AI force selection and bones

[Barleyman]

We've got new & improved Fionn's rulesets and alternatives, with their pluses and minuses. It occurs to me that there's already an option to let artificial stupidity pick forces for you. Only nobody seems to use it.

It occurs to me that it'd be relatively easy to adjust the AI force picker so that it would produce typical force mix given the time period and service arm. In fact, you could pipe over the rarity data that's already in place.

The benefit? You could have impartial (unless hacked) 3rd party pick forces for both sides. This would defeat gamey tactics of buying semi-rare unit z en masse to have an unrealistic advantage. Also, it'd shift the burden of command towards utilizing whatever you have on hand, instead of fine-tuning point-perfect shopping lists.

Any chance of "semi-historical" force selection button for CMBB?

[WWB]

Uh, the artificial picker does go for semi-historical forces. You just need to give it 1000 or so points so it can pick an effective list, it tends to have problems in smaller battles.

WWB

[Agua]

Odd unit combos or not, I've been having a blast the last couple of days letting the a/i pick forces for 300 pt. attack/defend and giving the puter the +3 experience bonus and a 10% force bonus. The games are short (usually global morale forces end of game by turn 15 or so) and with random time of day / weather, it makes for extremely varied situations.

[Redwolf]

I don't think that the computer force selector needs something like Fionn's or my rules built in.

These rules are meant (well, for me anyway), to allow people to make wider choices of equipment. They don't have to fear that the opponent maxies everything out so they don't have to max out themself.

The CMBO force selector would be fine if:

- if wouldn't choose as randomly as it does from the infantry menu. Engineers are neither historically common nor are they useful as infantry base in a Quickbattle. Even just rifle would be better than waht we have now

- less APCs and no mortar carriers in visibility below 50 meters

- always make sure they are some long-range AT weapons unless the opponent's force is infantry only

That would make it quite usable.

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I don't think that the computer force selector needs something like Fionn's or my rules built in.

I do believe my suggestion was to improve the force picker so that it uses the rarity data in CMBB. This should give you a roughly historical force mix in decent-sized battles, no? But it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a checkbox to make sure you have an attached panzer section/AT gun battery.. It'd suck to have 3 companies of rifle against heavy tanks

Historical or not!

[Caesar]

I do wonder if the rarity options that CMBB is going to have, will end the requirement for the rulesets. Who cares if you come across a cherry picker. They will be hampered by the excessive cost of their rare forces.

One can only hope I suppose.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Caesar:

I do wonder if the rarity options that CMBB is going to have, will end the requirement for the rulesets. Who cares if you come across a cherry picker. They will be hampered by the excessive cost of their rare forces.

One can only hope I suppose.

While limiting uber-units, I doubt it'll help "legislate" against gamey tactics/purchaces that make use of common units - if there are any in CMBB. A purchase rules-set (or better yet, restraint on the part of the QB participants) would still be usefull. They'd be quite different, though. I imagine it'd be much easier to agree/identify gamy tactics (ala "jeep rush") than agree on the proper way to balance or limit the forces in general.

(Note I said "much easier" - I'm not saying it'd necessarily be "easy.")

[WWB]

Originally posted by Barleyman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

I don't think that the computer force selector needs something like Fionn's or my rules built in.

I do believe my suggestion was to improve the force picker so that it uses the rarity data in CMBB. This should give you a roughly historical force mix in decent-sized battles, no? But it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a checkbox to make sure you have an attached panzer section/AT gun battery.. It'd suck to have 3 companies of rifle against heavy tanks

Historical or not!</font>

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Barleyman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

I don't think that the computer force selector needs something like Fionn's or my rules built in.

I do believe my suggestion was to improve the force picker so that it uses the rarity data in CMBB. This should give you a roughly historical force mix in decent-sized battles, no? But it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a checkbox to make sure you have an attached panzer section/AT gun battery.. It'd suck to have 3 companies of rifle against heavy tanks

Historical or not!</font>

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Historical rarity and balance as in Fionn or my rules are two very different things.

Personally I'm not terribly concerned with absolute parity of forces. Historically, one side or the other did dominate the battlefield even when numbers were roughly equal. The challenge for me is to be able to use whatever forces are at hand as effectively as possibly. So if my Pz-IIIe's are outmatched by T-34s, too bad.

Neither historical or balanced force mix is compatible with ala-carte gamey tactics. However, balanced rules would probably ban T-34 until it can be countered.

[JasonC]

Auto selection of forces is fine for varied situation fighting against the AI. But fights against the AI have another sort of uniformity - the AI is weak so you win.

The problem with just using the present auto select of forces in human vs. human games is that the procedure sometimes picks reasonable force mixes and sometimes picks screwy ones that don't use all the points, rely on many of an overpriced or limited usefulness item, etc. That makes for varied situations, yes. But it does not make for any kind of balance between the two players.

Many won't care about that, and will just play another, and another, and trust that eventually the luck of the draw will even out. But some competitive players don't like hearing that they only won because the 'puter stuck their enemy with "Dufus Force Gamma" vs. their "Uber Force Alpha". Especially if it arguably isn't so in the particular case.

I expect in CMBB one will be able to get more balanced forces combined with auto select by picking "historical" rariety. But the most common setting will probably be "variable" rariety, which will increase variety yes, but have similar balance effects as the present auto select, only potentially more so. E.g. you "draw" common Tiger Is and your opponent "draws" rare heavy AT weapons, etc.

So people concerned with balance will still have an incentive to use human selected forces. In a sense, optimization by humans puts the greatest strain on the pricing system (magnifies loopholes or otherwise minor innaccuracies in pricing). And that tends to reduce variety. But it also can increase balance, because both sides are doing it and for decent players and above, about equally well. Whereas the "skillfulness" of automatic force selections will vary randomly, occasionally buying many useful bargains but often wasting points on white elephants. Which boosts variety but reduces balance.

The only thing that could produce both perfectly "open" variety and the best possible balance would be a pricing system that perfectly aligned CM unit cost with in game unit effectiveness. Given all the varied ways units can be used and the number of types in the game, that is not going to happen. Certainly not with any fixed price list, set down beforehand with necessarily limited info.

Any realistic price list will leave potential loopholes, in the form of mismatches between price and effectiveness. A good system will just limit their scope. But the existence of such loopholes will always mean a trade off will remain between balance and variety, because humans will notice them and auto select will not.