From 20+ to 60+ divisions in front of Moscow in 1 week?

[tumbi1]

Hello,

I'm playing as Axis using patch 1.01.02beta, and just found when ending a turn on Sept 7th 1941, the soviets had 20+ divisions in front of Moscow, some routed, then at the start of Sept 14th they had over 60. A lot appear to have come from the south, as they seem to have largely disappeared. How is that possible? The AI can pick up units and put them where it wants? Am I missing something?

[tumbi1]

Sept 14th;

[tumbi1]

Saves attached.

[loki100]

WAD - read the manual on how the AI plays esp around line forming routines.

[tumbi1]

What does WAD stand for? I can't see how the Russians can move units that far all within a week - I can't. I counted 17 units in the south that just disappeared, and they weren't on rail lines. I understand it is a computer game, but it isn't close to being realistic.

[carlkay58]

WAD = Works As Designed - in other words, this is what is supposed to happen.

The AI is overly aggressive on reforming lines in front of any solid push by motorized units. One technique against the AI is to push hard in one area (such as a deep penetration or nice sized pocket) then push hard in another sector of the front next turn as the AI has pulled from that sector to reinforce the disaster and so on. Pull your motorized units out of the front line for a turn or two (good for rebuilding CPP) and then hit the defenses again and you will find them much easier to take on.

[tumbi1]

Ok, I get that, but realistically they couldn't move that many units that far in such a short time frame. As I said, I can't do it, and rightfully so. I have seen similar behavior at times in earlier games, but this example was really striking. It looks to me like the AI picked up all his units from the south and placed them immediately in front of Moscow, and within a week. Moving units to railways, loading them, and railway capacities be damned.

I know the 'units on trains' in the front lines has been fixed, but this is similar behavior, and it seems the AI has unlimited rail capacity to anywhere. It tends to defeat the purpose of cutting railways and expecting to obtain strategic reward for it. Does it do the same with supplies? I once reduced the rail lines feeding Leningrad to a single line, and the subsequent massive troop movements there again in a single week was physically impossible.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: tumbi1

Ok, I get that, but realistically they couldn't move that many units that far in such a short time frame. As I said, I can't do it, and rightfully so. I have seen similar behavior at times in earlier games, but this example was really striking. It looks to me like the AI picked up all his units from the south and placed them immediately in front of Moscow, and within a week. Moving units to railways, loading them, and railway capacities be damned.

I know the 'units on trains' in the front lines has been fixed, but this is similar behavior, and it seems the AI has unlimited rail capacity to anywhere. It tends to defeat the purpose of cutting railways and expecting to obtain strategic reward for it. Does it do the same with supplies? I once reduced the rail lines feeding Leningrad to a single line, and the subsequent massive troop movements there again in a single week was physically impossible.

nothing to do with the trains issue.

There have been a couple of threads on how the AI behaves but in essence it is poor at anticipation (compared to a player) so gets a huge bonus in terms of reaction. Carlkay has described how you can manage this.

To your question, the AI plays by the rules for resupply/logistics, the problem is it can rotate units in/out of a supply poor region far better than a player can. So in your case, that would have hit the supply situation of the units in Leningrad over time.

In effect, interdiction to hamper movement is a bit of a waste of time, interdiction to hamper logistics might be worth it but its less useful than in a HtH game

[tumbi1]

That's interesting in regards the bonus the AI gets in terms of reaction. That nullifies one of the biggest advantages the German's would have gotten if they had captured Moscow, and I have found capturing Moscow doesn't seem to count for much in the game, aside from the lost production and VPs. To my mind, if the Germans had actually captured Moscow, it would have crippled Russia, as they effectively wouldn't have been able to move strategically north to south, and Leningrad would have been more of less cut off. Neither of these occur. The old WIR was better in that regard, as you were better rewarded for strategic achievements like that.

I'm not a programmer/game developer, (I'm a 'cousin' in IT support), so I can't comment on the difficulty of allowing for the strategic benefits to be gained whilst still assisting the AI, which can't 'think', but it is a pity you don't see them. Also I don't think the game allows for the German player to stop at the beginning of October, entrench, and subsequently better survive the winter, as they would have if they had planned it that way. I have tried, and the army just melts away with the blizzard even after a good 6 weeks of preparing. That winter was famous because it was severe and the Germans kept attacking into it, so they naturally suffered hugely, but it wouldn't have happened that way if they had instead stopped and prepared.

[OberGeneral]

Don't get me started! I have railed against this "We have to help the ai" mentallity which introduces
impossible and totally ahistorical troop movements and reinforcements with every developer that
produces war games. I agree with you.

[loki100]

still not a bug but how the AI works, documented in the manual.

Suggest opening a thread in the requests section but do you have any idea how hard it is to construct an AI for this game?

[OberGeneral]

I worked in IT for 35 years for a large utility company. I was a Technical Support Analyst for 20 of those years.
Did not develope games or program an ai but have some idea how hard it must be. What I have trouble understanding
is if you can set rules for the human player could you not also set similar rules for the ai?

I will let tumbi1 open a thread in the requests section if he wishes.

I have read this:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... tion_Games

[tumbi1]

I'll put a thread in the requests section. Yes, I am aware of the effort that goes into the AI, as an outsider, and I am in awe of what has gone into this. This wasn't a criticism, it was just that what I saw was so outrageous I thought it must have been a bug. I think it is a fair question though in regards an alternative option for the AI, but I also question if the amount of effort to configure it is worth it if the player base isn't asking for it. I would just like the AI to be limited to the same ability to move units as I am.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: tumbi1

.... I would just like the AI to be limited to the same ability to move units as I am.

you have that option, play with the AI < 110 morale.

unfortunately you'll also win very easily once you have some mastery of the game systems [:)]

[tumbi1]

Ok - what else is affected by lowering the morale? I read the manual, but can't see where the changes are itemized. Maybe the selections for difficultly could be made more granular? Playing with an AI morale of 110, I can get very close to a sudden victory by October 1st 41, but haven't quite got there yet.

[loki100]

all the non-linear AI gains are set out in section 30.7, which also discusses how the AI does its line forming etc.

If you set say Soviet morale to 105, it loses almost all advantages apart from a small increase in National Morale at a given level, so when its say 45 by default it becomes 48.

Since this is no longer a bug report, really suggest move the discussion to the main forum or as a request for game changes [;)]

[AlbertN]

You can try with the AI at 100, and your own forces at 90 or inferior % of efficiency.
I am not sure how it will pan out.

But in general to code an impressive Pentagon alike AI is not something game designers do, and thus AIs need to be boosted in other ways.

[OberGeneral]

I agree with all the explainations of how the ai is working. I did not mean to sound so critical.
You have all done a great job on this game and I love it. I will try the suggestions
posted here.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: loki100

still not a bug but how the AI works, documented in the manual.

Suggest opening a thread in the requests section but do you have any idea how hard it is to construct an AI for this game?

Soooo.....because its hard you convince yourselves it's OK to just go ahead and cheat?

[AlbertN]

Loki is pretty right here though.

Presently it is working as intended.

Your best bet I feel is to advocate for a change where AI at 110 is simply a 10% boost, and that one can individually 'check' the other options so that they're not linked to the % of difficulty. (Akin to Fog of War, enabled or not, one can have the 'AI Added Movement' or 'AI Teleports' etc as option).