poor AI decisions in demo

[skarp]

hi

I've come to BFTB from HTTR. I was going to buy but decided I'd try the demo first. I was very disappointed to win a decisive victory uisng realistic orders delay on first try. More worrying were daft decisions on the part of the AI. I saw one attack lead by the AT platoon and some bizarre route choices. When I tried playing Axis - I ordered a retreat using avoidance but a unit persistently tried to withdraw via a direct route through the enemy even though it's comrades made a sensible choice. I couldn't save any games because it was the demo but I saw enough to worry me out of buying. I want to be able to rely on the AI being competent, will I be disappointed with the full game?
thanks
john

[johndoesecond]

Hi skarp,

First of all, I want to say that I'm in no way related to Panther Games nor Matrix Games, and don't have any interest in recommending you to buy it. For full disclosure, the only interest I do have, of course, is to have other people play and join the community, being a passionate fan of the game.

Now, about that outcome of the demo scenario: look, any experienced player can easily win as Allies. The number, strength and quality of forces is just overwhelming. If you're an HTTR veteran, I'm not surprised at all.
Try as Germans next time (it is winable). Anyway, in the game there are many more much more challenging scenarios, for both sides.


About those other things, an attack by AT platoon is not necessarily bad. You have to consider what the forces at hand were, and you also need to keep in mind that these platoons are fequently AT-gun-strenghtened infantry companies, so potentially usable for assault tasks. In my experience, the AT coy are often ordered by the HQ to stay behind, in reserve or as a direct fire support, so I assume there must have been a series of specific circumstances that made things play out that way.
Of course HQ can make errors, some - rightly - "by design" (that depends on its commanding qualities and skills).

Also, the paths are calculated by the HQ's AI with information at hand, and again also depends on commanding skills.
Yes, sometimes these decisions turn out badly, but that's not too distant from how the real world works (and for me is one of the fascinating aspects of this game).

Now, all this does not of course mean that the AI is perfect, or that there possibly aren't bugs instead of by-design behaviour.

Of course not: in my experience, a highly expert player can generally perform better than the AI.

But to my knowledge of the current state of the art, this is as good as it gets.
(and to me, it's magic!)

Cheers.

[skarp]

@ johndoesecond

thanks for the reply. Re the assault lead by the AT company - it was totally suicidal foray unsupported and the command had no business sending it there. I played commanding only at combat command level and there were plenty of other units to spearhead an assault.

I did notice how overwhelming superior the allies were when I played as axis. I got whupped real quick [:D] However the daft decisions kept on coming. I ordered a reinforcement group to set up a tight defensive line in Ste Vith about 600m x 600m. Instead they deployed neatly 1km in front of the town in open ground and were swiftly overrun. I recall this bad choice of ground from HTTR and remember having to individually position subunits and then reattach and order defend in situ. I was hoping not to have to do it here.

Re mistakes and blunders are part of war and I don't mind them but I do want an AI I can generally trust and not have to micromanage every unit. I'm hoping someone from Panther will turn up and assure me the demo featured an earlier version of the AI and had been much tightened up since.