Concerned about the AI. Should I purchase

[andrewsk]

Myself and 2 of my friends have all been seriously considering buying CMBB but after reading about all of the AI issues we are having some serious reservations.

I have read that the AI is hopeless at attacking, and that designing a scenario with the AI on the offensive is an excersize in frustration.

We will be playing 95% single player, so no "If you want a real opponent play a human" responses.

How bad is it really? Does it make single player not worth playing? Will it be fixed in a patch?

I would appreciate any comments on the subject.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by andrewsk:

How bad is it really? Does it make single player not worth playing? Will it be fixed in a patch?

It is the best you will get in any game period. Whether it is worth/not worth playing single player is a matter of opinion. If you play a lot of multiplayer games you'll get bored with singleplayer (but that holds true for any game), so if you'll only be playing singleplayer it is actually not a great problem.

[WWB]

I have never seen an AI which can be called good at attacking in any wargame ever. And, if you are a noob, CM's AI is actually a pretty harsh teacher.

WWB

[Wesy]

I haven't really played multiplayer yet, but I find the AI quite challenging. In fact, I prefer CMBB over CMBO.

[Nekander]

I played CMBO for year and a half. Now I'm addicted to CMBB... I really recommend these games.

I play mostly against AI and it is still a great game. Of course AI sometimes makes mistakes, but so do humans too. I agree that playing against human is better but AI is a good opponent (at least for me...).

-Nekander

[Holien]

Hi,

It is the Best AI in a wargame I have played.

I know you said that you would only be playing the computer, but you do realise that you can play games by e-mail?

There is nothing like playing another person.

The real question is if you would like the style of the game. Play the demo and then decide.

H

[Agua]

Well, a really skilled scenario designer can make the ai do some surprising things on attack. I echo wwb in that it can hand you your head until you gain experience.

With quick battles, after you gain experience, the attack can be improved by increasing the force and experience bonuses as well, though that does not improve quality of the a/i's decision making, but rather makes its mistakes less costly.

On defense, however, the a/i is really not too bad at all, even in quick battles where the computer, rather than a designer, sets up the defense. With a designed scenario, any competent human can create an extremely challenging defense. There

I'll put it this way. If all you want to do is play defense v. an a/i attack, then you can give enough bonuses to the a/i, in force size and experience level, to make it mighty challenging, even for an experienced player.

[Pvt. Ryan]

The problem the AI has when attacking is that it tends to lead with its tanks since they are faster than the infantry. This enables the defending human player to wipe out the AI's armor and then deal with the infantry piecemeal. Some of us have come to the conclusion that there are times in CMBB where the attacked has to lead with armor because conscript infantry can't spot as well and will break too easily under fire. In this regard the AI is more suited to CMBB's style than CMBO's. However, if the AI were smarter it would lead with its tanks, provoke a response from the defender's armor and AT assets, and then pull back and pound the defender with artillery until the infantry can come up and support. But the AI isn't that smart and marches its armor to its death, especially when the human defender can patiently wait for the Soviet armor to come within killing range. This mostly holds true for Soviet attacks against a German defender, but it basically works both ways. The AI is a much tougher opponent on defense and will usually set up a defense in depth with infantry in front and AT in the rear. Armor, if it has any, is more of a variable since you can't really predict where it will show up and whether it will have local superiority of numbers. I mostly play against the AI because all human players fear me ( ), and I have yet to grow tired of it.

[russellmz]

also don't confuse the tac ai with the strategic ai. the tac ai will cause a tank or soldier to hide, run, or fire properly, usually at the appropriate time. i leave most targeting decisions to the computer unless there is a really important thing i have to suppress or kill.

[JRRRT]

I have played the AI for years. It is fascinating to watch it "learn" if you play the same scenario against it a couple of times it will change approach routes, etc. Not bad at all, well worth the price!!

[MikeyD]

Most of the criticism of the AI on the board is from hard-core Grogs who are VERY hard to please. Some discussions on this board eventually start to resemble theological battles over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! The AI is better than some discussions would suggest. One large board Quickbattle I was shocked when the AI took half its force and flanked me! The game ended and I found the flags behind me were held by the AI without my realising it!

Agua is right, you will be amazed what the AI can do in the hands of a careful scenario designer.

[Hertston]

Originally posted by andrewsk:

[QB]I have read that the AI is hopeless at attacking...

How bad is it really? Does it make single player not worth playing? Will it be fixed in a patch?

[QB]

You can't fix what isn't broken.. although there is always room for improvement. The AI is just fine, while I'd disagree with Foxbat that you cant find better, you can certainly find a lot worse. You need to remember that criticism often comes from those who do a lot of multiplay, and a competent human opponent will always be superior to the AI.

Attacking certainly isn't the AI's strongpoint... but I can't think of a wargame in which it is. Attacking really needs "creative" - something AI just can't do.

[TSword]

If you're interested in tactical wargames you CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT IT ! Forget everything else !!!

Greets

Daniel

[jgdpzr]

Just to repeat what has been stated, the quality of the AI is relative. Does it compare to a highly skilled human? Absolutely not. Does it compare favorably to other games? Only in that it is far superior to any I have played.

Organizing and sustaining a well-coordinated attack is a deceptively difficult task. Without in-depth scripting, it is a herculean task. However, given the right parameters, the AI will still surprise the most experienced human player, even when it is attacking.

In summation, please don't let concern over our complaints of AI shortcomings deter you from purchasing the finest computer wargame ever created.

[Bruno Weiss]

If your concerned about the AI, then forget buying any wargame, or computer game for that matter. This AI is as good as any AI. AI's are not far advanced in reality as the human mind is in theory. We can think of all sorts of wonderful stuff we'd like a computer program built on numbers and questions to do, (if this, then that -if that, then this).

Unfortunately, computer science ain't there yet.

[Henry Kearney]

If you play against the AI most of the time like I do, you'll find that while it can be predictable at times on the offence, the huge variety of situations in CMBB can make most quick battles fascinating. And if you let the computer pick forces, sometimes you'll get handed a very difficult situations, like when I got pasted by the AI when I had infantry with no armor against a Soviet combined arms force.

[Redwolf]

I don't rate the CMBB as bad in comparision.

Clearly better, especially on attack is the TacOps AI. It can beat you up pretty badly. However, it is pre-scripted, the game engine contains plans for the single-player scenarios and that is it, the AI cannot play on any other (user-designed) scenarios, or the non-prepared side of the singleplayer scenarios.

The TOAW AI is much better at attacking than defending, but I wouldn't say it is good overall. It number-crunches the hell out of the TAOW turn length mechanism to get the most movement and assulting out of each turn. I consider this more a game design flaw than a good AI. Once it has taken the objectives it is lost and doesn't know how to guard it. The TacAI AI will at least blow you out of orbit and hence ensure you don't come back.

"The Ardennes Offensive" is supposed to have a strong computer opponent but I never tried it.

The CMBB seems to be improved a lot over CMBO, but some of the game mechanic fixes fix things that hurt the AI more than a human player, so maybe it is just a side-effect. In any case I don't see it lead with artillery spotters and then tanks. I do see it screw up the facing o AFVs a lot, it doesn't attempt to keep the front to the threats. But compared to the previous behaviour that is a minor issue.

Playing the right scenario and condition is a must, a 1:1 meeting engagement is "likely" to be won by the human.

[IronChef4]

Just buy the damn game already.

[Lars]

The AI is quite competent. It's faults only really show after considerable experience with the game. And even then only in certain situations.

There is no other game on the market that will give you the value this one does.

Buy it.

[Atlas_TH]

Originally posted by JRRRT:

I have played the AI for years. It is fascinating to watch it "learn" if you play the same scenario against it a couple of times it will change approach routes, etc. Not bad at all, well worth the price!!

Ummmm...that thing he said about watching the AI "learn", not true.

[Silvio Manuel]

"There is no other game on the market that will give you the value this one

does."

Lars is absolutely right- it's the kind of game that many/most ppl don't even take out of the CD tray for months/years at a time.

I cannot emphasize enough how great it is to play other people at Combat Mission, it REALLY takes the experience and enjoyment to the next level. The AI is excellent given the immense complexity of the coding required for a game of this depth. The challenge that other devious players present will really sharpen your skills and further immerse you into the game (via tension and horror!).

From what I've heard of comparable games, (like Close Combat), Combat Mission puts them to shame. The results are extremely realistic, and things like armor penetration, firepower, units spotting each other, weather effects, etc. are all lovingly and caringly modeled to a "T." Not perfect, but very close!

From what other have said, the TacAI in CMBB is a bit better than in CMBO. It keeps it's units in command better (i.e. squads near their Platoon HQ), and does other basics a bit better like only moving tanks near terrain that has been recently scouted by infantry.

Cheers,

SM

[Generale_Pasquini]

Hey,

I have a laptop which I run CMBB off of and I can online play single player with it... I am used to playing lots of multiplayer online games so I thought it would be horrible. Actually... the AI holds its own, play bigger matches and give the computer 25% to 50% more stuff... not only will it simulate the way germans were outnumbered but it will be alot more challenging! Besides the AI is about at the same skill level as your average Russian Battalion

Ok, jokes aside... the AI is pretty decent-BUY IT!

[Hertston]

Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

From what I've heard of comparable games, (like Close Combat), Combat Mission puts them to shame.

It certainly doesn't put Close Combat (2,3 and 5 anyway) "to shame".. but then I'm a big CC fan. They just aren't "comparable" games in that sense, and have completely different styles and feel. Same will probably be true of GI Combat, we will know when that bloody demo finally gets released

[Silvio Manuel]

The one thing I heard about Close Combat that put me off was that the path-finding for tanks in particular was really bad, they would sort of get stuck and turn around in circles.

I was actually about to buy the CC1-3 pack on Amazon.com, when I saw that it listed CMBO under "if you like CC, you'll like...". At first I thought CMBO was a hoax b/c it looked too good to be true. This paragraph:

"Combat Mission is a 1-2 player, turn-based, simultaneous-execution 3D simulation of WWII tactical warfare. It combines unparalleled game depth and ease of use with a true 3D environment. The move to the 3rd dimension is not just to look cool, rather it it improves the accuracy of the simulation. Think of the world around us - it's all 3D. True 3D LOS, 3D spotting, 3D terrain, and 3D trajectories are a lot more realistic than 2D approximations, so that is what CM delivers! "

...that got me hooked, along with the AFV list :eek: (wow, this is better than Panzer Blitz!) and the pictures, which were kinda simplistic but still amazing when factored into the whole package.

[Bruno Weiss]

Hertston wrote:

It certainly doesn't put Close Combat (2,3 and 5 anyway) "to shame".. but then I'm a big CC fan.

Hehe, what's that movie... The one where the guy sees some neat looking chick, but for real it is some whale. Someone put a hex on him or somefink. I was gonna go see that too.