Re Tac A.I.

[z1812]

Hi All,

As I play more I am starting to think that a somewhat active Tac A.I. would be advisable. Here are 3 situations I encountered in the last game I played where a Tac A.I. would have been useful.

1. A Sd Kpfw 250 wandered into the sights of my 45mm AT gun. The AT gun kept firing and firing. I thought that the 250 should attempt to move away to escape the AT fire. It did not.......turn after turn. After one turn I thought maybe the driver is stunned or stupid as an explanation for his suicidal behaviour. It took 4 full turns before he was killed. So the 250 just stayed there taking withering fire until he died.

2. I rushed a group of infantry under smoke to close assault a Stug. They came under heavy fire while emerging from the smoke and just did nothing for the balance of the turn order. No attempt to gain cover. Perhaps something is factored in like falling to the ground but it did not show in the animations nor in their "state". ( 1 squad lost )

3. A single Mortar unit that does not falter in defense against a Tank.........until the Tank kills it.

I am not one for explicit realism as it can get into the way of good game play. However the odd behaviour of some units, some of the time, in every game I have played, is bewildering, both in terms of game play and/or realism.

I also favour a command and control consideration. In my view, it lends an exciting extra dimension to the game. Some people may not want that level of detail but it could always be toggled as in Steel Panthers.

The above issues are not game breakers for me at all. I am quite enjoying PCK. Just the same you may want to think about the above for the next installment.

Regards John

[Capitaine]

1. You are talking about the actual opposing AI here.  Why invoke Tac AI when that's not the issue?
2. Units rushing in a phase that stop remain in that state until the next phase.  Perhaps there's a fix (change posture sooner) if it's deemed a problem.
3. If it's your mortar, you can move it.  Otherwise it's again an opposing AI issue, not Tac AI.

[z1812]

Hi Capitaine,

I am talking about General Tactical A.I. for both the player and the A.I. opponent.

The Mortar and Halftrack was a lack of proper Tac A.I. for the computer controlled side.

The infantry was a lack of proper Tac A.I. for the human player while his forces were under computer control.

Regards John

[Capitaine]

I'm just saying that since they appear to be multi-turn issues, it's not a matter of Tac AI, but plain old AI.  (Tac AI being intra-turn reactions programmed for units that trigger in certain circumstances).
 
The rushing issue may be able to be addressed w/o adding Tac AI.
 
Anyway, maybe Erik or other PCK person will comment more specifically.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: z1812
1. A Sd Kpfw 250 wandered into the sights of my 45mm AT gun. The AT gun kept firing and firing. I thought that the 250 should attempt to move away to escape the AT fire. It did not.......turn after turn. After one turn I thought maybe the driver is stunned or stupid as an explanation for his suicidal behaviour. It took 4 full turns before he was killed. So the 250 just stayed there taking withering fire until he died.

This was an enemy halftrack (i.e. controlled by the computer opponent), I assume? In the case of the human side, you'd Withdraw it - the AI should have done the same rather than sit there getting pounded (unless it was stunned, which is certainly possible).

2. I rushed a group of infantry under smoke to close assault a Stug. They came under heavy fire while emerging from the smoke and just did nothing for the balance of the turn order. No attempt to gain cover. Perhaps something is factored in like falling to the ground but it did not show in the animations nor in their "state". ( 1 squad lost )

Perhaps Rush was the wrong order in that situation? They would have reverted to Defend automatically at the start of the phase after their reached their destination, but if they didn't have far to go then I would have recommended Advance for the last phase so that they could start the close assault right away.

3. A single Mortar unit that does not falter in defense against a Tank.........until the Tank kills it.

This is not specific enough for me to comment on. Can you provide a few more details?

Regards,

- Erik

[z1812]

Hi Erik,

1. The SD Kpfw 250 was under computer control and stayed in its position until it was killed for 4 complete turns. It was not stunned and was actually firing at the AT gun when the AT gun finally killed it.

2. The infantry would have never reached the Stug with the advance command. As it was I lost a squad but still killed the Stug.

3. The Mortar was under computer control and continued to fire at the Tank over a number of turns until the Tank killed it.

Regards John

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: z1812
1. The SD Kpfw 250 was under computer control and stayed in its position until it was killed for 4 complete turns. It was not stunned and was actually firing at the AT gun when the AT gun finally killed it.

Aha, ok - the AI must have thought it had a good chance of wiping out the AT gun. Not a good tactic overall though, but that explains why it stayed there.

2. The infantry would have never reached the Stug with the advance command. As it was I lost a squad but still killed the Stug.

Ok - maybe I misunderstood. It sounded like you were saying that you Rushed but had to wait, which made me wonder if the distance was too long for Rushing.

3. The Mortar was under computer control and continued to fire at the Tank over a number of turns until the Tank killed it.

I can't figure that one out, honestly. I'll investigate.