AI cota vs httr !!

[ericfa2a]

Hello all !!

I have purchased HTTR 3 weeks ago and i love it. I play with painfully realistic delays orders. I have played many of the small scenarios but i find that the ai isn't good enough to attack in strengh some objectives.
For example, i have played four times the "second wave" scenario as allies. The last time, i have put all reinforcements in favour for axis but i still win a decisive victory.
In the review after game, the ai have a lot of axis troops south of the highway objective but didn't attack in strengh with them.

I'll see this behavior often in the shorter scenarios and i want to know if the ai in COTA is more capable in attack than in HTTR. Or if we must play the larger scenarios to see the ai shines more ?

Thanks for yours replies.


Thanks all.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

I think that overall the AI is more aggressive in CotA than in HttR. That's my subjective impression.
But to be sure, a patch will come out soon that will make the AI more aggressive. Take a look at this quote by Arjuna:

...Plus in response to some feedback here about a lack of AI aggression I have tweaked the probability values for initiating and calling off attacks...

The whole thread can be found HERE.

CotA has lots of new features and it won't disappoint you.

[MarkShot]

I wouldn't even know where to begin as to stating how the HTTR and the COTA AI differ. Dave issues release notices when he puts out executables for us to test. I have saved and categorized every notice ... at the end of it all, all I can say is that they are different. If there is one thing Dave loves to tweak it is the AI. In fact, I wonder if Dave can sit down at the keyboard and not tweak the AI. I think the technical term for it is AAID; Adictive AI Disorder.

Seriously, both games are a lot of fun even if cannot really give precise answer to your question.

[HansBolter]

One thing I have found consistently with game AIs is that they can be manipulated pretty easily to do what you want them to do from a player standpoint.

This can be both good and bad. It is easy to take advantage of an AI by baiting it and setting traps for it, which is usually a negative because you are resorting to "gaming" the AI to beat it.

However, this can also be used to encourage the AI to be more agressive. If you build a perfect defense the AI may become stymied and simply shut down it's efforts to attack you. I have found this true in my most recent game of Battles In Normandy, the Rommel Plan, where I have the allies completely hemmed in with such a solid line the AI simply cannot find a place to get viable attack odds so it spends each turn shuttling units back and forth and never attacking while the SS panzer divisions are slowly, but surely sweeping the British army off the map.

By NOT building the perfect defense and leaving the AI something to get a viable attack on, you can encourage the AI to be more aggressive. I realize this is mostly an artifice of "gaming" and not completely in the spirit of the "command simulator", but it does reflect reality to at least a small degree as any good commander is going to attempt to channelize his enemies attacks by making it more appealing to his enemy to attack where he wants them to.

So my advice is stop trying to be so efficient in winning. Set up a sloppy defense somehwere, make a half hearted, ill planned attack somehwere....challenge yourself by making a few sloppy mistakes to give the AI a fighting chance.

I try to include at least one major blunder in every operation!

[Vance]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
So my advice is stop trying to be so efficient in winning. Set up a sloppy defense somehwere, make a half hearted, ill planned attack somehwere....challenge yourself by making a few sloppy mistakes to give the AI a fighting chance.

Wauw ... that is an eye opener. The game isn't about wining, it is about reacting and correcting mistakes, which real comanders will also make. Thanks for the advice.

[MarkShot]

Well, you guys are probably better players than me. Although I win most of the time, I rarely find it due to gaming the AI.

But here are the three gamey techniques that I know of with the engine. This is not to say that I don't use other techniques which are ahistorical and not according to doctrine; Bil will always point out that my fire basing of arty was not WWII doctrine.

Here goes:

(1) RDOA/HTTR had a number of scenarios with a few spread standing objectives (primarily completion points) and no real logical progression of attack. COTA scenarios tend to more often feature moving battles with shifting line and occupation/exit objectives. So, with HTTR, you could attack say leave the most defensible objective totally unthreatened for the whole game and attack elsewhere. By the end of the game, you would often find that the AI had shifted forces and left it virtually undefended when you made your attack.

(2) I remember one day Golf33 (when already a beta tester or employee) released a new HTTR scenario for the beta team to try. It was a meeting engagement which he thought would be a pretty tough fight. Well, I used my 59 minute order delay waived window to command each individual unit where I wanted. Also, note that single units move much faster than forces (as they move with bounding overwatch). I won the scenario easily and Steve was impressed with my creative gameyness.

(3) I have not personally tried this, but Eddy pointed this out to me during one of my scenario reviews feature a German attack on Castle Ridge at Platamon. His technique was to lead the main attack with a weak probe. According to Eddy, the AI will mainly allocate arty to targets in closest proximity to friendly units as opposed to the strategically most threatening targets (like the main attack).

(4*) I often stand down my arty at night. On call arty will happily hit night time targets, but I know that I will often have much more interesting target portfolio at first light.

(5*) In a recent game with many units, I wanted some very specific defensive formations, but I did not want to pay the heavy order delay penalty to have it "just perfect". So, I individually ordered units. Once, they were all deployed, I reconstituted their organic command to reduce command load.

* These are possibly gamey techniques, but I will include them anyway.

---

Alright, so after four years of working with the development of the engine. I only have three gamey examples I can cite. On the whole, I think that is a pretty impressive statement about the quality of the game AI and the mechanics.

[HansBolter]

Two quick comments:

1. My "advice" was meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek [:D] The gest of it was: It doesn't hurt for game balance when competing against an AI to get a little sloppy.

2. Markshot's comment about resting artillery at night brings up a question. I have tended to leave artillery on call at night in almost every scenario I have played. After several days of fighting when fatigue can become a big factor in timing my next move, I find that my artillery units are the most severely fatigued of my entire force. Now for the 64 thousand dollar question....does fatigue affect an artillery units rate of fire?

p.s. I am surprised that no one has commented on what a memorable quote the last line of my post makes for!

[JeF]

ORIGINAL: ericfa2a
I'll see this behavior often in the shorter scenarios and i want to know if the ai in COTA is more capable in attack than in HTTR. Or if we must play the larger scenarios to see the ai shines more ?

I find the AI a bit more capable for launching attacks in COTA than in HTTR.

For once, it takes the time to assemble enough forces to mount a correct attack. But it does it to the detriment of time. It then seems not very active (while assembling forces) and usually throw away precious time in the process.

It should be a bit better after the patch as well.

I aways prefer to play the attacking side. Axis mot of the time.

JeF.

[Mr. Personality]

MarkShot, I hope your fifth example (placing units just so, then returning them to their organic command) isn't gamey, because that is a practice I follow in probably every CotA scenario I play. I find I most often do this at the beginning of scenarios, or in defending sectors that aren't yet engaged by the enemy. Even if units are dug in, I find I'll sometimes reposition units to locations that I think may offer some advantages. I figure if the game design intentionally allows a certain behavior on the player's part, then it isn't too gamey to use that ability.

Hansbolter, as to your point about making an ill advised move each game to make the contest more even - I find that I usually don't even have to conciously plan to make an ill-advised move, it seems to come naturally! [;)] In a recent Tempe Gorge scenario where the Allies end up having a large numerical advantage by the end, I really goofed by aggressively sending one of my own reinforcements (~3000 men?) across the main river on that map. They never made it to their objective before the Allied reinforcements showed up. My group of soldiers then spent the rest of the scenario attempting, but failing, to cross back north of the river. I forget the specific numbers, but perhaps 1000 out of 3000 troops escaped or hung on on the south side of the river. A very large percentage of my overall casualties were a direct result on my blunder. D'oh!

[MarkShot]

As far as I know fatigue, cohension, and moral do not affect ROF and/or movement rates until such time that you hit the auto-rest or auto-reorg threshold. However, I believe suppression will affect the volume of returned fire.

Hopefully, Dave can enlighten us if the above is correct.

[Arjuna]

Yes fatigue, cohesion, training, badParaDrop and crew availability all affect the rate of fire when bombarding. Same for direct fire but this is also modified by morale and experience.

[Arjuna]

BTW I think most will be very pleased with the mods to AI aggression in the patch.

[HansBolter]

I better learn to rest those arti units at night!

On the subject of positioning individual units, I do this to at least a small degree. In defense I tend to command at the battallion level, usually allowing the battalion commanders to control the companies. However, even when using the control for facing, frontage and depth, the battallion sometimes leaves at least one company in an undesirable, exposed location. I usually take control of that one company and reposition it. I then enjoy watching what the battallion commander does in the way of repositioning his remaining units to cover the facing, frontage and depth I allocated for him.

In attack I tend to let the battalion command all of it's sub-units. If I have a full regiment available whose component battalions are cohesively positioned to act in unison, I will command the attack at the regimental level. I do this mostly to observe what the AI will do when I give it a littlle lattitude to command on it's own.

[ericfa2a]

Well Glad to see that the AI in Cota will be more aggressive.

Out of eight's review the 17 june 2006 : "In short, the enemy strategic AI is not aggressive enough at taking objectives, and makes beating the game a little easier than it should be.". Definitively, most of them are waiting for this more agressive AI !!![:)]

Well i will wait for the patch and buy COTA as soon as the patch is out. Until now, i will upgrade my skills in the longer scenarios and campaign of HTTR. And  i will be ready for the new agressive AI in COTA !!!

Thanks Dave and all the PG's team for the hard work and support.
Thanks for having created one of the best wargame engine of the world.[:)][:)]

Eric.

[MarkShot]

Build 3132 is out! I sense a weekend of hostilities coming on. Yee haw!

At the moment, I am busy touring Elasson with my subordinates and looking to see what can be done to slow the Germans down.

In the theme of yesterday's post of possibly gamey tactics ...

As all of you know, the game does not let you intentionally blow bridge. However, one can increase the odds of a bridge getting blown quite a bit. The key is to leave it relatively lightly defended by a unit(s) that gets dug-in in a reverse slope situation. The reverse slope situation is important, since you don't want an entire enemy column to be able to lay down fire upon the unit who should blow the bridge. You want the lead enemy unit to literally trip over the defenders as it hits the dead space. This also helps prevent an arty barrage, since the enemy will already be in too close contact to use the heavy stuff. Additionally, your unit tasked with blowing the bridge is unlikely to get too supressed if they are dug-in and the enemy is moving. So, reverse slope is the key. This is also better than simply being in good cover with a low profile, since your unit is likely to open up and make the enemy suspicious if they can see the enemy; even if the enemy cannot see them. But your troops won't shoot at what they cannot see.

But what if you cannot get a good reverse slope set up on the far bank? Then what? Well, make sure that the enemy does not hit the bridge until night time. The cover of darkness will have practically the same effect.

Gamey technique? Perhaps, since you are decidely acting to improve the chances of the bridge getting blown as opposed to held.

Of course, when you are playing COTA by yourself ... as long as you are having a good time, then who cares how you play it.

[RedDevil]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Yes fatigue, cohesion, training, badParaDrop and crew availability all affect the rate of fire when bombarding. Same for direct fire but this is also modified by morale and experience.

Hello,

I already raised this issue: is the only way to make an arty unit, or more specifically a mortar unit rest "for real" without taking direct control of it?

I really prefer to keep it attached but even when resting the mortar remains on call and never rests.
Try to place a battalion with an attached mortar unit 2km or so behind the enemy lines and order it to rest. You will notice that the mortar unit keeps performing fire missions in support of the front line units. The result is that after 12-24 hours the line units are fresh and ready to rejoin the fray while the mortar unit is at 80%+ fatigue levels with two consequences:
a) (as I just learnt) the rate of fire and efficiency of the fire missions is affected
b) the battalion will rest frequently while marching to the allocated position because the mortar guys are dragging their feet.

This happened to me quite often playing the charge of the centaurs scenario where fatigue management and fast pace are essential to achieve a victory as Axis player.

My proposal would be that when given the order to rest (indirectly via the direct superior), a mortar unit responds only to calls made by the other units attached to the same direct superior (i.e. fire mission to protect the rest of the battalion/taskforce/battlegroup/...).

Cheers,

RedDevil

[Arjuna]

RedDevil,
 
Good suggestion.
 
TT3074 - AI - Arty Resting - Ignore all requests except from immediate superior and his subs

[Jakerson]

I always deattach all front line mortar units place them to same group and move to reserve to rest when I feel that they are too tired or very low on ammo.

You could cross that direct fire support only to this mortar group and it only answers fire support calls of all the reserve mortar witch never come unsless enemy moves too close to my reserve when I even want them to start fire enemy.

[HansBolter]

The discussion about resting units brings up another point.

I have noticed that by the second day after an initial drop, after I have moved a battalion a substantial distance from the drop zone and it is either resting or in a defensive stance, and an additional late arriving sub-unit such as an antitank platoon or a mortar company arrives at the drop zone, the sub-unit will not move to physically link up with it's parent unit after it has been reattached until new orders have been given to the parent unit.

It seems to me that I shouldn't have to leave the newly arrived sub-unit detached and give it individual orders to move to the location of it's parent unit before reattaching it. If the sub-unit is 3-4 kilometers away from it's parent unit when it gets reattached, shouldn't it move to the location of the parent unit to deploy withing the perimeter already established for the parent unit instead of sitting on it's duff at the drop zone until the parent unit receives new orders?

[MarkShot]

What you are observing is the parent phenomena (or top down driven behavior):

Parent catches some Z's, then so does everyone.

Parent routes, then no one knows what to do.

As long as we are in the "gamey" thread, one could change attachments of subordinates (create a force without the HQ) that unforetunately had an HQ caught behind enemy lines or excessively tired so that the force itself once again would become functional.

Perhaps, only possible gamey.