Deployment AI

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Deployment AI

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Wacht am Rhein >> Deployment AI

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Deployment AI - 11/10/2008 4:19:23 AM

TheReal_Pak40

Posts: 186
Joined: 10/8/2003
Status: offline

Please note that this was written as a response to Korsun's post in another thread but I felt that it warrants a new topic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Korsun
Without going too much into detail. I have played CC4, CC5, CoI and now WaR. Meanwhile I have had lots of battles in games like Sudden Strike, Blitzkrieg, Soldiers, Korsun Pocket, BiI, BiN, Highway to the Reich, World at War, Flashpoint Germany and others. All grognards would agree when I say that no AI can match a (skilled) human opponent. But the AI of WaR is one of the best I have encountered so far.

I have to strongly disagree. I've played all of the original CC series: 1-5, so I'm quite experienced playing against the AI. I didn't expect a miracle with WaR but I did expect an improvement. I have yet to see any major difference in computer tactical AI, nor any improvement in the deployment AI which I feel is the downfall of the series. It is common knowledge that the AI will do better on the defense, this is true for most tactical games. However, in the entire CC series the defensive AI is completely compromised by the HORRIBLE deployment of it's units. Too often infantry are deployed in fields or other open terrain in plain view of the human controlled units instead of in buildings or woods. And in many cases, these units are deployed with horrible fields of fire or in places that don't make sense from a tactical standpoint.

This After Action report demonstrates the horrible deployment AI:

I recently played the second battle in the Grand Campaign. I played the German VG battlegroup attacking a 106 ID battlegroup. I forget the town name but there were many buildings in it that the computer AI could set up in and a fair amount of woods on the northern side of the map also. I was given the upper right corner to deploy which only had two buildings and a few trees but no woods. The neutral area between us had many buildings which would help buffer my infantry and two SP guns. The computer AI had at least 15 buildings and woods on the north side to deploy in so I figured it would be a tough fight to root them out.

Carefully I advanced my infantry from building to building and into the nearest woods. After 10 minutes of this still had not seen any enemy. I had advanced through most of the town on the north side. Finally one of my infantry on the south side sees an enemy squad running in the open where it had deployed. I cut them down easy with some MG fire. My infantry on the north explore most of the woods and all of the buildings to the west and eventually spot an enemy squad dug in on the far side of the map. It is deployed on the side of the road next to some woods and near the exit to the map. This makes no tactical sense unless you want to abandon the map. Oh well, I just bring up my SP gun and kill them from a distance. Another squad in the woods next to this one opens up on my infantry.

So far, I have taken about 70% of the town and 80% of the woods. My next goal is to clear the houses to the south and check out the fields beyond that. I move through the entire town and don't find anyone. I take over the last two southern buildings only to find the rest of the U.S. force in plain view in a field near the southern exit road. This force includes several infantry and two large AT guns. I called in my off board mortars since these units are all bunched together in a field. They take heavy casualties before the time runs out and the battle ends.

In the end the enemy had about 30 dead or incapacitated. I had one dead, no wounded.

In conclusion: The Deployment AI decided to concede the entire town and about 80% of the woods YET it stuck around to defend the map from horribly exposed positions or from the woods near the exit where it had little or no field of fire. I was able to take every building without one casualty.

This is inexcusable. Where's the improvement in the AI?

Post #: 1

RE: Deployment AI - 11/10/2008 5:40:05 AM

Stwa

Posts: 484
Joined: 8/12/2005
Status: offline

I did so much posting in the last AI thread, I'm kinda afraid to wade into this one, but...

1. I have seen good and bad deployments from the AI. Just depends. My guess is the good deployments are basically luck, except that the AI does seem to deploy his forces near objectives when on defense etc..

2. The AI is probably what you saw in CC5, but only the developers can tell us for sure. (i.e. what specifically was improved).

3. Korsun's comment was general and mainly accepted. I think we all know that AI's as a general rule have a tough time against human opponents.

4. I don't want the AI to beat me, but I don't want the AI to be a moron either. I play differently against the AI, and I judge my performance different. If I took 30% casualties against the AI I would consider that game a loss, etc...

5. Also sounds like in your case the AI was stuck in a small deployment area, so was your game a meeting engagement, or were you the attacker/defender?

(in reply to TheReal_Pak40)

Post #: 2

RE: Deployment AI - 11/10/2008 8:57:47 AM

GoodGuy

Posts: 1506
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Korsun
But the AI of WaR is one of the best I have encountered so far.

If it would be one of the best, the AI wouldn't send rifle groups straight towards one of the player's HMG/LMG positions, a brilliant AI would try to flank these infantry strong points and not crouch and crawl back to the house on the other side, just to get wiped out by that HMG's suppressive fire.
I start to think that the AI in the original series was more aggressive. The AI's heavily armed Sturmtrupp units in "A bridge to far" had quite some punch, and they used to clear my strong points once they had spotted them.

If you want to see a (partially) brilliant AI, then you should check out HttR's (Highway to the Reich) successor, COTA (Conquest of the Aegan). The player AI (subordinates can be handled by the AI) stages beautiful attacks, it flanks strong points while still committing troops for a frontal attack. The enemy AI does the same (depending on scenario design).

In WaR, there is a map with a ridge in the top left corner, the map "Elsenborn ridge". If you play Axis with an Infantry BG and if the Americans are attacking, the US troops start in the top left corner, and - if time limit is disabled, while "always obey orders" for your troops is enabled -, it sometimes takes an hour or longer until the battle ends, as the AI won't move towards the remaining objectives (in the south, across the river), even if the player doesn't have any combat troops anymore (except for surviving vehicle crews).

That's pretty low, imho.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40
.....YET it stuck around to defend the map from horribly exposed positions or from the woods near the exit where it had little or no field of fire. I was able to take every building without one casualty.

This is inexcusable. Where's the improvement in the AI?

This is, in my books, rather about scenario design and about where you place the objectives (ie. middle of the road, or in the woods right next to the road), than about AI or the deployment of its troops.

Depending on the type of engagement (attack, defense, meeting eng.), the AI may amass troops around the objective, even if that would mean that the troops would have to start in the open. The problem isn't the deployment, it's the lack of aggressiveness to either advance rapidly, or, in a defense role, to search for cover asap.

It might be just me, but I think the RE-deployment after the battle begins (and maybe the map/scenario design) in the original series was somewhat better, sometimes it took 3 squads and a tank unit to boot a covered/hiding german squad (placed by the AI) out of a river bed (German/Russian installment of the series).

The situation you are describing is pretty much a result of the lack of aggressiveness i mentioned before. The AI just sits there and waits for the butcher. I really think that it wasn't like that in the original series.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 11/10/2008 2:55:17 PM >

_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to TheReal_Pak40)

Post #: 3

RE: Deployment AI - 11/10/2008 10:50:25 AM

Platoon_Michael

Posts: 1119
Joined: 3/9/2003
Status: offline

Other than what you guys have seen I also dont like how the AI is placing tanks in heavily wooded ares and then they just cant get out to do any fighting.They just sit there spinning and turning

(in reply to GoodGuy)

Post #: 4

RE: Deployment AI - 11/10/2008 8:14:41 PM

TheReal_Pak40

Posts: 186
Joined: 10/8/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stwa

I did so much posting in the last AI thread, I'm kinda afraid to wade into this one, but...

1. I have seen good and bad deployments from the AI. Just depends. My guess is the good deployments are basically luck, except that the AI does seem to deploy his forces near objectives when on defense etc..

I agree, it seems like luck with some favoritism to place units near objectives. BUT, it shouldn't be about luck. There should be some logic with regards to geographical strong points on the map.

quote:

2. The AI is probably what you saw in CC5, but only the developers can tell us for sure. (i.e. what specifically was improved).

3. Korsun's comment was general and mainly accepted. I think we all know that AI's as a general rule have a tough time against human opponents.

I have only played about 4 battles so far so I can't honestly comment on the tactical AI yet. BUT, up to this point I'm seeing the same horrible AI deployments that I've seen in the other Close Combat games. And since the cornerstone of any good defense is to deploy properly or at least logically then the only possible outcome for the computer AI is a bad one.

quote:

4. I don't want the AI to beat me, but I don't want the AI to be a moron either. I play differently against the AI, and I judge my performance different. If I took 30% casualties against the AI I would consider that game a loss, etc...

I feel the same way. I'm not expecting some miracle AI or something unrealistic. I just want it to at least deploy properly on the defense. If this is done then it will have a chance to cause some casualties.

quote:

5. Also sounds like in your case the AI was stuck in a small deployment area, so was your game a meeting engagement, or were you the attacker/defender?

No, I was only able to deploy in the upper right corner, maybe about 15% of the map size. there was the typical gray neutral zone between us which maybe took up another 20% of the map but the rest was U.S. deployment zone, including at least 50% of the town and most of the woods. Just play the second battle of the Grand Campaign as the Germans, you will see what I mean.

FYI, I played this battle twice. The first time the U.S. deployed slightly better with at least two or three units in the town buildings, and as a result the computer AI did cause more casualties. However, this was still only about 10% of the total U.S. force deployed in the town.

(in reply to Stwa)

Post #: 5

RE: Deployment AI - 11/10/2008 8:25:58 PM

TheReal_Pak40

Posts: 186
Joined: 10/8/2003
Status: offline

quote:

This is, in my books, rather about scenario design and about where you place the objectives (ie. middle of the road, or in the woods right next to the road), than about AI or the deployment of its troops.

True, I think the units were defending the exits because of the flag objectives. However, there were a few other objectives in the town that the AI totally ignored.

quote:

Depending on the type of engagement (attack, defense, meeting eng.), the AI may amass troops around the objective, even if that would mean that the troops would have to start in the open. The problem isn't the deployment, it's the lack of aggressiveness to either advance rapidly, or, in a defense role, to search for cover asap.

It might be just me, but I think the RE-deployment after the battle begins (and maybe the map/scenario design) in the original series was somewhat better, sometimes it took 3 squads and a tank unit to boot a covered/hiding german squad (placed by the AI) out of a river bed (German/Russian installment of the series).

The situation you are describing is pretty much a result of the lack of aggressiveness i mentioned before. The AI just sits there and waits for the butcher. I really think that it wasn't like that in the original series.

What you say is all valid and true but keep in mind my original post was about the computer AI on the defensive. I expect that the defensive AI would just sit on a$$ and wait in ambush. Hell, that's what I do 90% of the time on defense. But, this only works if you deploy in logical places with concealment, cover and fields of fire towards the direction of the approaching enemy.

Honestly, I think I would enjoy the game more if I could deploy the enemy units myself. I certainly would take more losses as the attacker.

(in reply to GoodGuy)

Post #: 6

RE: Deployment AI - 11/11/2008 11:03:00 PM

CSO_Talorgan

Posts: 768
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stwa
If I took 30% casualties against the AI I would consider that game a loss, etc...

Make that much lower!

(in reply to Stwa)

Post #: 7

RE: Deployment AI - 11/11/2008 11:05:00 PM

Platoon_Michael

Posts: 1119
Joined: 3/9/2003
Status: offline

Hows this for bad deployment?

Why does the AI troops insist on attacking out in open spaces also?

Attachment (1)

(in reply to CSO_Talorgan)

Post #: 8

RE: Deployment AI - 11/12/2008 12:41:34 AM

Stwa

Posts: 484
Joined: 8/12/2005
Status: offline

Yes, I have seen many bad deployments, usually with guns and vehicles. But, I have seen some really good ones too. Here is a generated deployment given to the human player. Its very good. I made no changes and made the AI assault the hill. After his vehicles got shot up, he tried human wave tactics, to his demise.