Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Concerning the 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] >> Armored Brigade >> Concerning the AI Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 2:10:22 PM   
Skybird

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 10/26/2018
Status: offline
When I tried the last free build of AB years ago, I generally liked the way it was going, but there was one issue that had me moving carefully and on my toes. That was that the AI was easily to be mowed down if I just hunkered down and let them approach on my positions over all the map. At that time the AI was not capable to hide its approach with smoke screens, for example, to coordinate its formations in a simultaneous rush, instead it sent its units piece by piece, subordinate formation for subordinate formation, so that I could amass fire on all them one by one without needing to do anything. It became dull very quickly.

Now I read the review at Wargamer, and they write this:
"Being without multiplayer, sustained enjoyment is also very contingent on the enemy A.I., which so far seems competent. In my 15+ hours with the game, the A.I. was humanesque and consistent in its utilizing support and reconnaissance units in their intended roles, and its attacking with combined arms forces. Still, on more than one occasion while I was on defense, the A.I. sent units towards my side of the map in a piecemeal fashion, resulting in an unsatisfying win that left me scratching my head as to why the normally tactful A.I. threw its playbook out the window."

The bold part. That sounds exactly like what had me wondering already years ago.

What are players' experiences with the AI, especially on these details I described, so meaning mostly player in defence, AI attacking? If the AI is not more competent than it was years ago, then even player in attack role can probably provoke the AI to counter-attack (like I did back then), hunker down himself and then see the AI coming in piece by piece - and getting knocked out piece by piece. This is neither proper Sovjet doctrine (nor NATO doctrine, for that matter, or any other sane military attack doctrine), nor is is satisfying for the player.

Do not take this as an attack on the game or the creator. I simply ask about this, because it was a major point for me which made me stop playing AB free version years ago. If this issue has not been fundamentally improved over the status back then, then this detail would be considered by me as a very serious issue.


< Message edited by Skybird -- 11/17/2018 2:11:31 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 2:26:15 PM   
Skybird

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 10/26/2018
Status: offline
Now I have red the Rock Papper Shotgun review, and they too took note of weaknesses in the AI system. Unfortunately, I add.

"Does the game’s unscripted AI adjust its behaviour to suit prevailing conditions? I’d love to say yes, but I’ve yet to see clear evidence of such adaptation. Since I wrote my original piece, although I’ve been beaten by AB’s artificial adversary on numerous occasions, I’ve not witnessed anything that could be described as genuine cunning. Always entertaining and usually competitive, the AI rarely squanders its winged assets or fails to cause hurt with its off-map howitzers and mortars, but often sustains unnecessary losses because of its questionable coordination skills, willingness to lead with armour, and reluctance to pause periodically and ponder.


I do not own the game, but consider seriously to buy it once it is on Steam. However, reading these reviews discourages me significantly, for I experienced how demotivating such weaknesses in the AI are already years ago with the free version. If I may make one recommendation (while once again admitting that I have no experience with the current game): before considering to produce any DLCs, features stuff and cosmetics, focus very seriously on improving the AI, especially AI on attack. It seems there is some major construction work needed, or not?!

Not meant to offend anyone, or the creator(s).



< Message edited by Skybird -- 11/17/2018 2:28:51 PM >

(in reply to Skybird)
Post #: 2
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 3:09:49 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 1304
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline
How about taking a look at the live preview streams? The AI is advancing.

USA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfAh4dd36TQ
Soviet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ch4p3aysIw
UK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LiJm-Ss8i8
DDR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfX7YUxJRxs


_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to Skybird)
Post #: 3
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 3:16:39 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 1304
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline
By the way, some of these videos use old versions of the game. There have been a few AI improvements after that.


_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 4
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 3:55:12 PM   
JamesLxx

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 12/12/2001
Status: offline
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lNOw2jGbYo

From 34:05 to 38:10

Once the AI is able to tactically re-plan according to events then AB will be an instant purchase for me.



< Message edited by JamesLxx -- 11/17/2018 4:19:00 PM >

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 5
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 3:59:44 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 1304
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JamesLxx

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lNOw2jGbYo

From 34:05

Once the AI is able to tactically re-plan according to events then AB will be an instant purchase for me.




What the AI opponent should have done in that situation?


_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to JamesLxx)
Post #: 6
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 4:08:04 PM   
JamesLxx

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 12/12/2001
Status: offline
First of all STOP. Then either: replan an alternative safer route; or call in artillery/airstrikes; or once knowing what and where the enemy is bring up forces capable of knocking them out.

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 7
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 4:29:23 PM   
dox44

 

Posts: 668
Joined: 5/7/2000
From: the woodlands, texas
Status: offline
but not too much arty/air or your AI will be cheating :)

(in reply to JamesLxx)
Post #: 8
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 4:34:29 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 1304
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JamesLxx

First of all STOP. Then either: replan an alternative safer route; or call in artillery/airstrikes; or once knowing what and where the enemy is bring up forces capable of knocking them out.


That is rather abstract. Let's try to analyze the situation. The red arrow is where the two AI tank companies were advancing and started taking fire. Obviously at some point they become aware of at least some of the player tanks, that were very luckily parked in that (blue) spot. They were possibly danger close so that the AI couldn't use artillery (or perhaps outside the TRP radius, in which case the Soviet artillery is very slow in the game), and it would've been too late for that anyway. The green mark is the objective.

So, where should have the remnants of the two AI tank companies gone after stopping, in this open desert? And why? The AI has no reinforcements, other than that one tank company far away in north.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to JamesLxx)
Post #: 9
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 4:36:34 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 1304
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline
The red zones are impassable areas.

_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 10
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 4:46:30 PM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline
Engage the threat in numbers, kill it, move on the objective. Was there any recon in front of the tank companies? If not, detach a platoon to do recon on the way to the objective.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 11
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 4:53:56 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 1304
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CapnDarwin

If not, detach a platoon to do recon on the way to the objective.


Isn't that the same as 'piecemeal'? What to do when the recon platoon blows up, and no enemies are seen? Or, if the recon platoon detects something out there in the open desert, what to do then? Send the rest of the company straight towards it?


_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to CapnDarwin)
Post #: 12
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 5:12:32 PM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline
If you are short assets to do the mission you will need to do something or go home (abort the mission).

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 13
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 5:17:17 PM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline
You are basically in a no win situation with a pure armored force rolling into a box canyon as shown. Tanks won't be able to use the cover of those impassable hills, without recon or artillery to suppress or screen the tanks with smoke (thermals will still ruin your day), the best you can do is close on the objective with speed.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to CapnDarwin)
Post #: 14
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 5:22:03 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 1304
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline
My point here is that the computer doesn't understand commands such as:

'replan an alternative safer route'

'bring up forces capable of knocking them out'

'engage the threat in numbers'

'do something or go home'

I'm very willing to improve the AI, but first I need to know how it should be improved. The suggestions have been abstract human ideas. I need clearer instructions how the AI should behave so I can convert them into C++ code.


_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to CapnDarwin)
Post #: 15
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 5:25:04 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 1304
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CapnDarwin

You are basically in a no win situation with a pure armored force rolling into a box canyon as shown. Tanks won't be able to use the cover of those impassable hills, without recon or artillery to suppress or screen the tanks with smoke (thermals will still ruin your day), the best you can do is close on the objective with speed.


Agreed. The poster above did seem to disagree though. He didn't like the AI opponent's approach.


_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to CapnDarwin)
Post #: 16
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 5:58:45 PM   
Werezak

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 4/11/2013
Status: offline
One thing that's been on my mind is that without being able to see what units the AI had (as in, their disposition on the map, not just the OOB) and what the AI was able to see, it's really hard to tell whether or not it was adapting poorly to a developing situation or just making the best of it.

I think in order to get useful feedback your best bet would be to add some way of watching the AI play, that showed what orders it was giving, and ask those in the community who are knowledgeable/experienced to critique it. It's really different to compare what the AI does vs what you the player would do, instead of trying to imagine what the AI should have done better when limited information is such a huge factor in this game. Just a thought, IDK.

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 17
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 6:07:28 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 1304
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Werezak

One thing that's been on my mind is that without being able to see what units the AI had (as in, their disposition on the map, not just the OOB) and what the AI was able to see, it's really hard to tell whether or not it was adapting poorly to a developing situation or just making the best of it.

I think in order to get useful feedback your best bet would be to add some way of watching the AI play, that showed what orders it was giving, and ask those in the community who are knowledgeable/experienced to critique it. It's really different to compare what the AI does vs what you the player would do, instead of trying to imagine what the AI should have done better when limited information is such a huge factor in this game. Just a thought, IDK.


Currently it's not possible to see what the AI sees, but to see the AI's units you should do this:

Open the data\scenario\development.cfg file. Change the line 'developerMode=0' to 'developerMode=1'. Then in the game you will see a few more keyboard shortcuts in the hotkeys menu, including this:

Ctrl+Shift+D – Show AI on/off

That shows you the AI units, formations and the AI 'main group' paths.


_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to Werezak)
Post #: 18
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 6:29:24 PM   
22sec

 

Posts: 976
Joined: 12/11/2004
From: Jackson, MS
Status: offline
The AI does struggle sometimes with path finding. You can see this when you watch in Developer Mode. It’s why I don’t purchase company sized formations when creating scenarios. I think is what leads to occasional piecemeal attacks. I would like the ability as a scenario designer to set the AI’s preferred formations and movement path.

_____________________________

Mapping Specialist

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 19
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 6:32:15 PM   
noooooo

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 9/27/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 22sec

The AI does struggle sometimes with path finding. You can see this when you watch in Developer Mode. It’s why I don’t purchase company sized formations when creating scenarios. I think is what leads to occasional piecemeal attacks. I would like the ability as a scenario designer to set the AI’s preferred formations and movement path.


Yeah, I think the default for pathfinding should be shortest. I feel like quickest actually causes some strange pathfinding choices which can sometimes separate the troops

< Message edited by noooooo -- 11/17/2018 6:35:40 PM >

(in reply to 22sec)
Post #: 20
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 8:48:44 PM   
exsonic01

 

Posts: 1131
Joined: 7/26/2016
From: Somewhere deep in appalachian valley in PA
Status: offline
Several methods I use to circumvent 'easy AI' issue is:

1) Do manual set up for AI forces, and put more point size to AI, but not too much.
For example, for meeting engagement, I try usually 10k for me, and give 15k~20k, even 25k~30k sometimes for AI. But try not too much number of units for AI, because that would bring easy bottleneck, also there's a chance to game become like tower defense game. Use manual setup, and try to give AI good amount of artillery, proper mix of high/low tier tanks, and mortars/ATGM vehicles, gunships and etc. Try to balance AI army in a way to push in different way. Let them spam smoke shells and DPICMs. This will give you tough challenge. It would still unsatisfying in tactical sense, yet still a bit better experience than see easy peasy piecemeal assault attempts.

This is also somewhat more histrionically accurate. According to Operational Art and Tactics written by D. Glantz, (http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a216492.pdf) numerical advantage, as well as concentrated fire support and proper cover, is one of the key ingredients for PACT forces including Soviet army. Page 8, you can see typical assault operational formation of Soviet army against unprepared NATO defense. When compared to the battalion size NATO defense, the size of OPFOR operational maneuver group is amazing, consist of multiple MRR and TR, TC, TBs on 8~20km wide front. This is almost like ~1:5 numerical difference or even more.

So I always try to give some numerical advantage to PACT when I play NATO. On the other hand, when I play PACT, I set up my forces to have the same amount of point or only slightly more point than AI NATO to have more fun and challenge.


2) Try to choose map with more open field, especially AI-setup zone should have enough open field.
From my experience, if there are too many woods or city blocks or any "difficult" terrain in AI set up zone, AI feels hard to set up attack route, and AI's push become piecemeal attack. I looked via developer mode, and what's happening is that each AI units take different time to pass the difficult terrain, and then the gap among AI units are more increased. Then AI units push to friendly line, and this exactly looks like piecemeal attack. Their push is in order of "who cleared the difficult terrain first?", they push one by one, and wrecked by my tanks.


3) Try to give AI platoons, rather than company based units. This also coincides with 22sec mentioned above.
quote:


The AI does struggle sometimes with path finding. You can see this when you watch in Developer Mode. It’s why I don’t purchase company sized formations when creating scenarios. I think is what leads to occasional piecemeal attacks. I would like the ability as a scenario designer to set the AI’s preferred formations and movement path.

Company based formations are huge, and it seems that AI doesn't wisely adjust the formation type and gap among units in the formation. In this case, movement of AI unit become being slowed by so many reasons, just to keep formatino intact. So, give AI more freedom by choosing platoon based forces only. This will help AI to maneuver and push better.





In real army, we use the concept of Attack Position and Line of Departure, and Axis of Advance. See FM 3-90 (https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/adp3_90.pdf) page 3-4. I know it would be tough, but if it is possible, how about introduce similar concepts to AI?

Check the map -> look for the Attack Position or Line of Departure, by checking ETA to nearest VP and amount of cover on the possible attacking route. -> set up Attack Position / Line of Departure. -> move units to Attack Position or Line of Departure. -> Wait until friendly AI moves near AP or LoD -> Attempt assault.

Position of AP or LoD can be different among units, but amount of time takes to reach VP should be the same or very close among different units. In reality, typically company~battalion units share the same AP or LoD, depending on size of operation. So, for this game, I think it would be OK for AI forces to share 2~4 AP and LoD on the map depending on the game size.

Setting up of AP/LoD for AI would be really hard, but the position of AP/LoD should not have direct LOS from enemy point of view, but arrival time on enemy position should be the same or very comparable. I know it would be really tough, but this feature would make the assault more realistic, nicely timed and orchestrated effort from different direction.

Key here is, ability of AI to set up one or two phase lines and LoD, from various terrains and maps. This will make realistic AI, and solve the current "peacemeal" issue.... at least in some degree. Well, I know it won't be easy, but maybe worth a try?




Also, this is one of the reason why I think it would be great if we have PBEM in the future for this game. Human opponent can bring more headache with creative tactics to any players.



Plus, this will be very long term approach, but how about allowing 'save replay' and let players share the replay? Then you could collect the replay, make a database. Movements, positioning, unit types, geometry and etc... Then you could use those big data, in a way to optimize your AI, using some techniques like ML or genetic algorithm or etc... This would be long and hard way but it would be definitely a good way to improve AI. And this way is kinda already widely accepted in game industry.

Look at Starcraft AI tournament. https://sscaitournament.com/ and you can find some from youtube. It is amazing to see how 'enhanced' AI plays and win against each other. This tournament started from 2011, early AI engines were really bad. But these days it is surprising to watch how AI plans and reacts. I guess this approach will be accepted to any other RTS fields, as well as wargames someday. Then this could realize what would really realistic in wargame, such as mission oriented control.




< Message edited by exsonic01 -- 11/17/2018 9:09:28 PM >

(in reply to noooooo)
Post #: 21
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 11:00:48 PM   
Werezak

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 4/11/2013
Status: offline
In my experience ML techniques are not really useful for game AI. Just keeping this as simple as possible: Applying ML or genetic algorithms doesn't imbue an AI with intelligence, they are just ways of obtaining solutions to a decision problem without prior knowledge... but you need to define the problem first.

IMO the best approach for a strategy game AI is to identify the key concepts used to make decisions and break them down in a way that a computer can understand. The Attack Position, Line of Departure, and Axis of Advance concepts sound like they could be really promising for a game like AB in that respect, but that's not for me to decide.

I have only some experience with game AI personally but this is also what I've seen work for others.


Just as an example I worked on an AI for a sci-fi space 4x strategy game that had a tactical and strategic level. The development that improved the tactical AI the most was just identifying that the tactical game was essentially resource allocation, where the resources were the weapons on your ships (each weapon could fire once per turn) and the allocation was the choice of targets for each weapon each turn. There were a lot of nuances and factors that affected what the best target for a weapon was but the underlying algorithm was a target priority table where the highest priority target in the table was selected. Pretty simple, but it dramatically improved the performance of the AI - the real work was identifying that the underlying concept was key for decision making in the tactical game (and also that other aspects of the tactical game, like ship placement, weren't as important and could be handle with "good-enough" dumb behaviors).

< Message edited by Werezak -- 11/17/2018 11:11:29 PM >

(in reply to exsonic01)
Post #: 22
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/17/2018 11:32:21 PM   
Rosseau

 

Posts: 2757
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JamesLxx

First of all STOP. Then either: replan an alternative safer route; or call in artillery/airstrikes; or once knowing what and where the enemy is bring up forces capable of knocking them out.


Show me an AI that does this, and I will buy the game. Maybe Command Ops 2 is close, but certainly not Steel Panthers. Not sure about FP:RS

Play some Combat Mission (latest engine). I see in generated battles, AI is terrible still. It often leads with its BN HQ unit in soft vehicle! That's why the game has a detailed scenario editor to plan AI behavior.

Most games like this, you have to do some creative work like exsonic01 posts above. At least the best games give you some tools to work with.

I am no fanboy, but 30 years and hundreds of wargames, still looking for the holy grail

(in reply to JamesLxx)
Post #: 23
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/18/2018 2:19:36 AM   
exsonic01

 

Posts: 1131
Joined: 7/26/2016
From: Somewhere deep in appalachian valley in PA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Werezak
In my experience ML techniques are not really useful for game AI. Just keeping this as simple as possible: Applying ML or genetic algorithms doesn't imbue an AI with intelligence, they are just ways of obtaining solutions to a decision problem without prior knowledge... but you need to define the problem first.

I know, a part of my career is related about optimization coding, but not in gaming. But there is a attempt to use ML to improve game AI, like some of the Starcraft AI groups. There are tons of tons of replays from SC1 + SC1 Broodwar during last two decades on SC community and Blizzard community. What some groups trying is that they gather all those replay files, analyze all unit's position, type, movement, map & geometry, build and unit order and etc... from each replays, and make a huge huge data out of them. Then they analyze them, and try to train their AI algorithm using ML scripts, to win the game and to mimic human player's build + strategy + micro + etc... That is why I mentioned about replay above.

However, it is not a easy job and it would need huge computational resources, I don't think this studio or any other small-studios for wargame would be capable of doing that, and I never mean to (Sorry Veitikka I never mean to burden you, I understand your situation and I wish the best for you). Those all comments regarding ML is just purely my wishlist & imagination. But someday in the future, we will see more attempts to develop and train AI using advanced algorithms from usual RTS games and wargames.

quote:


IMO the best approach for a strategy game AI is to identify the key concepts used to make decisions and break them down in a way that a computer can understand. The Attack Position, Line of Departure, and Axis of Advance concepts sound like they could be really promising for a game like AB in that respect, but that's not for me to decide.

I have only some experience with game AI personally but this is also what I've seen work for others.

Yes I totally agree with you and this game's AI should also follow. Frankly, I think this game's AI is OK enough, but needs a bit more improvement. (We need to remind that no AI can be 100% creative like humans, at least AI from wargames like this one. So that is why I mentioned about PBEM)

Regarding concepts like phase lines AP, LoD, and AoA, I still think about it but still it would not easy. (Or maybe this game's AI already using similar concept) Those concepts are very geometry dependent. It would be easy to introduce, if we script the single mission for known & decided map. However, this game's unique freedom to choose the battlefield the player want is kinda issue. I'm not sure how to make AI to set their own one or two phase lines, and LoD and AoA in any geometries in this game. It is tricky. For very simple plane map, it would be easy, decision of phase lines and LoD would be just distance from VP or distance from deploy zone. But when there are mountains, cities, and rivers, it wouldn't be easy.

I'm also thinking about what would be the good easy way to make computer understand about those. Key is, ETA to reach to VPs for all assaulting AI units should be the same or similar, once AI decide to start the assault on player VPs or neutral VPs....

quote:


Just as an example I worked on an AI for a sci-fi space 4x strategy game that had a tactical and strategic level. The development that improved the tactical AI the most was just identifying that the tactical game was essentially resource allocation, where the resources were the weapons on your ships (each weapon could fire once per turn) and the allocation was the choice of targets for each weapon each turn. There were a lot of nuances and factors that affected what the best target for a weapon was but the underlying algorithm was a target priority table where the highest priority target in the table was selected. Pretty simple, but it dramatically improved the performance of the AI - the real work was identifying that the underlying concept was key for decision making in the tactical game (and also that other aspects of the tactical game, like ship placement, weren't as important and could be handle with "good-enough" dumb behaviors).


That is brilliant work. I also believe that devs will enhance their AI further in the future, after they have enough time and resources.

< Message edited by exsonic01 -- 11/18/2018 2:24:03 AM >

(in reply to Werezak)
Post #: 24
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/18/2018 11:41:59 AM   
Skybird

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 10/26/2018
Status: offline
On that video example.

What is shown there gives me the impression that the platoons of Red moved in street columns or echeleon, narrow spacing.

Imagine this were a real scenario. Red moves two companies and wants to quickly get to the objective. He does not use streets or highways since there are none, left and right there is hilly terrain or dunes. What tank commander would send his formations in street columns under these circumstances? Street columns need streets to benefit from this formation. - IMO, the proper formation would have been wedge, to provide scanning and fire power to both flanks left and right. Maybe the AI indeed was using echelon right, which might be appropriate due to that small hill nearby, the video does not allow to fully understand whether it was echelon or street column.

Now the first platoon gets wiped out, and from very close by. A real company commander would have become aware of it. Either the tank cannons, or the explosions, the smoke, the ammunition cooking up, the sudden loss of radio communication - whatever. what would he do? One thing is certain: he would be very stuid to just continue in this situation, with losses suffered at closest range, and a slight hill on his right flank, and open terrain ahead.

He would stop for a monent, most likely, AND REGROUP. Form a firing line, or a wedge. Depending on the terrain, sending a scout sneaking on that hill to risk a look over the peak, or sneaking around the hill. Tanks usually avoid going over heights, they usually try to avoid easy detection against the sky by staying low in the valleys betweens hills. Usually.

What would I do? Forming a firing line, and then have scouts flanking from both sides simultaneously. A surprise attack would be out of question, since the enemy knows already I am there, and where. Maybe instead or additionally sending dismounted infantry up to the hill peak.

What does the AI do? It lost one platoon in street column formation. The next platoon rolls in, same formation apparently as if nothign happened, and gets wiped out. And again. And again. Company gone, during most of the cold war, a Sowjet tank company had three platoons á three tanks, and one HQ tank = ten tanks per company.

Realistically, what should an AI be capable to do?

1. Becoming aware that something is wrong. Maybe the game simulates delay in command and control and radio communication. Sowjet capabilties in individually commanding small units "live" were limited at that time, thats why they used huge formations like in Napoleonic wars, and wave doctrine. But they were heavily capable in ECM and supressing NATO radio communication and radar, so maybe NATO would not have been as mobile as was assumed it woudl be... Lets assume the game reflects radio limitations of Red. So his formation will carry on for some time even when getting into trouble.

Wave doctrine implies attack in strength, and combat formation, not street column.

2. Becoming aware of the hill on the right nearby and putting some priority of any kind on running recce on it.

The root cause of the mess is that although there are no streets, Red chooses to let his units advance in a piecemeal fashion, one by one, without mutually supporting each other, in a formation as if there were an infrastructure of any kind. An open plain is ahead. Why not wedge or firing line? Worse, once the mess starts, the AI does not react, it does not regroup, it does not alter its movement vector, it does not react to attack vectors, it does not change formation - in other words: it does nothign to adapt its inadequate stance to the fact that it is under fire. It just assumes that nothing has happened.

After the first fire received, there should have been any kind of reaction, and may it be due to sole self preservation of the individual tank crews following up. The seocnd grouo must have seen whatb ahppened to their colleague at front, the firballs, maybe turrets flying into the air whatever. Instead they follow their dead comrades right in their tracks.

If it were logistica supply units, maybe it would be realistic that they move in column, I don'T know. But combat units, in that terrain, needing to expect battle?


I admit I find this exmaple a bit discouraging, because it does not look different to the aI problem I already saw years ago in the free build. Back then I assumed it would get ironed out, even more so since I think it is pretty obvious a problem. But apparently it hasn't.

Veitikka, I follow your title since many years, always had it on my radar. I communicated its existence in two or even three differen forums over the years. I mean I do not want to anoy you or talk your effort down. It seems there is rich detail and research that was put into the game. But it all stands and falls with the quality of the AI, even more so, for some people at least, when it has no MP (no MP player myself). There are two reviews now that clearly signal that their authors mean it well with AB, but both found that the AI is suffering from the symptom that this thread started about: that the aI anythign but rarely attacks in this alienating piecemeal fashion. So again my tip: before considering spending time on DLCs and additonal features, repair what is of real importance, and that is this AI issue. Its showstopping enough that it makes people like me pausing any buying decision until this is being resolved. For comparable reasons I stopped playing another game in the past which in principle I liked: Steel Panthers MBT. It was much worse there, however. You see, player invests time and meticulously may lay down a plan and executing commands, and then gets an easy victory gifted by the aI lining up to get massacred like Lemmings. This somewhat ruins it. It is not fun, it is not satisfying. Player feel betrayed, he wants to win due to his good plan and exceution, not because the aI "lemmingizes" itself.

The issue is there since the last free build you released years ago. I wonder that it has not been tackled!?

When this gets solved and the game is at Steam, I will become a happy customer. No matter whether it is a bit more expensive at Steam or not.

Nichts für ungut.





< Message edited by Skybird -- 11/18/2018 11:57:48 AM >

(in reply to exsonic01)
Post #: 25
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/18/2018 1:53:14 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 1304
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skybird

Veitikka, I follow your title since many years, always had it on my radar. I communicated its existence in two or even three differen forums over the years. I mean I do not want to anoy you or talk your effort down. It seems there is rich detail and research that was put into the game. But it all stands and falls with the quality of the AI, even more so, for some people at least, when it has no MP (no MP player myself). There are two reviews now that clearly signal that their authors mean it well with AB, but both found that the AI is suffering from the symptom that this thread started about: that the aI anythign but rarely attacks in this alienating piecemeal fashion. So again my tip: before considering spending time on DLCs and additonal features, repair what is of real importance, and that is this AI issue. Its showstopping enough that it makes people like me pausing any buying decision until this is being resolved. For comparable reasons I stopped playing another game in the past which in principle I liked: Steel Panthers MBT. It was much worse there, however. You see, player invests time and meticulously may lay down a plan and executing commands, and then gets an easy victory gifted by the aI lining up to get massacred like Lemmings. This somewhat ruins it. It is not fun, it is not satisfying. Player feel betrayed, he wants to win due to his good plan and exceution, not because the aI "lemmingizes" itself.

The issue is there since the last free build you released years ago. I wonder that it has not been tackled!?


It's totally unrealistic to expect that I can 'repair' the AI opponent to be like a real human. No game like this has anything like it. There's always a reason why our AI does what it does. The better the scenario designer knows the AI behavior the better scenarios he can make. We have a huge variation of terrain in the game, for example the open desert we had in the video, dense forest, rivers, lakes, cities etc. In many cases the AI can advance faster if it uses the column or march formations; for example if it's moving close to a water obstacle in a 500-meter wide line/wedge formation it can become a total mess, when there are just a few narrow crossing points available. These impassable obstacle shapes on the map can be anything: horizontal, vertical, spaghetti. Even an open map can have impassable spaghetti rivers going around there. We have not restricted what the map designer can do, so we must be prepared for everything. It's highly recommended that the map designer knows the engine limitations, and follows guidelines, but this will not always happen. Same goes to the scenario design. In the video, the scenario designer had a huge map, and just a single objective there. This is not necessary good scenario design, but we allow the players to experiment and see what happens. The AI can be made to look very bad, that's for sure. In this case there should have been more objectives to guide the AI better.

Over the years, I don't think there have been many suggestions concerning how the attacking AI should behave, other than these abstractions that the players usually say. Perhaps the reason for this is that the issue is very complex when you really start thinking about it. In this thread there has been at least one good suggestion so far: use the battle formation when under fire. I think the AI does that closer to the objectives. In the video scene there was at least 5 kilometers left to the lone objective.


_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to Skybird)
Post #: 26
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/18/2018 3:22:32 PM   
Skybird

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 10/26/2018
Status: offline
I must respectfully disagree in that I think the issue illustrated could be massively improved. Other games show that it can be done.

You probably know Steel Beasts, and that a whole mission could be played from the map screen alone pretty much like in your game. The scenario designer there can set conditions to wapyoints, and he can define in what behavioral mode the unit should travel the path to the next waypoint, and when it should embark, if at all, and how it should move if it does. Also, formation and spacing can be set separately.

Now, ignoring the mission design and focussing on the micro-managing of units' behavior/reaction by the AI in a given situation, a charging unit will get orders by the aI to stay on its ordered path, at maximum speed, racing to the objective, not seeking cover when under fire, seeking no hull down Battle position, only returnign fire. This unit will race on as long as it lives, no matter what.

Normally, the attacking unit will be less kamikaze-like, and have orders allowing it to react to a threat it is aware of. When it gets under fire, immediately it swings turret, often the whole hull, towards the threat, and then will try to find a battle position (hull down) in the vicinity, up to I think 300 or 400 meters around, or pop smoke and back up, trying to hide, or all of that.

So, with the scenario design approach and editor in SB, it can be done. The reaction results of the aI can be very impressive. I admit however that SB has one of the most economic, userfriendly and efficient editors I have ever seen in any such game. Its a brilliant design, even more so since the difference between the mission editor and the map interface used by the player during the mission to command his formations, are not that much different at all.

I do not know what your editor allows scenario designers to do, and we do not even talk about the quick mission editor for the player here. The problem is that the AI in the problematic situations I point at and that can be seen in the above video, does not react at all, no matter what, also, that it has the most unsuitable formation of all, apparently. When the whole force came under fire, it should have quick-jumped to a different formation, and seek battle posiiton as long as not having been given explicit orders by mission designer to not react at all and just race on.

I also recall, although it is a long time ago, Conquest of the Aegean. When the aI in that game , WWII-based and thus using different tactics, came under fire, it reacted. No matter how or what, but it reacted, it did something: changed position, pace or formation apparently, trying to alter its state to aquire a better position in reaction to the thread, returnign fire, calling reinfocrments - it did something. The AI continued to charge into killing zones however - when being ordered to do so by the scenario, like it indeed often happoened in WWII.

Operation Flashpoint, now that game I fear, maybe no other cosim has served me my defeat on a silver plate so often like this one due to the overwhelming firepower of Sowjet helicopters and artillery. Again, when under fire, the AI reacted. It changed pace or direction, it rushed for cover, or it hid behind a building and sat still, later staging a pop up and ambush kind of thing, for exmaple. It reacted to the thread. It still went for the objective, may even charge for a close-up fight. But not in a way to be seen in this video example. Also, the msisions are desiogned usually to allow the AI to attack in force, not in a piecemeal fashion. Result: I often ha da good plan, managed to keep suffieint units of mine alive, acted mobile all over thre place or hunkered down, picking Red units in masses: and still ended getting chewed up.

What the two reviews mention, and what the video illustrates, and what I describe is that your AI in certain circumstances, and apparently not rarely, simply does not react at all, just carries on its business as if nothing happened. Also, starting to move in probably inadequate formations may be an issue here.

The only coding of stuff I ever did, is thirty years ago, and did not go beyond getting a graphical interface for chess and having the computer moving pieces according to the rules. Further I did not get, and real life got in the way, and interest waned, and such is life and blabla... So I cannot tell you specifically how to code such stuff. I only point out that it obviosuyl can be done, somehow.

You have a great game there, with plenty of depth and detail,obviously, much time invested, years of your life. But I admit this deficit with the AI really is holding it back, if it is like it was years ago, the last time I made experiences with it. Back then I won battles by finding good psoitions for my units, and just waiting, if the other side not coming, trying to bait them with a fake attack of a small unit of mine that easily withdrew again. Most battles ended in this way, that I just waited for the Lemmings to pop up even if they were in defence positions. The longterm motivation sufferd very quickly for me, and I cannot imagine I am alone in that. After maybe a dozeh b attles done or so, I saw no point in doing another one. An AI making the gameplay suffering from always the same Lemming-event, is a really serious issue.

The AI needs to learn how to react more properly instead of just marching in street columns while ignoring all events around it.

I could imagine that the combination of if...-then... triggers with behavioral conditions that SB allows to set for both single waypoints and individual legs linking them, could be somethign giving good ideas. I know SB since its beginnings, although in recent years I have not played it that much anymore (Im 51, interests are changing a bit...). A well designed mission can work wonders with this editor's tools which are surprisingly easy to handle. See if you can find some ideas in that system! That is the only practical tip I can offer. Also, SB demonstrates that the micromanaging of the behavior of a unit coming under fire can lead to better reactions than in this video. Occasionally, of course the SB AI will mess it up. Every AI does so at times, nobody demands that it must always be fail safe in its performance. But the failings should be reduced to an utmost possible minimum.

Give it some thought, if you have time and interest left! ;) But just doing DLCs with additional units and missions, will not really improve the issue, for it then will still exist.

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 27
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/18/2018 3:42:50 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 1304
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline
It seems you're missing the important point here, if you compare AB to SB: the AB AI is fully 'dynamic', whereas SB is fully scripted. That is a very different world. The last time I tried SB, the scenario designer had to carefully script all formation movement. There could be a medley of these two approaches, but for example Close Combat and the old Combat Mission games didn't have any scripting features.

How the individual units should behave under fire, well that's more or less a separate discussion.


_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to Skybird)
Post #: 28
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/18/2018 3:59:16 PM   
kevinkins


Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

No game like this has anything like it.


AI is a difficult challenge for developers of detailed war games. Today the only way to have human like AI that I am aware of is to involve the designer in scripting/couching the Tac AI. This impressive feat was pioneered by Battlefront years ago with the introduction of their CMx2 engine and the AI Editor.

From the engine manual:

"The scripting aspect of CMx2 is also critical for coaching the Computer Player on how to win. For example, if the defending Computer Player needs to defend a set of buildings inside a city, the designer can specify which key spots should be manned in order to ensure the success of a more abstract victory condition. No matter how good a dynamic AI may be, practically speaking it will never equal the insight the designer has without some very specific help. Therefore, think of the scripting as the designer helping the AI understand what it needs to do, where," (when) "and how."

Interested players can Google "combat mission engine 3 manual" and go down to page 94 to see the details. Scenarios can be historical or hypothetical or generated via the Quick Battle process. Quick Battles are the battle generator and a landmark idea. Quick Battles are fought on QB maps which use the same "coaching the Computer Player" concept. Hundreds are released per commercial product and many more are community created.

Here is a tutorial that brings the manual to life:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f02X2cygzFY

The effort to create "human like" AI is tremendous given the resources available to today's war game developers. Having human-like AI also means a lot more time and effort into the scenario design process. A good well tested CM scenario can take a few months to release. We need to be careful of what we ask for. Some day a lot of interesting games may never see the light of day. CMx2 should be consider an exception, not the rule.

Kevin


< Message edited by kevinkin -- 11/18/2018 4:24:23 PM >


_____________________________

“The study of history lies at the foundation of all sound military conclusions and practice.”
― Alfred Thayer Mahan


(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 29
RE: Concerning the AI - 11/18/2018 4:01:52 PM   
Skybird

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 10/26/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Veitikka

It seems you're missing the important point here, if you compare AB to SB: the AB AI is fully 'dynamic', whereas SB is fully scripted. That is a very different world. The last time I tried SB, the scenario designer had to carefully script all formation movement. There could be a medley of these two approaches, but for example Close Combat and the old Combat Mission games didn't have any scripting features.

How the individual units should behave under fire, well that's more or less a separate discussion.




You are right on SB, but I am aware of it, thats why I separated the mission design aspects from what I called the micro-management of behaviour by the AI. The latter is always present, in any form, even if you just set up your platoon and an enemy platoon and fire a shot at it in this simple design, without further conditions applied, the AI will react: seek BP, if not possible, face you with the front of turret and hull. It gets aware of your presence. Mission designer can, but must not overrule its autonomous reaction. But a default reaction is always there. At least last time I played it, which is two years ago or so. Or an AI unit with a scenario-design of following a path with normal marching or engaing orders to a waypoint: when it gets under fire, it may stop, seek a battle position up to 300m or more away, and fight - that is not scripted, the choice of which enemy it faces and where it sets its BP and what enbemy it fires first at, is done by the autonomous AI, not the mission designer. So, both scripted events and conditions and autonomous AI work hand in hand. If the path has assault orders, the unit will behave like in the video above, but have its turret pointed at the last realised direciton of threat. Death race tactic.

This - I call it autonomous - reaction by the AI, and scripted mission design and its commanded reactions, are two different things. But they work together, can be combined.

I admit and I agree with Kevinkin, however, that coding a good AI I imagine to be the most difficult task of it all. These days I am busy with serious simracing for the most, and I see AI fails and tiumphes a lot there. And I saw how long it may take a developer to get his AI into a state that does not frustrate players with its flaws and incapabilities, but actually is a worthy thing to race against. Again, utmost perfeciton must be avoided as well, for that ius not human: having a human-like AI means having it making errors: just not too often or too rarely, not to serious while and not to irrelevant, but just about beign "right". A very difficult
balancing.

Its a difficult task, no doubt. And needs a lot of trial and error to find out about, I imagine. Ideally you have a neural network and have it learning by feeding it with hundreds of thousands and millions of matches played between competent human players. But that is almost certainly out of range for AB, or not? :)

< Message edited by Skybird -- 11/18/2018 4:19:42 PM >

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade >> Concerning the AI Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.984