Illogical AI Formation when Attacking

[winkelried]

I have a reinforced US infantry company (a AI group with 3 Inf Plt 1 MMG Plt and 1 HMG Plt) attacking a position. They move with a plan with intermediate targets which are set at areas on the map where they find natural firing positions (e.g. elevated railroad track, river or creek). I saw now more than once, that the AI sends the HMG/MMG attacking up front and the infantry follows behind - once they attacked a big factory like that - and naturally the HMG/MMG get badly mauled. It would be more logical, when the MMG and HMG remain in the last position (giving cover) and moving forward only when the infantry has reached the next target.

[winkelried]

BTW: The FO assigned to the same group behaves much more conservatively. He stays behind and is very careful.

[SteveP]

I have given up on my other thread on this subject, but here is what I have seen after testing it many, many times:

1. With Advance, squads move with Assault and everyone else moves with Quick. The HQ and all support teams, except mortars (which have long delays), arrive at the next Map Zone first (if they aren't killed or pinned along the way).

2. With Assault, you get basically the same behavior as Advance, except that HQs (which include FOs) hang back with the mortars.

3. I still haven't quite figured out Max Assault, except like Dash it probably should be used infrequently and over very short distances. Perhaps you have looked at this?

[winkelried]

I have given up on my other thread on this subject, but here is what I have seen after testing it many, many times:

I saw the same thing, but with the explanation BF gave in the other thread i now understand what is happening. If you separate the units into two different groups it works perfectly. you just need to fiddle a bit with the timing or the "running" HMGs will overtake the advancing infantry.

just fine with me. and I hope BF will give us more groups 16 or 24 would be nice ...

[winkelried]

3. I still haven't quite figured out Max Assault, except like Dash it probably should be used infrequently and over very short distances. Perhaps you have looked at this?

yes i did. I use Dash it in two battles. When a unit gets close to a target which is either friendly or unoccupied and wants to avoid inaccurate firing (e.g. in a night battle) i let the unit dash the last 200 - 300 meters after approaching with advance. Max assault i haven't used yet. but i will probably in the 4th battle of my campaign.

[SteveP]

I saw the same thing, but with the explanation BF gave in the other thread i now understand what is happening. If you separate the units into two different groups it works perfectly. you just need to fiddle a bit with the timing or the "running" HMGs will overtake the advancing infantry.

just fine with me. and I hope BF will give us more groups 16 or 24 would be nice ...

Won't work with QBs. I agree that there are workarounds for scenarios. However, I think that Advance is worse than useless, so it makes more sense to apply the workarounds while using the Assault order (IMHO). At least then you only have to worry about the support teams.

But for an AI attacking in a QB, the AI would still have high casualties in Support Teams like MGs, even if you edited the AI Plans to take out Advance and substitute Quick or Assault. But the HQs would be safer and that counts for a lot.

Edit: Actually, I think that it may be only the bazooka/shrek teams that commit suicide when a group is using Assault. The MGs may be protected sufficiently. That seems like an OK situation, especially in an infantry only attack.

[winkelried]

i have to admit, that i extremely rarely play QBs against the AI (i can't remember more than 2 such battles) - although I play CM now since CM:BO ...

AI is always too stupid without the help of a scenario designer. So better leave it. QBs are good in PBEM - that's where i use them.

[SteveP]

i have to admit, that i extremely rarely play QBs against the AI (i can't remember more than 2 such battles) - although I play CM now since CM:BO ...

AI is always too stupid without the help of a scenario designer. So better leave it. QBs are good in PBEM - that's where i use them.

I haven't done anything with QBs in CMBN at all yet, other than to note that they make heavy use of the Advance Order, so I would edit that for any QB that I wanted to play defense on. However, that is as much as I can say about QBs at this point.

I am also concerned about tank force attacks by the AI, in either scenarios or QBs, but that's another one I haven't tried any real editing on either. So, we will see.

[Sgt Joch]

I have a reinforced US infantry company (a AI group with 3 Inf Plt 1 MMG Plt and 1 HMG Plt) attacking a position. They move with a plan with intermediate targets which are set at areas on the map where they find natural firing positions (e.g. elevated railroad track, river or creek). I saw now more than once, that the AI sends the HMG/MMG attacking up front and the infantry follows behind - once they attacked a big factory like that - and naturally the HMG/MMG get badly mauled. It would be more logical, when the MMG and HMG remain in the last position (giving cover) and moving forward only when the infantry has reached the next target.

I presume you are moving the group as a whole?

For example, one thing you can do is break up the Coy and plan moves as you would do if you were playing the game. For example, break up each platoon in a separate AI group and the support assets in a 4th group.

You could then order all groups to move to the start line. Move your support group to a position where it can support the attack, choose something easy, for example woods or a building.

You can then order each platoon to successively move towards the objective while the other two platoons provide covering fire.

With some fine tuning, you can usually get the scenario editor to do what you want it to.

[winkelried]

For example, one thing you can do is break up the Coy and plan moves as you would do if you were playing the game.

My words, see my post on the other thread SteveP started. What I need are more groups. E.g. when I have a battalion to handle like that, 8 groups are not enough. I have a scenario with the following setup:

3 inf coy reinforced with heavy weapons (= 6 groups)

one of these coys should split at some moment into 2 squads + 1 squad so I get 2 additional groups (2 x infantry + 2 x heavy weapons)

so i am out of groups ;-)

[Sgt Joch]

Agree completely, 8 groups is not enough, we have been asking for more AI groups for a long time.

[winkelried]

Agree completely, 8 groups is not enough, we have been asking for more AI groups for a long time.

Hurraaa!!!

[jocke_p]

Agree completely, 8 groups is not enough, we have been asking for more AI groups for a long time.

I would like to add my voice to the request for more ai groups. I am working on several large scenarios and one huge campaign and i would need at least 20-24 ai groups to be able to do exactly what i want with regard to ai behaviour.

BR

Joakim

[Sarjen]

Add my voice. And i woud like to see (since CMSF that is) the AI plans to utilize all movement possibilities we as the player have at our disposal. Move or Hunt ist not used by the AI.