CMBB: AI on the attack?

[markshot]

I am still playing CMBO and plan to get CMBB next year.

Like most players, I quickly learned that the AI is more challenging in the role of the defender than the attacker (especially in well crafted scenarios). I was just curious if the CMBB AI shows improvements when playing as the attacker? Will the AI still do such things as:

Send tanks in ahead of infantry?

Make attacks in a piece meal fashion as opposed to coordinated attack?

...

Thanks.

[Redwolf]

I gained the impression it improved a lot in CMBB. In special there is no initial rush of artillery spotters (because they are too slow now ) but also the protection of tanks, and leapfrogging seems to be improved.

[Terrapin]

I've never seen tanks go in before infantry by the AI. I actually think they should move the tanks up quicker than they do.

The AI, from my experience, does a "mass attack" on one point, with usually a platoon or two to the sides to cover the flank (or just luck). If the scenario designer starts the attacker in two or more different assembly areas, you will, of couse, see a "two pronged" attack, and those come off pretty well.

The one thing I noticed it's NOT good at doing, is sitting on the victory locations. It tends to ignore those and just go after your troops. If you don't care too much about that final score (where the VL's are highly valuable), you won't care, and to be honest, it's more realistic if they're not worried about holding onto the VL, but just moving forward.

[markshot]

Originally posted by Terrapin:

I've never seen tanks go in before infantry by the AI. I actually think they should move the tanks up quicker than they do.

In CMBO, especially on heavily wooded maps with roads, I have seen the AI drive tanks down a road rather than scouting with 1/2 squad or advancing infantry 100 meters or so out in front along the two sides of the road. This invariably leads to too easy kills by panzerfausts, schrecks, and zooks.

{I suppose proper scenario design can partially address this by having the armor arrive on turn 5 or so. Then, infantry gets a head start on way down the road.}

Also, as mentioned above, I have noticed the big push to the objectives by the AI at times. However, at other times, I have noticed a sort of piece meal flow of units which drains the AI over time and bleeds out any chance of properly massing for a strong thrust.

I also had the impression that VLs act too much like magnets to the AI. Thus, on a multi-VL map, the AI will continuously stream units to a VL which it doesn't have to the point that it looses the resources to maintain its grip on the VLs which it does have. {This makes the following strategy viable: Find the defensible VLs. Let the AI attacker attrit itself against these VLs for 2/3s of the game. In the last 1/3 of the game, counter-attack the captured VLs now that the AI is too weak to hold them.}

Lastly, the AI will attack and try to hold a VL that's not very defensible rather than seek to eliminate the enemy forces on the map and seize the VL towards the end game.

---

So, playing attack by the player has seemed more challenging, since a well crafted scenario tightly integrated with the terrain and static unit placement can provide quite a challenge to advance through. On defense by the player, it seems more of throwing back one or two onslaughts, plugging up the holes, maintaining a reserve for counter-attacks, and keeping a few AFVs cached away for the end game. The AI doesn't seem to flank very well or coordinate attacks to probe for weaknesses or mass for taking one VL at a time while the defender is spread out protecting all VLs.

(All the above comments a based on CMBO; not CMBB.)

[Terrapin]

I just played a whole lot of QBs and made sure to look for this stuff.

Originally posted by markshot:

CMBO, especially on heavily wooded maps with roads, I have seen the AI drive tanks down a road rather than scouting with 1/2 squad or advancing infantry 100 meters or so out in front along the two sides of the road. This invariably leads to too easy kills by panzerfausts, schrecks, and zooks.

The AI isn't super bright about troop placement, but it does seem to be pretty careful with the tanks (i.e., it does a lot of shooting before it gets anywhere near your infantry), and it uses a combined arms tactic in most situations, so there's at least a few infantry around. Getting easy kills with any infantry anti-tank weapon is pretty rare. I've played a lot, and I've had only 4 kills, and they weren't easy. Plus, in the game, there's a lot less "bazookas, p-shreks, etc", due to the time-frame and area.

Also, as mentioned above, I have noticed the big push to the objectives by the AI at times. However, at other times, I have noticed a sort of piece meal flow of units which drains the AI over time and bleeds out any chance of properly massing for a strong thrust.

It depends on the map. In 90% of the cases I've seen, it uses a big push. Sometimes it does the piecemeal, but it seems pretty rare, and is usually caused by a REALLY strong defense, which probably means you'll win no matter what the AI does.

In 90% of the cases, there's a big push, with usually one or two flanks. Every once and a while the flanks are big too.

I also had the impression that VLs act too much like magnets to the AI. Thus, on a multi-VL map, the AI will continuously stream units to a VL which it doesn't have to the point that it looses the resources to maintain its grip on the VLs which it does have.

Actually, I think in CMBB the AI isn't nearly as dilligent enough at getting to the VLs. I've seen it totally ignore an available VL, even if it's 50 meters away (not getting the points at the end). The VLs guide the AI, that's what they're supposed to attack after all, but I haven't seen it put unnecessary resources on one VL. It likes to move forward.

I think the StratAI in the game is surprisingly decent, and is miles above any Close Combat. It does some stupid things sure, but overall it's very good.

[Frunze]

The key to getting the AI to send its tanks ahead is to avoid giving it anything to shoot at. Keep your troops on hide.

With no targets, the AI will send all its units ahead looking for some. Since the tanks are faster...

This actually worked on an (extremely inexperienced) human opponent once.

[CombinedArms]

Not sure whether the CMBB AI is any smarter when attacking but some factors may lead to better performance. One is the slowing down of arty spotters, already mentioned.

Another is that highly effective infantry AT weapons, like zooks/shrecks/piats are much less in evidence, so the AI can lead with its armor and suffer fewer consequences.

I still see a tendency toward piecemeal commitment on the part of the AI. And, after losing some early struggles to the AI, I'm starting to win major or total victories with some regularity, as I used to in CMBO. So I'm about ready to go back to giving the AI a force and/or experience boost--which I did after I learned the game in CMBO. A major change in AI performance may have to wait for the engine rewrite.

[Commander]

The lack of a "learning" AI really shows. If the AI had only a small memory of the battlefield then you would see a big difference in AI attacks. The difference would be noticable as the AI would see the stack of bodies in a kill zone and stop sending troops that way. Memory would also allow the AI to use encirclements and other flanking manuevers. I have seen the AI in CMBB split its forces and attack from several directions at once but you could tell there was no pre-planned reason for it other than an attempt to capture a VL.

[Olle Petersson]

Interesting thread...

I haven't yet played many battles where the AI had a chance to use combined arms tactics, so I'll have to trust your word on the behaviour.

What strikes me is that the AI does not strive to use historical tactics, but more modern and effective (like most players).

I'm currently half way through the book Tank versus Tank, by Kenneth Macksey. It comments the use of tanks, by themselves and in combination with infantry, ATGs and artillery.

According to this book...

... the Soviet army mostly used WW1 tactics up to mid '42. This means most tanks were spread in penny packets among the infantry, and coordination with the infantry was almost non-existant. Tanks moving in front of the infantry was not uncommon.

When tanks were used in company strength or more they often fought on their own, without any other support.

... from mid '42 tanks were (beginning to be) used massed and in coordination with the other arms.

... German '41 tactic was combined arms, with tanks leading (shortly) in front of the infantry. This wasn't as bad as it sounds, since most ATGs (37mm and 45mm) needed clean flank shots to score kills and thus had to let the German infantry get fairly close before they could start shooting.

Once the battle begun it wasn't uncommon that the infantry was held up in combat while the tanks moved on, possibly into an ambush.

... later on all participants used the tactics that still rule; Lead with infantry to find ambushers. Use artillery and other heavy weapons to soften the defense. Then move in with tanks.

Would it be nice to have an option where the AI use "historical" tactics? I think so.

Cheers

Olle

[Ex Bellator]

From my time against the AI it sees that it may well have various ideas about what it wants to do and deploys it's force well.

But it looks like it makes it's mind up about one particular objective being it's prime target, and everything moves towards it.

As a result you get a funnel type effect, which is great for defensive artillery.

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

... German '41 tactic was combined arms, with tanks leading (shortly) in front of the infantry. This wasn't as bad as it sounds, since most ATGs (37mm and 45mm) needed clean flank shots to score kills and thus had to let the German infantry get fairly close before they could start shooting.

Once the battle begun it wasn't uncommon that the infantry was held up in combat while the tanks moved on, possibly into an ambush.

According to my reading about the Battle of the Bulge, this could happen even as late as December '44, if the attack was urgent enough. US arty defending the villages below the Elsenborn Ridge was so intense that the infantry couldn't proceed. The tanks, attacking at night, would try to push on by themselves. Many were knocked out by flank shots from 57mm ATGs or by zooks. just like in CM. Others would get into the villages where the could be flanked and killed by Shermans working with infantry teams, again just like in CM. There are several good CMBO battles that mirror this.

[ December 13, 2002, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]