Is it Just Me, or is the AI Improved?

[Panzer Leader]

Spoiler? Ahh, we've all played it by now.....

I played Citadel last night as the Soviets, and pretty much just hit go, watching how the AI drove the tanks. They drove ever onward, stopped to engage targets, left broken crews alone (unless they tried to make a break for it) kept a semblence of platoon integrity (except for one wily PzIV) and pretty much behaved in a completely respectable manner.

I also finally finished Yelnia last night (as the Germans) and managed to eek out a minor victory, thenks mostly due to the fact that it ended on turn 25. I was breaking fast and was low on ammo. By turn 23, I had to evacuate the forest near the flag (the one adjacent to the wheat field). The AI it seems had discovered my weakness up there and kept pouring more and more men into it.

Anyhow, the AI seems more agressive for sure, and almost it seems a little better tactically minded.

I wonder - has anyone tried to reproduce Citadel in CMBO to see how it differs?

[MikeyD]

The AI regularly distressed the Beta tester by unexpectedly kicking their butts more often than the testers liked. I think oftentimes it uses its armor in a more coordinated manner... or maybe that's just my imagination.

[Agua]

It seems to me the tac a/i is doing a better job at more appropriate target acquisition with less of a borg fixation on certain threats. That could just be me imagining that, though.

[Poobear]

Spoils....

I played Citadel last night as the Germans. I allowed the computer to use free set-up as the Russians. I bypassed several of his infantry (ATR and tank hunter teams) w/ out killing them and moved on to my objectives. Throughout the rest of the battle the Russian infantry pursued and harassed my tanks. They destroyed 3 w/ rear shots. I ended up having to leave 2 tanks to my rear to ward them off. Pretty sneaky if you ask me! 3 cheers for the AI and BTS...hurrah, hurrah, hurrah!

[Pak40]

Originally posted by Poobear:

Spoils....

I played Citadel last night as the Germans. I allowed the computer to use free set-up as the Russians. I bypassed several of his infantry (ATR and tank hunter teams) w/ out killing them and moved on to my objectives. Throughout the rest of the battle the Russian infantry pursued and harassed my tanks. They destroyed 3 w/ rear shots. I ended up having to leave 2 tanks to my rear to ward them off. Pretty sneaky if you ask me! 3 cheers for the AI and BTS...hurrah, hurrah, hurrah!

The exact same thing happend to me. Once I reached the dried up river, I notice some tank hunter teams coming from the rocky areas, making fast for my tanks from their rear. The next turn, some AT rifles opened up on my tanks. I think at least two of my tanks were KO'd by ATRs.

Next time I will leave a small rear gaurd. Experience is the best teacher

[Claymore]

I think that most of you will find that the TacAI is no dramatic improvements in tactics over those in CMBO. The game is just too complex to allow for any but the most simplistic of TacAIs above the squad level. The coordination of a battalion of combined arms in warfare is extremely difficult for a software programmer. The best implementation of this I have seen so far has been in MajorH's TacOps where the computer opponent's tactics are scripted to a particular map. Its algorithms are entirely different to CM's approach of dropping the units on the map en masse and forcing the s/w to place and route them. Tactics within the platoon may have improved but it is difficult to say. Certainly there has been no invocation of a fire and maneuver type tactical AI from my play. The end result of any improvements my have more to do with the s/w having to use the greater variety of movement commands than in any overarching TacAI improvements.

As a test let's use the CMBB Stare demo where we get the first real test of the CMBB Infantry and Armor TacAI. Pump up the Allies Quality +2 and its forces by 50%. We will also use the EFOW state.

Now, the opening phase of any defensive battle is the quick identification of the enemy's location and likely target. This dominates the first few turns and quickly establishes who will have the initiative through the remaining turns. Retaining initiative is paramount in the defense (or in any other type of battle) The allocation of firepower resources, identification of the initial point of impact, identification of possible forces which may be shifted for reinforcement, and the establishment of a "defense in depth" all falls out of the initial turns.

This initial phase reveals the first of the TacAI's problems, the inability to create deception. The TacAI has no ability to generate even the most rudimentary MASKIROVKA this allows the human opponent incredible tactical latitude. In all cases the human need only "count the stars" in their inital setup locations and know for a certainty what they are going to be faced with. It is evident that CMBO and CMBB have no diffence in this category.

The next three problems of the TacAI are coupled, requiring a grouped treatment. These problems are a) its fixation on VLs, b)its path finding, c) reinforcement of failure and d) inadequate combined arms tactics. Recalling the Stare battle outlined above we find ourselves facing a number of "clumps" of generic stars on the field of battle. Due to the TacAI's qualities of a) and we are ensured that the Russian forces will plot movement orders directly towards the closest VL, with waypoints in locations of maximum cover. The game now is almost completely lost for the TacAI at this stage. Application of HMGs covering open ground along the opponent's movement path will either pin or panic the Russian troopers. I typically keyhole the HMG's covering arcs to minimize the chance of any enemy troops leaking though. If possible, overlapping these ARCs ensures maximum effect for every round expended. Once the troops have gone to ground a brief application of the available light artillery, only a few rounds, is sufficient to completely rout them. Leakage can either be handled by allowing the first defensive line to effect a gang-tackling ambush at ranges below 50m or by dropping some of the 50mm mortars. The fourth inadequacy, the reinforcement of failure, ensures that even when one group of Russian are destroyed the TacAI will feed its successive troops through the same meatgrinder. The only real wildcard which has effected the number of troops to reach a VL in any of my runnings of the Stare demo has been the relative success of the 37mm against the seven T-34s. In cases where the 37mms have not managed to whittle down their numbers to 3 or less, the tanks are able to advance close enough to gain LOS to the first defensive line. In these cases the Germans are forced to fall back to a successive defensive line. In all of my runnings of the Stare demo the Russians have not demonstrated any tactical useage of their artillery. The only combined arms I have seen is the T-34s hanging back until German positions are located by advancing infantry. The TacAI for the tanks themselves doesn't seem to be any observable improvement over the CMBO algorithms. They are just as likely to mill about in bumpercar fashion near some computer chosen piece of real estate. I find no real fault or surprise at this since to generate anything with greater intelligence would daunting, to say the least. I'm having great fun with the demo so far but contests against the computer require "dialing" up its advantage exactly like I had to in CMBO.

To paraphrase somebody from the past "It is the Quantity of the Russian forces which will have a percieved Qualitative effect on the CM TacAI".

Humans however are devious bastages and given the greatly improved set of tactical orders, will prove to be very frustrating. In my view those CMBO players who were wizards with infantry and artillery will dominate the CMBB ladders.

Excellent product BFC and thanks for taking my advance order.

Cheers

MRD

[Panzer76]

God post Claymore, and I agree. I can (so far) not see any noticeable improvement in the AI. Maybe when I get the full game, but somehow I doubt it.

[Guest Mike]

Personally I reckon it's just PL.

He's getting more stoopid and so the AI LOOKS like it's gettign better to him!!

[Chad Harrison]

I dont think that it is improved, I think it just have more to its advantage now, especially on the defence. Look forward to playing hundreds of battles against the AI when the demo comes out. I just hope its purchasing abilities has improved over CMBO in QB's.

Chad

[ARRPEEGEE]

In all fairness, though, the AI will always play defense better than offense. The targeting AI has improved alot, but, that tends to help you, the player, too. So, it's a better game against the AI now..Still not as good as a human, but..this ain't chess.

[Cameroon]

I guess this is a counterpoint to Claymore's post. I certainly agree with his points about the problems handed to the StratAI. However, what I've seen of the AI's gameplay has definitely left me with the impression that many improvements have been made. And no, the AI isn't whipping me in games. Its just doing a lot better than in CMBO.

In every game I've played I've seen the AI use tanks much more intelligently than in CMBO. I've not, for instance, seen them playing bumper-cars as before and when they get too close to another vehicle (say it has become shocked or was in HUNT mode and acquired a target), they tend to back off and re-route much sooner and the movement to accomplish the re-routes is more swift than in CMBO.

I've been playing Citadel a bunch lately, trying to do something effective there as the Russians. Each time I've watched the AI do some very cool things. In just my last game, it felt a pin prick (a LONG way from any flag, right near the start). The flank which was pricked, did a partial about face and sent a few tanks to check out the disturbance. Seeing nothing wrong, they resumed their advance at which point I really hammered them. From that point on, the AI seemed to say "ok, screw that flank and those flags over there." It definitely did not make an effort to renew the approach to that side of the map. In fact, it came up out of the riverbed on the left (as one is facing from the german start zone).

Speaking of Citadel, I was expecting to see the 15 or so tanks all tangled up and doing nothing as in CMBO. Hasn't happened yet. Tanks stop in overwatch, advance in numbers and generally stay together. It's been impressive, to say the least.

I pretty much agree with the infantry bit though. By and large you can guess where they will come from. On the other hand, I have seen the AI make a couple multi-pronged attacks (including dividing up AFV assets). I don't recall seeing many of those in CMBO.

Like anything, YMMV and stay skeptical. I don't know what the changes were in the Strat- and Tac- AIs (there obviously had to be some with all the new commands) but what I've seen has been encouraging. Only time will tell if what's changed has actually made the AI a better player.

[The ol one eye.]

Playing as the Germans in the tutorial and Yelnia I have yet to see tanks leading in with infantry far behind, if that little problem is fixed, its an improvement.

[Fetchez la Vache]

In the Stare scenerio I couldn't see any improvement. Tanks in particular seemed to bunch up too often for my liking really.

I felt the AI was better in AFV formation control as the Axis in the Citadel scenerio though. I swear I see the Panzers employ over-watch (or at least I imagine they are ).

But programming a good attacking AI in any game must be nearly impossible. The best AI at the end of the day is a human opponent, and is what CM is really all about imo.

*edit: check spelling before posting, check spelling before posting, check spelling before posting, check spelling before posting, check...

[ September 06, 2002, 05:49 AM: Message edited by: Fetchez la Vache ]

[demoss]

It may be worth noting that tanks "just milling around" may be doing so because they are routed. As for deception in Yelnia, the terrain and troop quality only allows so much....

[Poobear]

Originally posted by The ol one eye.:

Playing as the Germans in the tutorial and Yelnia I have yet to see tanks leading in with infantry far behind, if that little problem is fixed, its an improvement.

I played this scenarion as the Germans and despite the fact that I squeeked out a victory I was never able to kill any T-34s as he kept them out of reach from infantry. I would say that that is an improvement over CMBO, IMO.

[Agua]

Stating the obvious here, but scenario design is hugely determinative of the strategic a/i's performance. I've done some testing for folks before and even minor changes in flag placement and setup locations can have a huge effect upon whether the a/i does dumb stuff like have its tanks out race its infantry into a city and such.

[Lars]

In Yelnia I held out till turn 29 as Germans and won a major vic.

The Tac AI seemed the same as CMBO (indecisive) as a human player would have driven the T-34's up behind a mass of infantry and just proceeded to blow away one flank.

Of course, there is the possibility we as players have all gotten smarter in the last two years.

[KG_Jag]

Based on what I've seen in the demo (and yes it's only a demo with more development and patches to come---but also with alot more to handle, such as air power, if "full" scenarios), the AI is better, but still does incredibly dumb things.

Playing the Soviets in Citadel, I had an anti- tank rifle team in the woods where a victory flag is located. A Mark IV parked itself near the flag to secure the victory location. I was able to sneek the team to about 15 meters from the rear of the Mark IV. I kept firing and hitting it, so I wasn't surprised that it moved away to a range of 85 to 90 meters. I still hit it as it moved way and even made some partial penetrations. However, instead of moving even further way, it came back alone and parked itself at a slightly differenet location near the same victory flag. I again moved by anit-tank rifle right behind the Mark IV, this time at only 11 meters. Again I peppered it. In the last few turns before the game ended, the Mark IV did not move (probably becaue it was routed or broken). The secondary question here is: what good are anti-tank rifles, if they can't (or didn't) take out the tank under these circumstances?

The other example of less than stellar AI play was demonstrated when I played the Germans in Yelnia. Most of the time the T-34s sat around in the middle of the map not doing much. It is as though their job was to protect the infantry from a couter-attack. This game went on and on beyond its scheduled length. Had it ended as scheduled, I would have earned a minor victory, but the extra time let the Soviets blead what few troops, with even less ammo, I had left. after about ten extra turns, the Soviets got the minor victory. Better use of their tanks would have left me in a very bad way at the scheduled end of the battle. The secondary question here is: why are the Germans given such weak ant-tank defense? Two small anti-tank guns don't last long, and in my case did not bag a single T-34. Maybe I just should have let them open up at the beginning of the battle instead of hiding them for around 5 or 6 turns.

[Little_Black_Devil]

In Tom Clancy's book "Into the Storm: A Study in Command", Gen.Fred Franks Jr.(ret.) mentions the value of "options" to the commander.

The more options the commander has, or can create for himself, the more opportunity is created or can be created to defeat the enemy.

Now - I don't think that the AI has necessarily been beefed up, tweaked or otherwise made "smarter".

What I do think, is that through virtue of the number of new features in the game (like optics and types of movement for example), the computer has - at its disposal "more options". I certainly don't think that the AI is "intelligent" enough, to sit back and reflect upon doctrine or tactics, or even create a simple plan to follow. It simply moves all of its stuff towards your stuff (or flags), and slugs it out.

That having been said, I think that it is possible, that through the computers ability to use some of the new features - it may "appear" to be more intelligent, where no real increase in intelligence has been made.

The fact that the computer now has more "options" to choose from, means that when it executes actions in offence or defence against the human player - that it can do more (than in CMBO).

So far, in the demo, I have seen the computer use the "shoot & scoot" move. I have also seen, with the new addition of armoured command units, tanks function a little more like small units, rather than individual weapons platforms. Perhaps thats just my perception.

I've also seen the computer advance to hull down positions. I've also seen it perform, what I'll losely refer to as "fire and movement" with its tanks in the Citadel Scenario. I don't think this was necessarily intentional on the computer's part - but its appearence and effect were cool nonetheless. In this case, I suspect that the AI was advancing to contact, and when some individual tanks made contact, they stopped and fired (covered), while the remaining units simply continued to advance. The targets to which the computer was engaging usually - but not always were either destroyed (and therefore disapeared) or fell back (reversed behind cover, and subsequently disapeared). Perhaps the fact that I always set up my defensives in depth, explains why the enemy always seemed to have a number of his forces engaging some of my units, while others advanced, thus reinforcing the illusion that he was using fire and movement.

In any event - I knew it was not a "concious" decision or tactic which the computer was employing, but its effect was what I found to be impressive and just plain old cool to see; despite my losses.

As has been menioned above, this is a demo, so it doesn't reflect the whole game. So, perhaps there will be more to see; either "new" seemingly apparent AI advances in its fighting ability, or perhaps more evidence that while you are fighting a battle, the computer is just executing algorithms. In any event, the illusion of a somewhat capeable opponent remains.

Either way, I'm still having an absolute blast on my end, regardelss of the AI's "intelligence", as its appearence to me, is that of an "opponent" who can't entirely be written off as a threat, due to the options it has at its disposal, and the units it has at its disposal to make those options a reality.

But thats me.