nedlam Posted April 24, 2001 Share Posted April 24, 2001 I recently played a QB where I did a random experience level for both my troops and the AI's troops. I was defending a town against a combined American assault. I ended up with all green troops. About 1/2 way though the battle I discovered I was up against crack troops. My men proceeded to dispatch the American dogs with easy, hell I even captured a few. I've NEVER seen green troops capture Crack troops up until that game. The AI was cranked up as high as it could go. I know I'm not that good, so is the AI really that bad? Nedlam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nedlam Posted April 24, 2001 Author Share Posted April 24, 2001 Sorry, wrong Forum... Nedlam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schugger Posted April 24, 2001 Share Posted April 24, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nedlam: Sorry, wrong Forum... Nedlam<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No why? Defending with green troops vs crack ones and come out victorious is not bad. I lose on occasions with Wittmanns Elite Tiger against consript and green tanks led by the AI. However, it has been mentioned many times that the AI is better at defending than attacking. Try the same thing when you have green attackers vs crack defenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted April 25, 2001 Share Posted April 25, 2001 I actually prefer vets over crack and elite most of the time. Crack and elite seem only too willing to continue their charge into the face of overwhelming fire (while suffering excessive casualties), while vets are smart enough to cower when necessary. Vets with a leader that has a +2 on combat are especially effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunnee Posted April 25, 2001 Share Posted April 25, 2001 I don't know. . I like the proffesionalism of the crack troops, good shots, don't panic easily, they are very tough if used well. very tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nedlam Posted April 25, 2001 Author Share Posted April 25, 2001 Maybe I just don't agree with the AI's tactics in that particular battle. They assaulted my position across about 250 yards of open area from some woods, no smoke, or no real concentrated cover fire. I'm guessing this was because the computer was just trying to rush a VL. The Computer led the assault with his armor, which I dispatched with some difficulty (but not much). My conclusion is that the AI has a one track mind when it comes to assaulting VLs. I just finished reading a thread on how to make the AI "better" wish I could give you the name of the thread and the person who started it, but I forgot. Nedlam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted April 25, 2001 Share Posted April 25, 2001 What Nedlam describes seems to me typical AI attacking behavior. The AI usually leads with its armor--which is not always a bad tactic in CM, but is 90% of the time. It rarely uses smoke to cover an attack--smoke usually seems to emerge as a panic reaction when it's "in trouble." Usually by then it's too late. I've seen the AI use artillery to prepare an attack, but not very often. Also attacks often come in piecemeal.--Actually to be accurate, my most common experience with AI led attacks is that a fair amount of material is squandered in early piecemeal probes, then it pulls itself together and makes a genuine determined rush. (Maybe those early piecemeal moves are a form of "scouting"??? Or wishful thinking--I think I'll just waltz into that VL--oops, maybe I'd better send a few more guys!) Also, the AI often brings arty spotters much too close to the firing line, sometimes losing them before they've done any firing of their own. I think what this indicates is that coordinating an attack is a high level skill that's pretty much beyond the AI's powers. Note that computers do pretty well coordinating CHESS attacks (at least, I'm damned if I can beat a computer at chess more than once in a blue moon.) The higher level of messy contingency in CM seems to make attack-coordination a very elusive AI skill, whereas it can deal with chess moves because they're more deterministic. It's better at defense because defense is more reactive. Still, I'm not sure I'd want the AI a LOT better than it is. A LITTLE, but not a lot. I pretty much gave up computer chess when I could no longer win without completely crippling Chessmaster 6000's virtual brain. Even Kasparov surrendered in his championship match against the latest model computer brain! I think I'd hate to face an AI that could massacre me every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunnee Posted April 25, 2001 Share Posted April 25, 2001 yeah, the AI has a tendency to throw everything into one hastily prepared assault, usually against a narrow part of your line adjacent a VL. All u gotta do if your defending is wait for it and smoke em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 A guaranteed way to beat the AI (Well, 98% guarantee...) is to set out a "Sacrificial Lamb" unit to draw the AI's units into a massive ambush. I've noticed that if the AI has nothing to shoot at for a couple of turns except a lone target, it will send all or most of its forces towards that target. Very Borg-like. Then you can set up the mother of all L-shaped or Pocket ambushes and slaughter the AI. Then get bored and go play PBEM or TCP/IP Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunnee Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 I do that when I'm on the attack Gyrene, works like a charm everytime, although sometimes you sweat a little for that "sacrificial lamb". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts