They either back the eff off or over commit and come swinging stupidly and then they get an ass kicking.

Whittman punched the limeys right in the honker. He should have just stood his ground and wait for developments and then he might have had his tank survive. But he gave up his advantage and probably got caught up in the heat of the battle. He broke away from the main force.

He made a mistake. The brits made a bigger one.

Lewis

[RedKnight]

Hello men, and maybe women out there.

I'm a new player and just bought the game.

I thought after playing the demo it seemed like a good thing. However, after reading alot of the posts here about the AI and stuff, I think this game can use improvement too. I like giving constructive critisism and recieving it, it makes things hopefully better. I haven't tried relying on the local tank AI after giving orders to hunt yet, I prefer giving direct targets and that seems to work ok. My problems are with direct hits from a tank blast or gun fire-to be just that-a direct one time hit, it seems that a soldier and or tank will fire one direct hit shot, but the enemy is still alive (exception some tank hits)I can take out a tank with one tank shot in one blow but not anything else like gun positions or soldiers. Hey I can see some chance on being alive after getting hit but they shouldnt be able to move or shoot back(from a tank blast!). Same with hitting buildings takes many hits to bring one down. It makes me think soldiers are the same as buildings in your code. I have played some other simmilar games like counter-strike and age of empires and the latter has a gauge that tells you the health, would this be a good thing to add? This game allows strategy that those others dont have, which I like so keep up the good work and keep making it more realistic. That's all I wanted to add for now hope it helps out.

[Guest Madmatt]

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

Being a tanker, I guess Wittman is one of the people I studied most and he had a strong following at the Armor Center when I went through. That said, I would argue that what he did was amazing, but that he did use some sound combat principles and used the his tank to the best advantage it had. If I recall correctly, Wittman engaged that column before he ever got on the road. Taking out the front and back of the column, on a road on which they could really not manuever. He used surprise, shock, and aggession to sow confusion among the enemy. The smoke from the burning vehicles blocked LOS and gave him some cover as he moved in to clean up. The first move on the town (I beleive there were two, but I could be wrong) was using his inititive and the disarray to break the back the the allied thrust. Also, this all occurred over several hours. Although Wittman was finally pushed out of the town, he held it long enough for stronger reinforcements to be brought up. When his commander asked Wittman what he wanted after the battle, he replied that he wanted his tank back!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to take anything away from Wittman, obviously a great deal of skill and expertise was at play as he attacked the British but I think the true indictaion of his ability was in exploiting the sitauation that he presented with. He actually performed some recon along with some infantry and observed the disposition of the British units. Still, attacking effectively alone was a HUGE risk and had he waited a few more minutes the rest of his Kompanie would have arrived.

I think what Michael did was driven by his ego and belief that he and his crew was truly unstoppable. On that day, something quite rare occured. Someones ego and ability were in perfect alignement and he kicked holy hell.

He was still lucky and were he under my command I would publically applaud him for his daring and then privately kick the living crap outa him for taking such risks and being such a renegade. Bad example to the younger tankers, you know.

Madmatt

[Panther131]

Originally posted by MadMatt: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He was still lucky and were he under my command I would publically applaud him for his daring and then privately kick the living crap outa him for taking such risks and being such a renegade. Bad example to the younger tankers, you know.

Madmatt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No you would'nt Matt.

[massimorocca]

AFAIK, Wittman during his rush along side of the British column used mainly the mg, the bow to hit the column in deep and the coaxial to pierce the light vehicles, reserving the 88 for the real menaces. I've played the Wittman scenario a lot with the original and 1.05 and complained because he engaged all targets with the gun, adding the reloading time to the slow rotating turret delay. I think that if "Wittman" can employ better the mg many of the problems in this scenario can be solved.

BTW against AI I've always won when I've used the move or fast option in first rush.

Now I'll try it again with 1.1

[Horncastle]

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

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).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you have misunderstood what I said, if you look closely I was pointing out that the tiger was not an inf/close support tank to the person who started this thread. This was to highlight the fact that one shouldnt be to pissed when you tiger is in the thick of inf and tanks and gets knocked out, as it was primarily designed like you pointed out to take out tanks from a distance etc.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

I think you have misunderstood what I said, if you look closely I was pointing out that the tiger was not an inf/close support tank to the person who started this thread. This was to highlight the fact that one shouldnt be to pissed when you tiger is in the thick of inf and tanks and gets knocked out, as it was primarily designed like you pointed out to take out tanks from a distance etc.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think people are mad their Tiger gets knocked out because it is surrounded, they get mad because their Tiger (or Sherman, or Panther, or whatever) gets knocked out because it is either

A) Pointing its gun away from where they told it to move because it refuses to ignore some inconsequential target in favor of the real threats in front of it, or

Amongst several high threat targets it does not choose one to engage and just sits their moving its turret back and forth.

I have seen B reported, but have never seen it myself. I have definitely seen A.

Jeff Heidman

[Mr. Clark]

RedKnight, The first time I saw an enemy unit take one of my tank shells up the bazooka, and remain standing afterwards... I had the same thoughts you expressed.

However, each 3 man unit that appears on your screen is representing an entire squad of men. One tank hit is NEVER going to kill an entire squad. One tank or Mortar hit won't kill that squad, but it will almost certainly cause casualties, and a break in morale. If you want to test it, set up two tanks firing Main Weapons at a platoon in some woods, and see how long they last there.

P.S. Don't be swayed off of the realism in CM by threads like this. CM is the best wargame out there. People here get wildly stirred up over something that, at the most, is usually only a minor tweak.

[This message has been edited by Mr. Clark (edited 01-19-2001).]

[coralsaw]

Good point Mr Clark.

A squad is an abstraction of a dozen men spread out in an area several meters wide, in every little crest and fold of the ground. An HE will pin them and kill some, but most likely, some will survive.

Especially in the woods, where ample cover is available.

It is a revelation to see how long a veteran HMG can withstand HE in the woods...

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>P.S. Don't be swayed off of the realism in CM by threads like this. CM is the best wargame out there. People here get wildly stirred up over something that, at the most, is usually only a minor tweak.

[This message has been edited by Mr. Clark (edited 01-19-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr. Clark makes a good point.

CM is definitely the finest wargame ever released to date.

I think that is *why* it gets so much criticism. I know I have never bothered to go to this much trouble over CC, TOAW, etc., etc. The fact that everyone loves the game so much is why there is so much talk about how to potentially improve it. Essentially, BTS has set a very high standard fro themselves, which is certainly a good thing.

If it sucked, nobody would really care about how to make it any better.

Jeff Heidman

[Henri]

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

He was still lucky and were he under my command I would publically applaud him for his daring and then privately kick the living crap outa him for taking such risks and being such a renegade. Bad example to the younger tankers, you know.

Madmatt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't do that Matt, unless I had first ascertained that I can outrun the Tiger turret's rotation...

henri

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by 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.

I assume you're referring to me, but that's

not the way I was arguing at all. In fact

I did do pretty much what Wittman did,

in the sense that I smashed up tons of

halftracks and stuarts, killed a lot

of infantry, and pulled back about when

the reinforcements arrived.

What makes me think the AI has problems,

and I do think that, is the way the

tank behaved while it was in the

'target-rich' environment. I tried

to describe some of that behaviour

in my messages above, just for the

sake of discussion and hearing what

other people say about it. Some agree,

others disagree. It's been interesting.

As it is now, in infighting, that tiger

acts silly. In particular, it seems to

have no sense of a _very_ important factor,

which is:

Given my present course and speed,

and given my target's projected course

and speed,

Will my target still be in LOS by the

time my turret has swung around?

Wittman probably did this calculation

unconsciously. Does CM do it at all?

It seems to me that the tiger often lost

targets due to them moving a little bit

out of sight. Then it gets schizophrenic,

because on the one hand it is trying to

complete my movement order, and on the

other hand it is trying to manage its

targetting itself. So it won't go the

few extra meters to follow a target that

has just ducked behind the barn. Hence it

misses that target, _and_ the other one it

could have shot if it had been decisive

from the beginning. Wittman was decisive.

A CM elite tiger is very indecisive. There

is room for improvement there.

Perhaps these problems boil down to crossed

wires between the demands of the player's

move order, and the AI's attempts to target.

The first part of the Wittman scenario would

make a great first-person shooter game,

but the tanks in CM are sort of in-between.

We can really micromanage their movement,

to the point of having to find hull-down

on our own, but we can't micromanage

their targetting in the same way. It's

a contradiction, probably the result of

the many compromises and decisions you

had to make to make the game playable and

interesting, but a contradiction that

can lead to playability problems in some situations.

CM is a really great game, the best

I've ever seen, but how could it possibly

be perfect? Even after, what is it now,

10-20? man-years of work it must still be

taking its first shaky steps, and

programming Tank AI that would perform

like a decent human player in the same

situation must be akin to writing a

new deep blue or something. You guys

deserve plenty of credit. You're

the greatest. But that all goes without saying!

I still think you should definitely aim

to make tank AI that works in _all_ kinds

of situations, and not just long distance

engagements, if you want a really good all-around game. I mean there _is_ a

nahverteidigungswaffe on that tank. The

Germans put it there for a good reason,

however much they would have preferred

to keep their tigers 1500 meters back

plinking targets with impunity.

regards,

--Rett

[This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 01-19-2001).]

[Leonidas]

I think everyone who posts on this board loves CM and agrees that it is the best game of its genre, and possibly the start of a new genre. So let's make sure that nobody takes any suggestions for future improvements personally.

I think that the global problem with tank AI is that so much difficult decisionmaking has been withheld from the player and put on the AI. Rather than write a brilliant tank AI that will react correctly to a variety of circumstances, I suggest that BTS give the players more options in commanding tanks. Then the players will be responsible for their own mistakes.

An example: In another thread I discussed the difficulties that CM tanks have in defending among buildings. The real trouble is that I have no way to tell the tank commander that he is executing an ambush. Perhaps a Tank Ambush AI routine could be triggered by a matching command. You tell a tank to ambush and lay a marker, maybe even indicating the direction from which you anticipate the enemy will come. Armed with this information, the Tank Ambush AI tries to find the best nearby cover/hull down position while maintaining sight of the ambush marker. In a city, the tank would scoot up next to the nearest building, trying to stay out of sight of the approach vector while maintaining sight of the marker. While under Ambush orders, the tank would not fire smoke or back up, but would stand its ground and fire as targets moved into sight.

Another command that I think would solve a lot of tank AI headaches would be an aggression setting. Sometimes you are nervous about enemy armor ahead, and you want your tanks ignoring enemy squads and halftracks. Sometimes you are confident that there are no long range threats to your armor, and you want to mop up the infantry. The AI has a hard time knowing which is the case. An agression setting would let you tell the tank to 1) only fire at threats, 2) fire at any vehicle, 3) fire at anything. Of course, the existing target prioritization would still apply. BTS did something like this with the patch that kept tanks from wasting ammo and turret rotation firing at crews when enemy armor had been recently sighted. But I say delegate! There is no reason to put so much stress on the AI when that job can be passed to the player.

Actually, I would suggest an aggression setting for all units, but I will start a new thread for that.