Should the AI attack?

[Paper Tiger]

The following quote comes from a review of my campaign on CMMODS posted by somebody called Larsen.

"I learned things that one shouldn't do when designing battles in CMSF:

1. AI should never attack. Although it is better than in CM it still sucks."

:eek: Well, whilst I agree that the AI has no ability to react to anything that the player does AND, it will move its infantry into artillery fire zones, I personally think it can do a reasonable enough job to warrant trying. I really don't want to play missions where I'm the attacker all the time.

What do you guys think? And if you do enjoy being on the receiving end, which missions have given you the best challenge.

[Secondbrooks]

Just opposite. AI ain't iniative, so it doesn't play well in defence if player can have space to move it's troops around map and form force consentrations agaisnt small part of defenders (most main campaing's attack missions shows this). If i have narrow pipe which i have to move across and there is not space to manuver, then it another thing..

AI does well static defence (well human can aswell by not doing anything), but defender usually has less strenght so it should read the situation and act activelly acording situation, in hope to gain any success.

On attack then again computer has ability to force player to react, while it executes it's own plans. It has the iniative. Still it doesn't react to humans actions, but atleast human can't run the show by itself.

There fore: I find statement that AI shouldn't attack quite absurd. Because i think that AI's "strenghts" are more present on attack than on defence. It is better attacker than active defender. Static ain't the way defending should be thought but that is pretty much only way AI can be planned to behave.

Sure AI does worse some things, like crawl of death for infantry etc. which are not present on defence as they remain in place (but AI's skill to manage fire patches this in some way, usually quite well).

I tend to not to play as attacker in scenarions as passivety of defending AI is just too plain.

[Webwing]

The responsibility is mostly on the mission designer's side.

In my experience when designing a mission, it is much easier to make the AI as defender in a mission than as attacker. It's a lot more work as the attacker, but it can be effective both ways.

If you play a mission where the AI does a good job at attacking this is due to the designer having made a good strategic plan. It has also to do with the TAC AI taking care of the details and surprises.

Paper Tiger's campaign is a good example.

His missions are probably the best examples of what I just said. The AI side has a lot of initiative, is very aggressive and "clever". I have no doubt he spent a lot of time preparing those attacks.

The last one from George Mc has also some pretty nasty flanking maneuvers from the AI with perfect timing.

If you add to this, several AI plans, you can have a very human like attack.

-

[SgtMuhammed]

The problem with the AI in the defense is that you have to try to time things to happen based off what you think the player is going to do. Where as the old system would automatically do things, not always the correct thing, based on how what its mission was, the new system will only do what the player tells it to.

This increased designer control has its good and bad sides. You can make wonderfully complex plans that have units moving all over the place but they can do little to react to player actions. On the other hand the old system reacted to player actions in extremely predictable ways and was easy to beat once you figured it out.

So my point is, how successful the AI is in either the attack or defense depends on the scenario designer as never before.

[ChrisND]

If you want to see a nasty AI attack, play the fifth mission in Paper Tiger's Hasrabit campaign. I think it was the fifth.. it was the one where you must stop them from getting too close to the helicopter base. The AI kicked my butt!

[SgtMuhammed]

George added a new plan for his Armor Attacks mission that I was testing for him. I was moving along with my standard plan when I got hit in the flank. While I was scrambling to straighten that out I lost track of my lead elements. Within 5 minutes I had suffered a total defeat in a scenario I have played at least 7 or 8 times.

It can be done. If you don't like what is out there then by all means open the scenario editor and have a go. The community can always use new designers.

[Webwing]

Originally posted by SgtMuhammed:

Within 5 minutes I had suffered a total defeat in a scenario I have played at least 7 or 8 times.

Whenever I play anything from George I'm extra careful.

I see a house far away that is not even an objective and I know it is not there by chance!

He gives you 90 min. I know for sure I will need all the time!

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

If you want to see a nasty AI attack, play the fifth mission in Paper Tiger's Hasrabit campaign. I think it was the fifth.. it was the one where you must stop them from getting too close to the helicopter base. The AI kicked my butt!

I haven't got that far yet, but PT has done a great job, no doubt.

-

[MarkEzra]

Consider, too, that the AI multiple plans for defense or attack can make even the scen designer look like a chump in very short order. My understanding is BFC views the editor and the AI component to be evolutionary at this point.

[dan/california]

Steve has stated that some ability for the AI to respond to conditions on the ground is a fairly high priority for future development.

Even basic instructions like " Attack when X number of enemy units reach zone Y" would make a huge difference.

[Paper Tiger]

Normaldude

"If you want to see a nasty AI attack, play the fifth mission in Paper Tiger's Hasrabit campaign. I think it was the fifth.. it was the one where you must stop them from getting too close to the helicopter base. The AI kicked my butt!"

Thanks for that. You've no idea how much time went into crafting that attack. I wanted the AI to USE what I gave it as effectively as possible. It really doesn't have much of a numerical advantage over you and your AT-13 teams can take his tanks apart with relative ease as long as they're not Hull Down (great addition to the game, BFC). But it can still really put the hurt you. But is it a fun mission to play? Probably not for most of us.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request