Concerning the AI

[Skybird]

When I tried the last free build of AB years ago, I generally liked the way it was going, but there was one issue that had me moving carefully and on my toes. That was that the AI was easily to be mowed down if I just hunkered down and let them approach on my positions over all the map. At that time the AI was not capable to hide its approach with smoke screens, for example, to coordinate its formations in a simultaneous rush, instead it sent its units piece by piece, subordinate formation for subordinate formation, so that I could amass fire on all them one by one without needing to do anything. It became dull very quickly.

Now I read the review at Wargamer, and they write this:
"Being without multiplayer, sustained enjoyment is also very contingent on the enemy A.I., which so far seems competent. In my 15+ hours with the game, the A.I. was humanesque and consistent in its utilizing support and reconnaissance units in their intended roles, and its attacking with combined arms forces. Still, on more than one occasion while I was on defense, the A.I. sent units towards my side of the map in a piecemeal fashion, resulting in an unsatisfying win that left me scratching my head as to why the normally tactful A.I. threw its playbook out the window."

The bold part. That sounds exactly like what had me wondering already years ago.

What are players' experiences with the AI, especially on these details I described, so meaning mostly player in defence, AI attacking? If the AI is not more competent than it was years ago, then even player in attack role can probably provoke the AI to counter-attack (like I did back then), hunker down himself and then see the AI coming in piece by piece - and getting knocked out piece by piece. This is neither proper Sovjet doctrine (nor NATO doctrine, for that matter, or any other sane military attack doctrine), nor is is satisfying for the player.

Do not take this as an attack on the game or the creator. I simply ask about this, because it was a major point for me which made me stop playing AB free version years ago. If this issue has not been fundamentally improved over the status back then, then this detail would be considered by me as a very serious issue.

[Skybird]

Now I have red the Rock Papper Shotgun review, and they too took note of weaknesses in the AI system. Unfortunately, I add.

"Does the game’s unscripted AI adjust its behaviour to suit prevailing conditions? I’d love to say yes, but I’ve yet to see clear evidence of such adaptation. Since I wrote my original piece, although I’ve been beaten by AB’s artificial adversary on numerous occasions, I’ve not witnessed anything that could be described as genuine cunning. Always entertaining and usually competitive, the AI rarely squanders its winged assets or fails to cause hurt with its off-map howitzers and mortars, but often sustains unnecessary losses because of its questionable coordination skills, willingness to lead with armour, and reluctance to pause periodically and ponder.

I do not own the game, but consider seriously to buy it once it is on Steam. However, reading these reviews discourages me significantly, for I experienced how demotivating such weaknesses in the AI are already years ago with the free version. If I may make one recommendation (while once again admitting that I have no experience with the current game): before considering to produce any DLCs, features stuff and cosmetics, focus very seriously on improving the AI, especially AI on attack. It seems there is some major construction work needed, or not?!

Not meant to offend anyone, or the creator(s).

[Veitikka]

How about taking a look at the live preview streams? The AI is advancing.

USA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfAh4dd36TQ
Soviet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ch4p3aysIw
UK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LiJm-Ss8i8
DDR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfX7YUxJRxs

[Veitikka]

By the way, some of these videos use old versions of the game. There have been a few AI improvements after that.

[JamesLxx]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lNOw2jGbYo

From 34:05 to 38:10

Once the AI is able to tactically re-plan according to events then AB will be an instant purchase for me.

[Veitikka]

ORIGINAL: JamesLxx

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lNOw2jGbYo

From 34:05

Once the AI is able to tactically re-plan according to events then AB will be an instant purchase for me.

What the AI opponent should have done in that situation?

[JamesLxx]

First of all STOP. Then either: replan an alternative safer route; or call in artillery/airstrikes; or once knowing what and where the enemy is bring up forces capable of knocking them out.

[dox44]

but not too much arty/air or your AI will be cheating

[Veitikka]

ORIGINAL: JamesLxx

First of all STOP. Then either: replan an alternative safer route; or call in artillery/airstrikes; or once knowing what and where the enemy is bring up forces capable of knocking them out.

That is rather abstract. Let's try to analyze the situation. The red arrow is where the two AI tank companies were advancing and started taking fire. Obviously at some point they become aware of at least some of the player tanks, that were very luckily parked in that (blue) spot. They were possibly danger close so that the AI couldn't use artillery (or perhaps outside the TRP radius, in which case the Soviet artillery is very slow in the game), and it would've been too late for that anyway. The green mark is the objective.

So, where should have the remnants of the two AI tank companies gone after stopping, in this open desert? And why? The AI has no reinforcements, other than that one tank company far away in north.

[Veitikka]

The red zones are impassable areas.

[CapnDarwin]

Engage the threat in numbers, kill it, move on the objective. Was there any recon in front of the tank companies? If not, detach a platoon to do recon on the way to the objective.

[Veitikka]

ORIGINAL: CapnDarwin

If not, detach a platoon to do recon on the way to the objective.

Isn't that the same as 'piecemeal'? What to do when the recon platoon blows up, and no enemies are seen? Or, if the recon platoon detects something out there in the open desert, what to do then? Send the rest of the company straight towards it?

[CapnDarwin]

If you are short assets to do the mission you will need to do something or go home (abort the mission).

[CapnDarwin]

You are basically in a no win situation with a pure armored force rolling into a box canyon as shown. Tanks won't be able to use the cover of those impassable hills, without recon or artillery to suppress or screen the tanks with smoke (thermals will still ruin your day), the best you can do is close on the objective with speed.

[Veitikka]

My point here is that the computer doesn't understand commands such as:

'replan an alternative safer route'

'bring up forces capable of knocking them out'

'engage the threat in numbers'

'do something or go home'

I'm very willing to improve the AI, but first I need to know how it should be improved. The suggestions have been abstract human ideas. I need clearer instructions how the AI should behave so I can convert them into C++ code.

[Veitikka]

ORIGINAL: CapnDarwin

You are basically in a no win situation with a pure armored force rolling into a box canyon as shown. Tanks won't be able to use the cover of those impassable hills, without recon or artillery to suppress or screen the tanks with smoke (thermals will still ruin your day), the best you can do is close on the objective with speed.

Agreed. The poster above did seem to disagree though. He didn't like the AI opponent's approach.

[Werezak]

One thing that's been on my mind is that without being able to see what units the AI had (as in, their disposition on the map, not just the OOB) and what the AI was able to see, it's really hard to tell whether or not it was adapting poorly to a developing situation or just making the best of it.

I think in order to get useful feedback your best bet would be to add some way of watching the AI play, that showed what orders it was giving, and ask those in the community who are knowledgeable/experienced to critique it. It's really different to compare what the AI does vs what you the player would do, instead of trying to imagine what the AI should have done better when limited information is such a huge factor in this game. Just a thought, IDK.

[Veitikka]

ORIGINAL: Werezak

One thing that's been on my mind is that without being able to see what units the AI had (as in, their disposition on the map, not just the OOB) and what the AI was able to see, it's really hard to tell whether or not it was adapting poorly to a developing situation or just making the best of it.

I think in order to get useful feedback your best bet would be to add some way of watching the AI play, that showed what orders it was giving, and ask those in the community who are knowledgeable/experienced to critique it. It's really different to compare what the AI does vs what you the player would do, instead of trying to imagine what the AI should have done better when limited information is such a huge factor in this game. Just a thought, IDK.

Currently it's not possible to see what the AI sees, but to see the AI's units you should do this:

Open the data\scenario\development.cfg file. Change the line 'developerMode=0' to 'developerMode=1'. Then in the game you will see a few more keyboard shortcuts in the hotkeys menu, including this:

Ctrl+Shift+D – Show AI on/off

That shows you the AI units, formations and the AI 'main group' paths.

[22sec]

The AI does struggle sometimes with path finding. You can see this when you watch in Developer Mode. It’s why I don’t purchase company sized formations when creating scenarios. I think is what leads to occasional piecemeal attacks. I would like the ability as a scenario designer to set the AI’s preferred formations and movement path.

[noooooo]

ORIGINAL: 22sec

The AI does struggle sometimes with path finding. You can see this when you watch in Developer Mode. It’s why I don’t purchase company sized formations when creating scenarios. I think is what leads to occasional piecemeal attacks. I would like the ability as a scenario designer to set the AI’s preferred formations and movement path.

Yeah, I think the default for pathfinding should be shortest. I feel like quickest actually causes some strange pathfinding choices which can sometimes separate the troops