AI vs AI grand campaign (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem



Message

xe5 -> AI vs AI grand campaign (6/23/2011 8:20:37 PM)

...or about as close as can be managed.

AI plays Allies, Im Axis.
Line vs Line difficulty
15 min timer
FM on
End battle when all VLs taken

Special Rules are:

a) I can move freely and assign support on the strat map.

b) I have to accept the default team selection except for mortar units which I replace with the current most common team in that BG's force pool. My choice if several unit types are tied for current high quantity. Units borrowed from the support BG are also chosen by on the same 'most common' basis.

c) I have to accept the default deployment.

d) I can only issue Defend or Ambush orders during the deploy phase (Ambush being the default status for non-vehicle units). Often, issuing a Defend/Ambush order will alter a unit's deploy location slightly when it chooses better nearby cover.

e) I cant change a unit's default facing.

f) I cant issue Fire or Move orders.

g) I can use Support missions.

Basically, as close to an AI vs AI campaign as I can manage. It takes only moments to prepare each battle. If there are no support mission(s) for me to manage, I'll usually let the battle run unattended in a background window. The idea is to see how the LSA AI performs as the attacker against 'itself'. The campaign result screen after 6 full days speak for itself -




[image]local://upfiles/31774/3C287E1C2E474151B307A04DA4CEB5A8.jpg[/image]



Erik Rutins -> RE: AI vs AI grand campaign (6/23/2011 8:57:35 PM)

The AI is definitely better than it was, partly because of other improvements, but clearly it's better at defending than attacking (which is true of most AI). The across the board improvements would help the AI both on offense and on defense and when it plays against itself, you'd basically expect that to end up about even. Did you run a test like this with the original LSA release? I'd expect the results would not change much, because the improvements were not focused on improving the AI when it's attacking, but I'm curious.

Regards,

- Erik



xe5 -> RE: AI vs AI grand campaign (6/23/2011 9:48:56 PM)

The AI has marginally improved since the LSA release version, and considerably improved since ~CC5. The above campaign uses .51b/.51 with no major compatibility issues so far.

Some areas where the attack AI and solo play balance could be improved:

1) add an 'Expert' difficulty option which would limit the player to the default deployment and not show the clock numerals, enemy force morale (FM) indicator, enemy locations on the overview & minimaps, or any enemy unit info (team type names, team status etc).

2) default deployment should endeavor to place AI units in cover and concealment.

3) the approach path taken by attacking units should better maintain cover & concealment

3) Exit VLs to maps not currently controlled by the AI should be higher priority objectives.

4) Allow the AI to 'interpret' the player's FM indicator to better gauge enemy strength and lack thereof.
eg. when the loss of a single infantry unit causes a large FM drop, I know that force is weak and susceptible to a strong attack

5) Allow the AI to interpret its both FM indicators and call off attacks when it becomes outnumbered. In particular, the AI should do a better job "saving the last man" in units that have taken casualties. Loss of the last man in a unit has a disproportionately negative FM effect. All too often the AI will seemingly sacrifice the 'last man' needlessly when it should be doing the exact opposite.




emperor peter -> RE: AI vs AI grand campaign (6/23/2011 10:33:33 PM)

^^ great suggestions above, but I would like to add:

3) is (almost) useless if the strategic map AI isn't improved. The AI doesn't manage to keep it's supply lines open (big problem for the Arnhem and Nijmegen sector) when it attacks. This gets their BGs disbanded often. Also it never just defends when it should.
(Example: I was trying to rest my AB BG in Nijmegen City before attacking the bridge but the weak German BG kept attacking me until it was destroyed, I never had to fight for the Nijmegen Bridge itself, in ABTF it was always an intense battle there.)



xe5 -> RE: AI vs AI grand campaign (6/24/2011 12:32:58 AM)

@EricR - agreed, the AI is better at defense, but, a CC defense without tactical movement should generally be a losing proposition.

@M_Snake - a bug in the Allied AB supply allows those BGs to have unlimited automatic supply.



emperor peter -> RE: AI vs AI grand campaign (6/24/2011 12:12:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5
@M_Snake - a bug in the Allied AB supply allows those BGs to have unlimited automatic supply.

I did not know that, but it's not just about supply, attacking BGs also disband if they can't retreat because the map they attacked from is taken. The AI doesn't consider this at all.



xe5 -> RE: AI vs AI grand campaign (6/25/2011 6:19:40 PM)

The save file for this campaign went bust (frozen at 'Initializing AI') on the Sept 24 0600 turn. But Im confident the non-moving Axis could have held on for a Major Victory had it played out to the end. Doubtful the Allied AI could have ever gotten past Nijmegen Bridge with the 7 Tiger IIs of Abt 506 on the far bank.

[image]local://upfiles/31774/BE1B0F6927214354A1D570501F6CFE10.jpg[/image]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375