how good is the AI?

[cbelva]

ORIGINAL: 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.

If there is any glaring weakness in the AI it is its ability to defend. This AI likes to attack!!! And it does. Which is opposite of most AI's. High on my list is getting the AI to defend in place better.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: cbelva
If there is any glaring weakness in the AI it is its ability to defend. ... High on my list is getting the AI to defend in place better.

Ideally, as for offense, there should be different AI doctrines for each side, and for different time periods. For example, US doctrine of "Active Defense" in the '70s was different than "AirLand Battle" in the '80s. Soviet/WP doctrine also had well-established templates for defense. Bundeswehr and BAOR probably had their own doctrines. For some of the other time periods and combatants being considered for the future, in some cases it may not be clear what the doctrines were. My concern is that even though the AI can be made to be quite challenging, it may be too generic and not realistically represent the forces involved. But hopefully the different limited orders cycle will help drive some of the AI behavoirs in the right direction. I'd like to see NATO behave like NATO, and Soviets/WP behave like Soviets/WP. Again, if the AI ideally provides a realistic computer opponent, players might just have to do some homework to study the different doctrines and their strengths/weaknesses. That would be a great simulation and not just a game. [;)]

[cbelva]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: cbelva
If there is any glaring weakness in the AI it is its ability to defend. ... High on my list is getting the AI to defend in place better.

Ideally, as for offense, there should be different AI doctrines for each side, and for different time periods. For example, US doctrine of "Active Defense" in the '70s was different than "AirLand Battle" in the '80s. Soviet/WP doctrine also had well-established templates for defense. Bundeswehr and BAOR probably had their own doctrines. For some of the other time periods and combatants being considered for the future, in some cases it may not be clear what the doctrines were. My concern is that even though the AI can be made to be quite challenging, it may be too generic and not realistically represent the forces involved. But hopefully the different limited orders cycle will help drive some of the AI behavoirs in the right direction. I'd like to see NATO behave like NATO, and Soviets/WP behave like Soviets/WP. Again, if the AI ideally provides a realistic computer opponent, players might just have to do some homework to study the different doctrines and their strengths/weaknesses. That would be a great simulation and not just a game. [;)]

One thing we noticed is that you can simulate different doctrines by the way you set up your scenarios. What I mean, the way you setup the AI forces and the positioning of the VL on the map helps the AI to define how it plays. This AI is not scripted allowing it to have the flexibility you see. That being said, you can push the AI by the way the scenario is designed to act a certain way.

[wodin]

Improving the AI with regards to defense will make a big difference..look forward to it!

[Jafele]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Improving the AI with regards to defense will make a big difference..look forward to it!

Yep, that should be a priority.

[CapnDarwin]

Jafele, It is a major item on our plan for game engine changes/enhancements. It's not something we are going to be able to fix in a day or two. The AI code is very complex and very deeply rooted into every corner of the game code. We may be able to make minor adjustments to help things as we go, but earth shattering changes will take a fair amount of time and effort.

[Jafele]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

Jafele, It is a major item on our plan for game engine changes/enhancements. It's not something we are going to be able to fix in a day or two. The AI code is very complex and very deeply rooted into every corner of the game code. We may be able to make minor adjustments to help things as we go, but earth shattering changes will take a fair amount of time and effort.

I know it.

[Mad Russian]

Here is a screen shot of something that shouldn't be happening. I keep telling myself, this shouldn't be happening....no really, this shouldn't be happening. [:@]

The area in the circle is being defended by the AI. So, how does it decide to defend this time? It attacks south out of the area, crosses to the west and then moves north to attack my battle formations from the rear.

I'm telling you, this shouldn't be happening!!! [:@]

But, it's because it does happen, is what makes this one of the best AI's ever to play against. [&o]

Good Hunting.

MR

[tide1530]

That's the kind of thing you really want to see [&o] Smart AI not the mindless stuff like vehicles driving back and forth trying to use up movement points. [:)]

[FroBodine]

Excellent example, Mad Russian! Does this game give flanking/rear attack bonuses? Or does it simulate attacking the rear armour of the tanks?

[DoubleDeuce]

One thing I am running into and not sure its just me or not BUT when running AI vs AI playtests of my 1st Silver Lions scenario to test movement speeds to see if the units can make their way to the objectives and have time to spare, I have noticed that my M981 FIST and M557 GSR tracks are bolting ahead of the main body until they hit the enemy. While the FIST pulls back, not that he should be bolting ahead like that, the GSR track appears to try and force his way through, unsupported. Anyone else seen things like this?

I'll run through it again tonight just for fun and see if I can get a screenshot.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: BROJD

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!

I have now played through A Time To Dance. Black Horse and Head On. The AI is in fact challenging and variable, which does make for an exciting and enjoyable game. But, I wouldn't say the AI accurately reflects real-world Soviet doctrine of the 1980s. See FM 100-2-1; that's how the US Army trained to fight at NTC and CMTC during the 1980s. Been there, done that. I have yet to see a "normal" Soviet attack in this game lead off with a CRP, then FSE, Advance Guard and then regimental Main Body. So I'm a little bit disappointed in this particular aspect and FWIW I hope future enhancements of the AI will better implement Soviet doctrinal norms. That would be ideal, to be both a good game and a more historically accurate learning tool.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: BROJD

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!

I have now played through A Time To Dance. Black Horse and Head On. The AI is in fact challenging and variable, which does make for an exciting and enjoyable game. But, I wouldn't say the AI accurately reflects real-world Soviet doctrine of the 1980s. See FM 100-2-1; that's how the US Army trained to fight at NTC and CMTC during the 1980s. Been there, done that. I have yet to see a "normal" Soviet attack in this game lead off with a CRP, then FSE, Advance Guard and then regimental Main Body. So I'm a little bit disappointed in this particular aspect and FWIW I hope future enhancements of the AI will better implement Soviet doctrinal norms. That would be ideal, to be both a good game and a more historically accurate learning tool.

The AI will do that for you but you only have 14 hours per scenario and so much room. The AI will bring them forward just like you put them on the map. Unless they run into obstacles, as well as the AI will look at the current situation and make adjustments.

I've tried to put the Soviet units in the correct order. In many cases they are on the map and the AI switches the order of their advance depending on the situation.

Something I'm sure they would do at the NTC if the situation warranted it.


Good Hunting.

MR

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
I've tried to put the Soviet units in the correct order. In many cases they are on the map and the AI switches the order of their advance depending on the situation.

OK, so the scenario setups may be correct but the generic AI won't follow through properly, so again that particular aspect could be improved? I'm not arguing that the Soviet-side AI isn't challenging in its own way, it's just not accurate enough. The TacOps AI was excellent in this regard. So there's room for improvement in this game, that's all I'm saying. I do enjoy the multiple terrain elevations and command cycles in this game. If only to combine the two games, ah perchance to dream...

[CapnDarwin]

Just to jump in a bit. Tac Ops ran a more scripted AI and that allowed for very tight control over how the battle ran, but at a cost of any fluid plan or change in direction. I'm sure as we continue to grow both the system and quite honestly in our knowledge of working the system the doctrines can be better represented.

If the AI hit you the same way every game the replay ability of the game would drop through the floor. So we have to find a balance between an AI that can roll out a plan on the fly but stick to the layout and doctrine once formed. Not easy, but not impossible either. Just going to take some time to get all the pieces in play.

All very good points. We definitely take all of this information in and work with it. It's these kind of discussions that will lead to a good game becoming great![&o]

[DoubleDeuce]

Not to change the subject, but wasn't TacOps originally designed more as a training tool rather than a game?

When I'm done scenario/campaign playtesting the next few days I think I'll break out my FM 100-2-1 and run some tests. [:D]

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
I've tried to put the Soviet units in the correct order. In many cases they are on the map and the AI switches the order of their advance depending on the situation.

OK, so the scenario setups may be correct but the generic AI won't follow through properly, so again that particular aspect could be improved? I'm not arguing that the Soviet-side AI isn't challenging in its own way, it's just not accurate enough. The TacOps AI was excellent in this regard. So there's room for improvement in this game, that's all I'm saying. I do enjoy the multiple terrain elevations and command cycles in this game. If only to combine the two games, ah perchance to dream...

The problem is that you are wanting a Soviet Only AI. That's not going to work for anything but Cold War or Soviet doctrine type conflicts. What about someone what wants to play NATO? How would that work if NATO used only Soviet doctrine?

This AI was a compromise to that with some nationalistic traits put in place for the sides to use as close to actual doctrine as possible and still have the AI be useful for any and all situations from WWII through future conflicts.

Good Hunting.

MR

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin
All very good points. We definitely take all of this information in and work with it. It's these kind of discussions that will lead to a good game becoming great![&o]

And that's the point, constructive criticism to improve the game. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Double Deuce
Not to change the subject, but wasn't TacOps originally designed more as a training tool rather than a game?

No not originally. I think it was TacOps3 that got adopted by the Army and USMC as a training simulation, because it was that good, and then enhanced for multiplayer and other features under contract as TacOpsCav which was then commercially released as TacOps4. Something like that.

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin
Tac Ops ran a more scripted AI and that allowed for very tight control over how the battle ran, but at a cost of any fluid plan or change in direction.

I wouldn't say that? Most of those scenarios had several variable entry points and then variable axes of maneuver. So you had to IPB the battlefield with NAIs and TAIs to confirm/deny enemy COAs and then react accordingly. And the different versions of each scenario upped the ante between BTR/BMP MRR and T-72/T-80 Tank Regt, plus optional extras to spice it up. If you didn't play it right, the AI would eat your lunch. As it should be.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The problem is that you are wanting a Soviet Only AI. That's not going to work for anything but Cold War or Soviet doctrine type conflicts. What about someone what wants to play NATO? How would that work if NATO used only Soviet doctrine?

This is a problem?? This game IS a Cold War Soviet doctrine type conflict so one should reasonably expect the Soviet side AI to behave accordingly, ideally. And obviously the NATO side AI should behave differently, and in fact the different major powers of NATO should behave somewhat differently too. I got it that the generic AI is a compromise and it does what it does. So. Let's move on and see what Capn Darwin does in the future to adjust the AI to behave a bit more realistically for each side.

In the meantime, the game is still challenging and interesting and I will push on into the other scenarios as I find time. No problem there. [;)]

[CapnDarwin]

Yes, Tac Ops had multiple entries having multiple "scripted" attacks for each scenario. We are talking a similar device with the "Battle Planner" system in the future. This will give us a more scripted capability while allowing the AI to do what it has been doing well. Thus if there are several battle plans per scenario (per side too) then there becomes a large number of combinations and we can focus a bit more on doctrine. That's down the road a ways but a feature we really want to get to.