CMx2 AI behavoir and improvement

[Uedel]

to continue this fine Thread , i started this one for further discussions

so here are my suggestions

Small Steps to Improve the Generall AI behavior:

- Selectable Unit Class (Support, Scout, etc)

This are items for the Scenario designer to give the AI an idea for what to use the selectet Unit I.E. Support means not to move the unit (Mortar) up to the line where it recieves MG fire, instead the AI tries to keep this unit behind the Attack units in cover with good LOS in direction of the moving Friendly units and to use the Section HQ to spot while keeping the Mortar in cover etc. This way u could as a scenario designer also say the AI please use this Stuart Tank as a Scout unit for the other heavy Tanks also in this Scenario, would stop the frustration for me when i mowe down the billionst 3 inch Mortar team just 20m away from my trenches.

- Sceanriodesigner given Waypoints and rules of conduct.

Let the Scenario designer give the AI driven forces a general set of orders to use, I.E. Move Troops from company A over left or right flank while use Units from Hvy Weapons Platton stationary in the middle for support. The Scenario designer should NOT give exact Waypoints for every unit just MACROWAYPOINTS for AI troops (like big clumsy arrows) and the AI still uses its own allgorithms to move the units it self. For this we would need a tool to say the AI also these units are Section A,B,C,D etc (like with the setup zones now,the troops in the blue zone are Company A etc).

Bigger Steps in AI Upgrading could be:

- going away with the Victory-Flag orientation as it is now.

Make it only count 30% for decision where to go for the AI, instead let the AI make a Landmap of the Battlefield with Enemy Heavy zones, small example:

Map with 2 Elevations and Victoryflag behind, AI Units have Spottet on left hill an Enemy Heavy Tank, subroutine checks for own Equipment aviable to counter this monster:

a) I have greater Monster and more of it to counter it --> Send my greater Monster to Eat the enemy Monster --> Problem solved

I have no counter for this Monster, use way over right Elevation with best use of cover to avoid the enemy Monster -->problem solved (at least best i can do instead of letting all my toys get eaten be enemy Monster)

So the AI needs some tool to recognize and categorise the enemy threads.

Example B:

2 Hills left TigerII rigth 5 PzIIIG AI spotts them and counts (1 TigerII 350 pts, 5 PzIIG a 40pts make 200pts) so the option should be to try to knock out the 5 PzIIIG´s with his own appropiate untis (there comes the unit classes again from above in the post, where a unit class could also be "Can destroy light,medium or Heavy Tanks", so the AI stops sending worthless units to big monsters only to get eaten)

What your thoughts about possibilitis to enhance the AI in simple but effective ways

Greets Uedel

[flamingknives]

Ah, of course, programming AI is so simple. I'm sure that none of this has occurred to the guys at BFC.

[Uedel]

very constructive..

[flamingknives]

Sorry. Sarcastic reflex.

I keep seeing people writing about their great idea without appreciating what it would take to code it. Words like 'simple', 'easy' and 'effective' tends to crop up for no good reason.

Some of it's good, like unit class and scenario designer input, but it kind of devolves into binary if-then statements. Part of the strengths of CMX1 AI, IMHO, is that it is not scripted - the AI will never approach the same problem the same way twice. Personally, I'd like to see greater use of battlefield units by the AI, so it will do things like overwatch, leapfrog and lay down cover fire, rather than attack en masse, as it appears to now (in CMX1). Thus, a battlion would move by company, companies by platoon, and support weapons would take a more static role.

As for judging relative strengths, I'm pretty sure that CMX1 does that already. It'd be pretty lame if not.

[medlinke]

AI programming is an interesting topic. Indeed a lot of books both programmer oriented and general science oriented keep cropping up.

The way that the AI handles the battlefield now is pretty cool. The old global and local AI relationship is pretty sweet and produces as you say an AI that doesn't respond the same way twice to the same situation necessarily.

THAT SAID...

I STILL believe categorization of Human behavioral tendencies would be useful. I posted on this a while back and someone brought out the flame tank.

Basically build a framework for evaluating human play tendencies. Things that work behind the scenes are are just recorded. That way over the course of testing and then in playing a profile of a generic human is built so that the AI isn't entirely reactive and can be proactive in terms of setting up ambushes and things that it current has a hard time doing.

To that end I believe enabling a basic level of AI scripting "guidelines" for the scenario designer would be good. Things like assigning relative "weight" to areas. For instance, in defending a scenario designer may weight a particular bottleneck or tactical location more highly than another and the AI would then consider options involving that piece of terrain more highly.

That way you aren't scripting the AI's behavior, but rather shaping how it reacts by giving it some sort of overall guideline in saying...This location is really important.

Those are just a couple thoughts. Certainly nothing an IF...THEN statement would handle...more like a CASE statement..or better yet an entire class that would define and weigh ALL options rather than a set number of parameters...

[Michael Emrys]

That sounds reasonable to me.

Michael

[Uedel]

well i realy dont whant a IF Then AI Hard Scriptet, rather this should be a simple example of how the AI COULD decide not must.

The Main Idea behind this all was that the AI gets some Help by the Scenario designers to what use the units for. So lets say Classes.

As current the AI seems to handle a Mortar even to a Sturmgrenadiersquadron, and that produces sometimes realy odd outcomes when the AI is attacking.

Also there could be a database for the AI with rough scriptet Tactics the AI can choose from, like leapfrog tactics, Armour First, or Armour covers infantry aproach Tactics, the could be written in a rough guideline form so the computer somehow slowly learns some principles of Warfare.

Look at them not as a replacement of the current Global AI and TacAI rather then a 3rd component as a little Aiding piece.

The goal should be that the AI acts a little more like a Human does and not so like a machine does.

These things i mean are simple rules like

- dont shoot AT Gun at every tank you see - instead be sure to have at least X % of kill probability

- In defense hold cover and dont move unless you are allready spottet

- when X % of units is killed in Spot X,Y re calculate route of advance

etc etc

there could be many of these for the AI do choose from.

And i know that this task is not easy, but these Gentlemens from Battlefront have made allready a good job, why shouldnt we not trust them in doing the AI somehow better, but sometimes it is good when a friend comes to you and says some solutions to your problem wich you thought they may bad, but after he talked to you and you thought twice about it, and sometimes the results not the baddest.

When you are working hard on a problem you sometimes get a tunneled view of things and a men outside can tell you other Points of view.

Thats all i try to do with you here, tell Battlefront other possible points of view.

[flamingknives]

The goal should be that the AI acts a little more like a Human does and not so like a machine does.

These things i mean are simple rules like...

Humans don't have rules. They have guidelines which they can choose to ignore. To an extent, CM AI already has this. I would expect that CMX2 expands on this

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by Uedel:

to continue this fine Thread , i started this one for further discussions

so here are my suggestions

Small Steps to Improve the Generall AI behavior:

- Selectable Unit Class (Support, Scout, etc)

This are items for the Scenario designer to give the AI an idea for what to use the selectet Unit I.E. Support means not to move the unit (Mortar) up to the line where it recieves MG fire, instead the AI tries to keep this unit behind the Attack units in cover with good LOS in direction of the moving Friendly units and to use the Section HQ to spot while keeping the Mortar in cover etc. This way u could as a scenario designer also say the AI please use this Stuart Tank as a Scout unit for the other heavy Tanks also in this Scenario, would stop the frustration for me when i mowe down the billionst 3 inch Mortar team just 20m away from my trenches.

- Sceanriodesigner given Waypoints and rules of conduct.

Let the Scenario designer give the AI driven forces a general set of orders to use, I.E. Move Troops from company A over left or right flank while use Units from Hvy Weapons Platton stationary in the middle for support. The Scenario designer should NOT give exact Waypoints for every unit just MACROWAYPOINTS for AI troops (like big clumsy arrows) and the AI still uses its own allgorithms to move the units it self. For this we would need a tool to say the AI also these units are Section A,B,C,D etc (like with the setup zones now,the troops in the blue zone are Company A etc).

What your thoughts about possibilitis to enhance the AI in simple but effective ways

Greets Uedel

These are good ideas of course.

I think that 'AI' should be replaced with 'HE'. Thats Human Emulation.

It should be clear that many good player 'methods' are actually just like military drills. Players 'fight' platoons. They 'push-forward' companies towards objectives, etc. The 'AI' should not think in terms of either individual units (where the orders are issued) oron a grand scale (flags). It should 'think' in terms of objectives and formations.

Hopefully the designers are either very competant players themselves or are corresponding with really good players so that they can emulate them. Otherwise, how could 'AI' be any better than the programmer?