BigDork Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 I am in the process of posting an AAR over at MZO. While I am far from an expert when it comes to tactics and all you can all come look at the pretty pictures and tell me how much I messed up the battle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDork Posted July 31, 2007 Author Share Posted July 31, 2007 I've finished posting and any constructive feedback would be appreciated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hev Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Realy good report mate, well written and nicely depicted with the screenshots. Im impressed with how well you did, only 3 kia even with the t55 hit. As a side note, what settings did you use for the battle? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bean Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 pretty nice, i like the pics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 BigDork thanks for your report. Did you notice that AI didn't do a single move while you were playing? Did you notice that those 2 tanks just stayied there waiting for you? Didn't you feel like you were playing alone? Your report seems to confirm what I've seen since now. I refer to my discussion about AI performances. Regards,Kieme 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achim Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 @Kieme(ITA): I though the same. Seems like the AI puts the inf. in trenches and thats it. No RPG inf. in the trench near the starting position of the US Player. No cover for the tanks on the top of the hill. No fire from the tank to help their inf. in the trenches. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InvaderCanuck Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 I've played 3 or 4 QB's now and the AI has done nothing in all of them. They rarely if ever even return fire when I finally cross the map and reach them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDork Posted July 31, 2007 Author Share Posted July 31, 2007 Actually when I clicked on the tanks the were listed as T-55 Static. That would probably be why they didn't move. However, the infantry didn't move at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameroon Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 I dunno why Invader's AI opponent isn't returning fire, but in BigDork's QB the Syrian AI is on the defense with a static plan (I looked at the map in the editor). Since the infantry are already set up in the best cover that they can be in, the not moving makes sense. For the life of me I can't recall how the AI in the CMx1 titles would have reacted, but I think it would have sat on its flags just like the AI sat in the objective zones. Guess it's time for me to play a QB. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Try to play more QBs you'll see what this is about... Defensive plan or not there's something wrong if 3 fized T-55 stay at 10 meters one from each other... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameroon Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Originally posted by Achim: @Kieme(ITA): I though the same. Seems like the AI puts the inf. in trenches and thats it. No RPG inf. in the trench near the starting position of the US Player. No cover for the tanks on the top of the hill. No fire from the tank to help their inf. in the trenches. The CM AI - all versions - has been pretty weak at placing units in an optimal position. If you played any of the CMx1 titles, you'd find ATGs and anti-inf guns placed in good cover, but with no field of fire, etc. The static tanks that the AI was given fall into that category. Not to say that it shouldn't be improved, but it's definitely a hard problem. Also, I think that QB map does not have a good AI plan at all. The setup zone should allow the defending AI to place units in a much greater area, but if you look at it, it's basically right on the trenches. So all the setup has to be within that space, and since it's a defense, the AI just sits tight. I wonder how the AI would do if it had a better defensive plan for that map, and if I get the chance tonight I'm going to make some of those plan changes and see how it goes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameroon Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Originally posted by Kieme(ITA): Try to play more QBs you'll see what this is about... Defensive plan or not there's something wrong if 3 fized T-55 stay at 10 meters one from each other... I think you missed the part where he said they were static The AI has always had issues setting up static (or near static) defensive units in a way that humans would. Like I said above, I'm all for improvements to the AI being made, but figuring out where to place static defenses isn't easy. [Edit] Sorry, missed the "fixed = fixed" The rest stands though, the AI has never been good at that. I also think there might not have been enough room in the setup areas. It's something I want to play with in the editor, since I think his experience is a results of the AI having a poor plan to work with from the beginning. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVulture Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Just to make it very clear: the Syrian research threads in the build up to this game indicated that a large fraction of T-55s are built into static positions (about 1,200 T-55s out of 4,600 or so total tanks IIRC) and are entirely unable to move. Whether they should be represented as T-55's parked on the ground and not moving rather than mostly buried in concrete or whatever is another question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athkatla Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Originally posted by Kieme(ITA): BigDork thanks for your report. Did you notice that AI didn't do a single move while you were playing? Did you notice that those 2 tanks just stayied there waiting for you? Didn't you feel like you were playing alone? Your report seems to confirm what I've seen since now. I refer to my discussion about AI performances. Regards,Kieme Why would defending infantry move out of perfectly good trenches? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Ok first: I'm very fond of static defences, I live in one of the world's regions with the most bunker concentration ever (North-eastern Italy). I've studied fixed defences myself during the past years and I can tell you that in any case 3 tanks in fixed position would never be placed in that way, some tens meters from each other... So much for the extreme realism which prevented the possibility to choose single units... The problem you people have recognized regards wrong basic programming by the map designer, letting so little space for the defending force, so that I'm asking you: isn't this a problem big enought to talk about? What I'd like to understand here is about what AI could do apart from the basic instructions the map designer can apply.... That infantry in trench is ok, for sure. But what about any other situation, did you ever see the AI acting jut after having the basic plan executed? What can you tell me about that thread I created in tech issues forum, about this matter? Finally, let me put this straight: if I play a scenario a second time I'll face an enemy who will apply the very same tactic. Is this right? Since now I've seen this kind of situation only. In QB battles IA doesn't even exist, is this true? Since now I've seen this only. [ July 31, 2007, 06:31 AM: Message edited by: Kieme(ITA) ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDork Posted July 31, 2007 Author Share Posted July 31, 2007 Originally posted by Hev: Realy good report mate, well written and nicely depicted with the screenshots. Im impressed with how well you did, only 3 kia even with the t55 hit. As a side note, what settings did you use for the battle? Thank you. Yeah, I was shocked by that as well. I expected the number to be flipped around. Not that I'm complaining. Small battle, probe, rough terrain, Stryker medium infantry vs Syrian random infantry 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taki Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Why would defending infantry move out of perfectly good trenches? Because it have to fear of Heavy Artillery Support? Because they have to do a HIt&Run Gurilla Tactic? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athkatla Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Originally posted by Taki: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Why would defending infantry move out of perfectly good trenches? Because it have to fear of Heavy Artillery Support? Because they have to do a HIt&Run Gurilla Tactic? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameroon Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Originally posted by Taki: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Why would defending infantry move out of perfectly good trenches? Because it have to fear of Heavy Artillery Support? Because they have to do a HIt&Run Gurilla Tactic? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameroon Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Originally posted by Kieme(ITA): Ok first: I'm very fond of static defences, I live in one of the world's regions with the most bunker concentration ever (North-eastern Italy). I've studied fixed defences myself during the past years and I can tell you that in any case 3 tanks in fixed position would never be placed in that way, some tens meters from each other... So much for the extreme realism which prevented the possibility to choose single units... The problem you people have recognized regards wrong basic programming by the map designer, letting so little space for the defending force, so that I'm asking you: isn't this a problem big enought to talk about? What I'd like to understand here is about what AI could do apart from the basic instructions the map designer can apply.... That infantry in trench is ok, for sure. But what about any other situation, did you ever see the AI acting jut after having the basic plan executed? What can you tell me about that thread I created in tech issues forum, about this matter? Finally, let me put this straight: if I play a scenario a second time I'll face an enemy who will apply the very same tactic. Is this right? Since now I've seen this kind of situation only. In QB battles IA doesn't even exist, is this true? Since now I've seen this only. Well, as you say, it's the map designer's plan that the AI is stuck with and the plan just is not so great I don't know that I'll get an opportunity to try it out this evening, but I want to take that map and see what can be done to give the AI a better plan to work with. At least in this case we, I think, all agree that the AI needs more setup space. With the QBs and scenarios, the AI is given a plan that includes the objectives that it has. In the case of the map above, it's sitting on those objectives. In all the versions of CM so far, if the AI (or human, really) is in control of the objectives then basically it's a matter of sitting and waiting. If you want the AI to move around, you'd have to play a QB where the AI is not supposed to defend. I also wouldn't be surprised if some of the AI's behavior has to do with the chain of command that's in CMx2. Perhaps it's "playing" at Elite and so maybe forces that we as humans would use to counter an attack don't even know that there's a threat yet. That'd be an interesting tidbit to find out. I've seen people mention that the AI troops rarely returned fire or don't move if they're supposed to be attacking, and that is definitely something else entirely and I have no idea what's going on there. Hopefully some enterprising individuals will go out and create some QBs that give the AI a better chance. I plan on trying my hand at it, at least to see what's possible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Thanks for your reply. So please reply to this matter I've been wondering a lot: Is AI based only upon what the scenario designer decided for it? Is it true that there is NOTHING else about AI beside that? See my post below for my AI experiences... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVulture Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 As I understand it there are now more or less 3 levels of AI. The highest level - the Strat AI - is scripted by the scenario designer and is attatched to the map (and for quick battles you still need some kind of AI plan suitable for the battle type with the map - a map that only has a defensive plan will have the units doing nothing in an ME or an attack AIUI). The lowest level is the Tac AI, which is the one the player has to live with too. It is what determines how the units follow their orders - picking targets out of covered arcs, deciding when and what to fire, chosing the precise path to reach a waypoint, deciding when to abandon the plan under incoming fire and seek cover. That sort of stuff. There logically has to be an intermediate level AI as well, which has the job of turning the stratAI plan into a series of movement and target orders (as per what the player does), that are then interpretd by the tacAI. But this sounds fairly minimal, since the stratAI is fairly detailed. The stratAI might say that group A has to move quickly (on the assumption of no enemy ocntact) to point X, then advance in bounded overwatch to point Y (starting at time t) and hold position there, shooting at any targets. The mid level AI just has to chose waypoints, delays and movement commands that achieve those conditions. By the sounds of it, it doesn't try and adapt the plans in any way (if contact is made earlier than expected for example), so for really good scenarios a great deal of testing is require to get the stratAI plans just right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameroon Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Keep in mind that the map's plan doesn't influence the Tac AI at all, just the goals that the computer opponent tries to achieve. Also, the Tac AI is active for both the computer opponent AND the human player. TheVulture has a good description of the various parts of the AI. [Edit] Kieme, I posted in your AI thread in the tech support forum. There's definitely something that - at least some times - is very wrong for QBs and setup. [ August 01, 2007, 07:25 AM: Message edited by: Cameroon ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.