how good is the AI?

[pizzagrenadier]

hi before i commit to buy this i just want to hear you guys opinions on AI. how crafty is it?

from previews the ai is good. but i'd like to hear some good war stories in the scenarios that you guys played. i don't mind spoilers, so fire away with some of your nice encounters with this AI.

thanks a bunch. [:)]

[Elfastball7]

The AI is challenging and the combat nail biting

[TigerTC]

The AI kicks my butt quite often. He will come at you from different directions and, while the developers say that they didn't program doctrine into the AI, the capabilities of the two sides (especially the fact that the Soviets are sending waves of companies (10 tanks) at your platoons) favors real-world tactics for each side.

I haven't seen the AI make any stupid WTF moves either. Heck, more often it's my own guys that I'm yelling at for doing something wrong!

[stormbringer3]

I think that the AI is excellent with one area for improvement. When I play as the Soviets, the Nato forces keep attacking instead of defending. As a result Nato hits that 70% sudden death without my achieving many of the objectives thereby giving me a low score. To combat this, eventually I really hold back on using the Soviet artillery and send units using hasty move along the map edges to obtain some of the behind the lines objective hexes before Nato finishes comitting suicide because of their attack posture.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

I was in a campaign scenario yesterday as NATO and I had blown some bridges, denying (I thought) the Pact a way over a river. My recon noted a large force angling away from my troops towards a low-lying region near the river, sheltered from the other side by a ridgeline. Sure enough, when I finally got eyes on the Russkies, they had built a bridge and poured a tank battalion over the damn thing into my rear. I finally snatched a contested result out of the battle, but it was close.

[jack54]

It's very good, IMHO. It's aggressive which leads to some tense action; it also varies it's attack so ALL the scenarios have replay value.

However the highest praise I can give is that at times, during the Soviet campaign, I felt as though the defending AI units were 'Spawning' in place to defend various towns and VP. 'THEY ARE NOT' the AI is moving units in and out of urban terrain falling back and re-entering. Quite fun.

[TigerTC]

Playing one of the Soviet campaigns today, I tried a two-pronged thrust in the center and the south. I sent a couple recce units north just as a feint. The AI defeated my recce units, noticed my weakness north, and is now counterattacking up there where I have NO forces. I've dispatched my Sagger ATGM company and a T-64 company, but it will take them a while to get there. The AI is definitely keeping me off-balance.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: stormbringer3

I think that the AI is excellent with one area for improvement. When I play as the Soviets, the Nato forces keep attacking instead of defending. As a result Nato hits that 70% sudden death without my achieving many of the objectives thereby giving me a low score. To combat this, eventually I really hold back on using the Soviet artillery and send units using hasty move along the map edges to obtain some of the behind the lines objective hexes before Nato finishes comitting suicide because of their attack posture.

Play the scenarios designed to be played as the Soviet player and you won't have that problem. That's the reason we specifically play balanced several scenarios to be played from the Soviet side.

Good Hunting.

MR

[stormbringer3]

Thanks for the reply.
IIRC these were Soviet player scenarios. The scenarios always say "best played as..." and I always follow those recommendations..

[Mad Russian]

They should have done well then. IIRC, all those were ME's. No NATO Defense.

Good Hunting.

MR

[stormbringer3]

Thanks again. When you state "all those were ME's" I have no idea what that means.

[Mad Russian]

ME's is the abbreviation for the military term Meeting Engagement.

Meeting engagements are where both sides are mobile and essentially bump into each other. This was the type of combat the Soviets thought would be predominant in a WWIII setting.

Good Hunting.

MR

[stormbringer3]

Ok, that completely explains it. Also, I now know the abbreviation for a meeting engagement.

[stormbringer3]

A thought about the ME. Is it possible for the Nato AI to be programmed to go into a defensive mode after they sustain a certain % of casualties when they own the majority of the objective hex points?
Thanks.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: stormbringer3
Is it possible for the Nato AI to be programmed to go into a defensive mode after they sustain a certain % of casualties when they own the majority of the objective hex points?
Thanks.

Not yet but it's on the list.

Good Hunting.

MR

[pizzagrenadier]

thanks for the info and stories guys !! i will definitely pick this one up when my next paycheck arrives. cheers !! [:)]

[mikeCK]

I think the AI is pretty good. It makes rational decisions and doesn't make "stupid" mistakes; which is really all you can ask.

It's not going to dazzle you with its tactics but won't really make big mistakes either

[76mm]

AI is OK but I wouldn't say it doesn't make stupid mistakes. When playing as WP, I've seen the NATO AI send light cav forces attacking right into the middle of my advancing hordes. That didn't end too well. However, I've only played about 8 games so far so am not really able to critique the AI yet.

[wodin]

The AI needs work still...it's better than most but could still be improved.

One improvement would be for the force to go on defense if taken too many casualties and try and consolidate ground already taken as mentioned above (casualty threshold could be set with an SOP).

Have an Ambush Order. This would help the AI, say if it had units in Ambush mode that held fire until either shot at (been spotted) or the enemy falls into the trap, aslong as the unit doesn't move and is in covered terrain you could have it hidden, maybe if in City terrain it wont be spotted if Inf but maybe spotted by Aerial Recon if an AFV, the less cover a hex gives the greater chance of it being spotted by aerial recon. I think inf though shouldn't be spotted in ambush mode if in a City or Town hex, other hexes it may get spotted by aerial recon. This would again would benefit the AI on defense.

I think Heli's need abit more work with regards to altitude and terrain hugging, would like it if under the hood the Heli's could drop below terrain features then pop up and fire then drop down again..obviously all this would need to be abstracted to a point due to the nature of abstract terrain\hexes. Lots of improvements would benefit the Tac AI.

As I said many of the thinsg mentione din the wish list will have a knock on effect that will improve the AI.

@76mm..maybe they didn't spot the enemy, sounds unlikely though.

[ParaB]

What I really like about the AI is how it varies its plans.

Here's an example from the "Time to Dance" scenario, played from the NATO side:

First game:

Red Army builds a pontoon bridge between bridges 3 and 4 (counted from W to E) and pushes through Bad Neustadt with the bulk of its armoured forces.

2nd game:

Red Army captures the Heustreu bridge (no. 5) and advances along the road to Bad Neustadt.

3rd game:

Red Army builds a bridge at Heustreu and pushes W right through Wollbach, while a 2nd force crosses the river at Bad Neustadt at the 2nd bridge.

After the 1st two games I thought I had figured out the AI's plans and set up a nice kill zone between the river and the wooded hills to the North. The AI completely surprised me with its move and before I could react Soviet T-80s were tearing into my HQ units...