Just how "I" is the AI?

[RockinHarry]

Is there any inter awareness between different AI groups? Assuming sending forward a small reccon team (or a small HQ with radio, possibly an unused Cpy HQ) in Group1 and it stumbles into opposition, will it report back to it´s senior HQ (with all combat troops) in Group2 and influence it´s movement/assault behavior, when it starts moving?

Or is it rather like:

"Well, Group1..thanks for reporting, but we in Group2 have our (movement) orders and rely on our own sightings".

Generally I´ll try to stick with simple plans and keep combat frontages into consideration, when assigning "assault" or "max assault" (or any other) orders onto a "map objective".

Same goes for "assembly point" occupy zones, which should give a particular unit an appropiately sized assembly zone deployment, before it is allowed to move further on its "assault" occupy zone. Think this should then create an appropiately sized "company line", as the AI usually tries to "fill out" all of the assigned occupy zones.

For a US infantry platoon, with all squads forward, this could be an occupy zone of about 80-100m width and at least 2-3 action spots deep. Yet need to test what the AI makes of more zone depth than "necessary" (100x100m, instead of 100x30m).

So movement behavior from zone to zone also is influenced by size and shape of zones. Yet again need to test how the AI deals with terrain between occupy zones and if it sticks to a certain combat frontage (as predefined by zone size), or if it gets channelized by certain terrain elements, as well as enemy opposition.

Interesting stuff....

[RockinHarry]

One thing I did notice, with infantry, was that max assault caused them to move forward in 'leaps' just as in the assault order BUT by crawling only! This certainly reduced casualties, but once the whole group were off the start line for that movement it actually reduced fire output AND tired them out as well. This meant even if they were successful they were too tired to doing anything afterwards.

Whereas Assault simply mimics the assault order.

Advance seemed very much to be a 'carry on regardless' type of order resulting in casualties until morale causes a reaction.

Now that you say, I remember having it seen in my MOUT test scenario as well, infantry crawling through the streets in "max assault" mode.

Looks like "max assault" would then be good for support units further back, OR for assault infantry attempting to break into a position just few meters away. Interesting...