polemotatos
Posts: 4
Joined: 6/25/2010
Status: offline
|
I know there have been several comments on this in general, but I wanted to give a little specific feedback after buying and playing the game for a few hours.
1.) The AI prioritization for mortars/off-map support seems to be quite solid. It seems to know when it's in a pinch and where to direct the fire.
2.) The AI seems to have some conception of flanking maneuvers...On the Defense of Son battle map as the Germans, I had a rifle team in the bay for the 88, and saw the Americans sending one of their teams into a semi-flanking position (from a building into the street) to better get at me. Unfortunately, however, they did so quite clumsily, going too far south and then doubling back, and with little regard for terrain (other flanking positions were available which had much better cover.)
I have observed similar behavior on other maps, with more or less the same drawback).
3.) The AI's aggression on the attack is not necessarily all that bad, but to some extent the "crawl of death" seems to have been replaced by the "human wave attack of death", with large numbers of infantry running in the general direction of the enemy, sometimes losing most of their force before a team or two actually gets into close combat. With well-positioned enemies. Who are in excellent cover. On the positive side, however, the AI does seem to order multi-directional attacks often enough, and I got the impression that it did not often send lone teams against the entire enemy line.
4.) One thing that the AI has evidenced some understanding of is fire support - unfortunately, in the current build this is only seen on a very small scale. The AI does sometimes move troops into good cover to support forward movement, but seems largely to do so way out of proportion to sensible tactics, having one or two smallish teams supporting a rush through wide open spaces by three or four others.
5.) I did read one post (by Judge Dredd if I'm not mistaken) that pointed out how the AI knows to move its teams back if they're exposed to too much fire. I've seen this too, but the AI shows a lot of clumsiness here, sometimes making teams double- and triple back when it would be much better for them to get within LOS of the enemy and give fire support to the friendly line. Often, these indecisive teams are within firing range of the enemy, but are not currenty being fired upon at all. Still, the fact that the AI does show some beginnings of understanding regarding this tactic is positive I think.
6.) The enemy keeps too many "reserves," having 3-4 good teams sitting behind the line doing nothing while their comrades are getting shot up and could badly use the firepower.
7.) What I'd like to see most is for the AI to keep up a generally high level of aggression but better take into account the terrain. If it could be taught to pour firepower on the enemy from decent positions before moving forward, and would advance a bit more intelligently, I think the AI would put up a much better fight.
I was really glad to see the strengths that I did. I hope that at least some of the weaknesses can be addressed, given the limitations of the engine etc. etc. It would be nice: on the Elden (exact name forgotten, SS vs Polish paras) battle, I was on defense and had 2 casualties to the enemy's 38, and I don't consider myself to be a tactical ace.
I think the game has a lot to offer and tons of potential, but to be honest, I seem to remember the AI in the original CC2 offering a much more satisfying contest (I could be wrong - it's been a long time). Devs, hope this helps...
|
Printable Version
AI (offence) observations (long) - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread