AI not aggressive in Offensive? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat – The Bloody First



Message

GrdAdmiral -> AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/6/2019 10:09:39 PM)

I’ve only been playing co-op so far with my friend. On Defensive, the AI has been some what challenging, but the placement of artillery and anti-tank guns in the rear and not being used is abnormal. They position with no fire arcs and are often in places that have no real value to the fight. The player has to hunt them down.

But the AI seems to completely stall on offense. No armor/vehicle assaults supported by infantry or artillery. They do launch artillery/mortar special attacks, but mostly against allied vehicles locations? No smoke with assaults and if they do assault, its one or two units at a time.

When you hit the AI hard enough, the units all fall back, but when pushed into a corner they just stop and stand there running in circles it seems. They don’t regroup and counter attack.

Right now I’m playing on normal. Will raising the difficulty of the AI in the settings make them be more aggressive?



SteveMcClaire -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/7/2019 3:24:31 PM)

The AI aggressiveness is based primarily on how strong it thinks it is versus the player force(s). Attacking at it's most aggressive it should push forward toward multiple VLs at once. Attacking at its least aggressive it should move up until it makes contact and then try to take out your units unit it has an advantage. If the AI is falling back it has decided its outnumbered and is either fighting a delaying action or preparing to lose the map.

Difficulty settings change how many and what type of units you receive -- putting the AI on Green and yourself on Elite will make the AI forces significantly stronger, which will in turn make it generally more aggressive.



wolf14455 -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/7/2019 3:34:50 PM)

I encountered AI using tanks in close prox. of my ground troops without own infantry support. Not so smart as I knocked out 2 pzIIIs and one half track in Tunisia, not in same battle thou.



SteveMcClaire -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/7/2019 4:54:07 PM)

Separating enemy tanks from their infantry support does help. The AI does try to keep groups of units together but in some cases may send recon vehicles (like half tracks or light tanks) forward, and tanks may forge ahead if their infantry can't keep up in the attack.



Werewolf13 -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/7/2019 5:03:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire


Difficulty settings change how many and what type of units you receive -- putting the AI on Green and yourself on Elite will make the AI forces significantly stronger, which will in turn make it generally more aggressive.
Emphasis mine...

Uhhhh... I'm sorry but green AI makes them stronger? Morale (a significant part of any CC game) of GREEN units is in real life historically high until they start getting killed and then they break like a glass rod and run like poop out of a goose. Green troops not supported by regulars or veterans are almost as useless as conscripts.

I'm not getting how setting the AI to green and the player to elite would make the AI more aggressive.



SteveMcClaire -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/7/2019 5:35:19 PM)

I'm talking about the game difficulty level settings.

Green difficulty level means 'The player for this side is 'Green' and would like some advantages (like extra men/units) while they learn the game.'

Elite difficulty means 'The player on this side is an expert and wants the most challenging mode.'





Werewolf13 -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/7/2019 6:50:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire

Green difficulty level means 'The player for this side is 'Green' and would like some advantages (like extra men/units) while they learn the game.'

Elite difficulty means 'The player on this side is an expert and wants the most challenging mode.'



WHOAH!
I've been playing CC games since the very first one that ATomic Games published way way back in the 90's (got 'em all, somewhere) and I never knew that. I always assumed that Elite meant better troops, higher morale etc. And green meant brand new untested, easily routed - especially since the impact of morale was always hyped and emphasized. So if, for example, I set the AI to elite and myself to Veteran then the AI is the one getting fewer of everything than me? Damn! I've been doin' it backwards for the better part of 25 years.

I try to learn something new every day. I guess this is my something new for today.



SteveMcClaire -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/7/2019 7:10:03 PM)

The lowest difficulty is actually 'Recruit' (not Green) and the hardest 'Elite.' But yes how it has been since this scale was introduced (CC4 I think?)



headcount_slith -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/7/2019 7:54:23 PM)

quote:

The AI aggressiveness is based primarily on how strong it thinks it is versus the player force(s). Attacking at it's most aggressive it should push forward toward multiple VLs at once.


Any idea what's going on in the test scenario pictured below (inset shows situation at start)? It's an AI-controlled US attack and the Americans basically do almost nothing for the entire 30 minutes except scout one VL with one unit (they were on the verge of taking another VL with the same scouts when the scenario ends)

Surely, with such a huge numbers advantage (see minimaps) they should have pushed hard for all three VLs?

I can send you the scenario if you'd like to try it for yourself.



[image]local://upfiles/40961/9EE0CACB862D44C4AD42C048B00AC8E4.jpg[/image]



wodin -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/7/2019 7:57:50 PM)

Personally I think it's doing an OK job. Remember battles on a map in CC can go on for abit as the attacker slowly takes the ground. In my games if the AI went all out attack they'd be wiped out. So slowly does it is probably the key.

It's the useless AFV and AT Guns that are a big issue.



SteveMcClaire -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/7/2019 9:30:01 PM)

It sounds like a custom scenario? These are also influenced by the 'Attacker' setting you choose. But please send me the scenario and I'll look at it. Thanks.





headcount_slith -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/8/2019 6:38:58 AM)

The scenario file is attached. It's a US attack.

The gap in the US deployment zone is there to prevent the Americans deploying on the bridges (if they do this they end up hovering in the sky when the game starts).

Other issues revealed by this and the other AI test scenarios I've been running:

- AI always deploys in identical fashion whenever scenario is run
- AI 'attacks' in identical fashion whenever scenario is run
- AI ignores nearby 'primary' VL and heads for distant 'minor' one instead
- Main bulk of AI force waiting while scouts scout instead of following at sensible distance (This means AI sometimes doesn't have time to mount proper attack when intel is gathered)

For the record, I love the fact that the AI scouts in CCTBF, I just wish it would do it with a bit more urgency/support when - as you've previously stated - it's aware potential resistance is light.



headcount_slith -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/8/2019 1:43:32 PM)

Here's another example of an improbably halfhearted AI attack. I've just played Kasserine Pass as the US at the highest difficulty setting (Elite vs Recruit). The Germans failed to gain any of my VLs despite sitting right next to an unnoccupied one for around ten minutes. Most of my VLs were never attacked (the Germans unsuccessfully assaulted the compound in the NW with infantry). Most of my units never fired a shot.

I may have got lucky with my initial bombardment (1 tank destroyed and one, possibly two HTs tracked) but I know for a fact the enemy still had mobile, dangerous AFVs and an on-map mortar after the barrage, because I observed them/felt their wrath before withdrawing from the ridge under fire.

Here's the results screen:

[image]local://upfiles/40961/48EAE1DECCDF49B4AB9A405584415F78.jpg[/image]



headcount_slith -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/8/2019 1:45:26 PM)

State of play/map at the end:

[image]local://upfiles/40961/C2CCD59CF6564D5F9CFFEEE8F3E61DB9.jpg[/image]



headcount_slith -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/8/2019 1:47:36 PM)

Situation post-barrage:


[image]local://upfiles/40961/6BD10F90BB31414396DAC89D3F838042.jpg[/image]



SteveMcClaire -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/8/2019 10:20:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: headcount_slith
The scenario file is attached. It's a US attack.


Took a quick look -- The Panther has a high enough rating to prevent a 2:1 threshold, so the US is making a probing attack. Units will move forward cautiously until they make contact. They never make contact since you're in the corner.

If you run it without just a few German infantry teams instead you should get a more aggressive US attack.

Steve









GrdAdmiral -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/9/2019 4:06:35 AM)

Thank you for the info. I will try placing the difficulty of the AI on green.

Is there a chart or explanation that outlines what each AI setting does and how it works?

Is it possible to change the difficulty of a saved campaign without having to start over from scratch?



headcount_slith -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/9/2019 5:38:36 AM)

Thanks for taking a look. I'm amazed the game doesn't interpret that situation as a 2: 1 advantage to the US. The Germans are fielding 1 x Panther and a 4-man command team. The US a Sherman and 67 men. If that imbalance doesn't encourage boldness from an AI attacker then it's little wonder the AI can seem reluctant to advance at times in CCTBF.



STIENER -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/9/2019 5:59:11 AM)

wow..i would tend to agree headcount slith....sounds like the Ai still needs work....sigh



SteveMcClaire -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/9/2019 4:29:25 PM)

GrdAdmiral,

The details on the difficulty settings are covered in the game manual. Basically the difficulty will modify the number of units you can field, whether you get some low-quantity support units at all -- the Germans won't usually get a Tiger on Elite for example, and how many replacements you get to fill out losses.

Steve



PipFromSlitherine -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/9/2019 7:45:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: STIENER

wow..i would tend to agree headcount slith....sounds like the Ai still needs work....sigh


It is always going to be a matter of opinion. While Tim has constructed a specific case where he thinks the AI should behave differently I (for example) would likely play in the same way in that scenario. A too aggressive AI would be easy to game, and would generate opinion that it wasn't cautious enough.

Alternatively, a decent number of people seem to feel that AI strategy mostly makes reasonable decisions, but it's always going to be, to a large extent, a matter of opinion.

Cheers

Pip



STIENER -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/9/2019 8:07:13 PM)

Hi PIP
I would tend to disagree to a point. following the recent posts on this new game I would suggest that players are finding the AI not up to snuff. you guys have a tendancy to down play this stuff...oh..thats an opinion...oh...you cant please everyone etc etc...just like you have here. IMO you need to listen to the people who are buying your game and basically play testing right now.
TBF was touted as a basically single player game with an AI that would give a good fight. I say basically a single player game because theres no continuity on the german side in the GC. [ which I personally don't like or the linerer strat and GC...I like the old start like GTC ect ] it would appear that the AI does not give a good fight. also gun accuracy and spotting appear to be an issue.
your only as good as the people who buy your games....I think you should listen to them and not sluff it off as its just an opinion



headcount_slith -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/9/2019 8:26:09 PM)

"I (for example) would likely play in the same way in that scenario"

Seriously? You outnumber the enemy 17 to 1 and you'd spend the entire 30-minute battle using one team to scout less than half of the area where the enemy could conceivably be, failing to grab two of a possible three VLs in the process?

"a decent number of people seem to feel that AI strategy mostly makes reasonable decisions"

So "job done" - you've no plans to work on the offensive AI?



PipFromSlitherine -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/9/2019 9:07:20 PM)

Well given I am not supposed to know the exact composition of the enemy, only their rough strength (with a Panther being a fairly large plus to the strength in the data that the AI gets), it's not quite that simple a decision. In your article you inaccurately state the AI has too much pre-battle information, and here you seem to be saying it isn't being given enough.

We are clearly happy to take feedback on the AI, hence Steve taking time to answer in detail people's questions, and we will use all the input we get to improve the player experience, though generally based on wider gameplay rather then atypical situations.

Cheers

Pip



PipFromSlitherine -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/9/2019 9:13:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: STIENER

Hi PIP
I would tend to disagree to a point. following the recent posts on this new game I would suggest that players are finding the AI not up to snuff. you guys have a tendancy to down play this stuff...oh..thats an opinion...oh...you cant please everyone etc etc...just like you have here. IMO you need to listen to the people who are buying your game and basically play testing right now.
TBF was touted as a basically single player game with an AI that would give a good fight. I say basically a single player game because theres no continuity on the german side in the GC. [ which I personally don't like or the linerer strat and GC...I like the old start like GTC ect ] it would appear that the AI does not give a good fight. also gun accuracy and spotting appear to be an issue.
your only as good as the people who buy your games....I think you should listen to them and not sluff it off as its just an opinion

We are absolutely not trying to shrug off feedback, in fact every single post is read and then put into a sheet of feedback to generate tasks for improvement. Some of the spotting feedback will likely lead to bug fixes or tweaks. All this and the programming lead coming onto the forums to give deep-dives into what is going on under the hood.

If the broad consensus turns out to be the AI needs to be more aggressive then we will tune it up, but I would argue it's much to early to say that at this point.

Cheers

Pip



headcount_slith -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/9/2019 9:22:08 PM)

"In your article you inaccurately state the AI has too much pre-battle information, and here you seem to be saying it isn't being given enough."

In the review what I actually pointed out was that the attacking behaviour of the CPU opponent was influenced by the number of units you fielded - a pretty unusual feature in a computer wargame. You don't need to be a historian to realise that this is a questionable design decision. The history of warfare is littered with examples where offensive tactics/determination had nothing to do with relative force sizes.

I've no idea how you could interpret my post as a call for the AI to be given more information. As I clearly state in my post "For the record, I love the fact that the AI scouts in CCTBF, I just wish it would do it with a bit more urgency/support when it's aware potential resistance is light."

The "atypical situations" you seem so suspicious of are merely uncluttered test scenarios in which behaviours can be observed more easily.




STIENER -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/9/2019 9:28:30 PM)

Glad to hear that Pip. that's good news.
your going to get the most feed back now in the first few weeks after the game comes out ...after that if players aren't happy and they don't see that your actually going to do something to move forward with there concerns...they just put the game on the shelf and move on. you know im right.
so lets not wait too long for your broad consensus to happen. another thing....a large majority of players don't even post that they are liking or not liking the game. ...so you have to only consider and act on those who do post, not on a guess that everyone loves the game and its ok.

ive seen this play out since CC2 pip...every time a new CC game comes out...we play test it for you and you guys don't believe us or say its the way its supposed to be. we love CC the hard core group of us around here but seriously please listen to the players that post and not to the ones that don't.



PipFromSlitherine -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/9/2019 9:43:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: STIENER

Glad to hear that Pip. that's good news.
your going to get the most feed back now in the first few weeks after the game comes out ...after that if players aren't happy and they don't see that your actually going to do something to move forward with there concerns...they just put the game on the shelf and move on. you know im right.
so lets not wait too long for your broad consensus to happen. another thing....a large majority of players don't even post that they are liking or not liking the game. ...so you have to only consider and act on those who do post, not on a guess that everyone loves the game and its ok.

ive seen this play out since CC2 pip...every time a new CC game comes out...we play test it for you and you guys don't believe us or say its the way its supposed to be. we love CC the hard core group of us around here but seriously please listen to the players that post and not to the ones that don't.

We are definitely listening, have no fear - the number of new tasks generated in just this last week attests to it [:)]

Cheers

Pip



Jack59 -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/10/2019 3:39:10 AM)

I am reading this post to see if AI is good enough to make me buy the game. Panthers on the Fog was the last CC game I purchased and that AI was useless. Is this true with this game? I travel away from home and usually have no or poor internet access. Playing a living player would be preferred, but is rarely an option for me.

What I would like to see is an AI that plays defensively and try's to holds it objective and starts it's position in high ground or good cover. Or have an AI that plays offensively and try's to capture objectives effectively. Changing the size of the force-pool seems a cop-out. A few units taking on many units could be challenging, but not realistic. Besides part of the fun is managing a lot of units and managing them wisely. The AI should have an both a defensive and offensive mode. Maybe the AI should have higher moral and accuracy modes?



budd -> RE: AI not aggressive in Offensive? (10/10/2019 5:07:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jack59

I am reading this post to see if AI is good enough to make me buy the game. Panthers on the Fog was the last CC game I purchased and that AI was useless. Is this true with this game? I travel away from home and usually have no or poor internet access. Playing a living player would be preferred, but is rarely an option for me.

What I would like to see is an AI that plays defensively and try's to holds it objective and starts it's position in high ground or good cover. Or have an AI that plays offensively and try's to capture objectives effectively. Changing the size of the force-pool seems a cop-out. A few units taking on many units could be challenging, but not realistic. Besides part of the fun is managing a lot of units and managing them wisely. The AI should have an both a defensive and offensive mode. Maybe the AI should have higher moral and accuracy modes?


Too Soon for me at least to offer an opinion on the AI. I've been setting up scenarios for testing LOS and accuracy. I've seen it go both ways, the couple of attacks by the AI I setup it advanced piece meal and led with unsupported armor, the armor went racing into town, in fact straight thru town on it's own. But then when I played a battle during the campaign from what I could tell the AI concentrated it force and went after the most important objective, a VP on the highest ridge. It hit the ridge with Arty before assaulting with foot troops and armor in support, I thought that was pretty good. Seems to defend ok, but again it's just to soon for me to judge.

Nobody should expect a miracle AI, especially on attack.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.4375