Where the AI 'special' movement rules go too far

[tumbi1]

I know this is an old chestnut, but just pointing out a crazy example where about 40 divisions are just picked up and moved where the AI wanted them when there was a chance of an encirclement. It would improve the game significantly if a better balance was somehow struck on these movement rules. Note I am using version 1.02.29Beta.

This is August 3rd;

[tumbi1]

This is August 10th;

[56ajax]

Totally agree.

In some places the front line is now 2 turns away. And that Rifle div that was adjacent to 3 of your divs is probably in Leningrad by now.

I agree with the AI having special movement rules in principle, but not infinite movement points.

[tumbi1]

Actually it turned out to be 3 turns away. The remaining units still in the 'pocket' disappeared the next turn, so no point trying to hem them in either.

[Jango32]

Assuming all of those divisions have 16 MPs (and that is totally doable for Soviets when controlled by a human player at least with everything set on priority 4 and depots everywhere), this seems to be a valid move. Each hex movement costs only 1 MP because of admin movement and counting the number of hexes from the former frontline to the new one is roughly 16.

[tumbi1]

I was expecting them to maybe have 9-10MPs each and to find them bunched under the German 'hook'. It seems to be my mistake.

[loki100]

You don't need to put all the Soviet units on '4' to regularly get 16 MP. I realise this is the latest King Charles' head doing the rounds here but it sets up real problems for the mid-game for the Soviet player. A more pared approach to logistics design delivers what they need without adding an unneeded burden (and I'm not saying that Soviet logistics shouldn't be made harder in the first 70 or so turns).

Practically vs the AI, you need to think in 3 phases.

1) it will not anticipate so if you even slightly disguise your plans you will get breakthroughs that no human player will give you
2) it tends to screen not counter-attack a breakthrough as its first response (this is variable but is the more usual response), that means you get a second chance at a pocket, if
3) you've set the exit up so it needs to move by the rules

Broadly its poor at antipation (compared to a human opponent) and far better at responding (compared to a human opponent).

[Jango32]

You can happily play until late 1943 with priority 4 from turn 1 as the Soviets, PvP 1941 grand campaigns. Truck repair rate is high, truck attrition is negligible and the rate at which you gain new trucks in the game only goes up. Not sure about 1944 and onward, but there is absolutely no drawback from using priority 4 on everything as the Soviets until that point. But that's neither here nor there for this thread.

If you want to make doubly sure that the Soviet MPs allow the moves made from one turn to the next, go back a save before the turn switched to the Soviets and change the option to let you as a human play as the Soviets.

[AlbertN]

A human player would have snuck the CAV south of Pyatikhatki north of 2 hexes and shifted 1 random unit from north and cut the panzer spearhead.

With admin movement they shift to reretreat but not just 'retreat'. They move and shank your just isolated formations, so that they will have less MP next turn and also lose even more morale and do not receive supply in the mixbag of isolated + being hammered.

And the sudden 'German encirclement' turns into a German '41 debacle that is quite common to any bold encirclment attempt in Player vs Player games presently.

As Jango said anyhow normally the Soviet troops have that type of mobility to pull widely and broadly out of the infantry range and deal with your exceedingly forward panzer / motorized that dared moved too far from their supporting infanteries (once past the first turns).

[56ajax]

Assuming all of those divisions have 16 MPs (and that is totally doable for Soviets when controlled by a human player at least with everything set on priority 4 and depots everywhere), this seems to be a valid move. Each hex movement costs only 1 MP because of admin movement and counting the number of hexes from the former frontline to the new one is roughly 16.

In theory you may be right, all the Soviets have 16 mps but this would be extremely unlikely. And for some units there are potentially 4 river crossings.

Still the easiest way to check this is to change the Soviet from AI to Human and move the units manually as a test. I have done this before and came to the conclusion that the enemy was using supernatural powers.

[tyronec]

The issue for the AI is this, give them unlimited movement and it makes them a harder opponent - so you have to win by using the sort of approach that Loki describes.
Give them normal movement and it is easier for the human player to win, so to make an challenging game of it you would have to increase the difficulty level and this makes combats more biased towards the AI.
So which makes the better game, the AI has more movement or the AI has more combat power. I would say give them the extra movement, it makes a better game of it. If the game gave them the extra combat power instead then it becomes an exercise in making giant pockets with as little combat as possible which is not so much fun to play. But play the Soviets vs AI in '41 and you can get that sort of game.

[56ajax]

I dont have a problem with the AI being harder by having special rules but not when it corrupts some major function (terrain, zoc, mp) of the game.

I had positioned Inf divs immediately North and South of a Sov Tank div which was caught on the western side of a major river. Immediately to the east, only exit hex, was a swamp hex. After the AI turn it took me 5 minutes to find it; it was 10 hexes away in another part of the front line. It offended my sensibilities and like am I playing an alternative history?

TBH I dont care if the AI has special rules to build a continuous front, bringing up reserves etc but i think this rule should not apply to units that start their turn in touch with the enemy.

Anyway the AI does ssome silly things (so perhaps I should keep my trap shut)

[Stamb]

if you dont want to see such things - find human opponent that will agree to play with your pace and have similar skill
as simple as that

AI is just for getting familiar with game mechanics, it will not offer you nor long time strategies, nor short one
also it will make stupid things like not attacking 1 cv regiment that holds huge pocket
it is just sitting there and waiting for you to encircle it

which is shown in any AAR vs AI in GC and which is also my experience

[loki100]

at which stage its always useful to remind people that 90% of those who own the game only play the AI and around 95% of all games are vs the AI

and that, given the complexity of the game, its a very good AI and you can use the settings to tailor to your interests and time commitment

[Stamb]

everybody have their own understanding of what good AI means

not going to try and convince you or anybody else

players enjoy playing vs AI? awesome
players do not enjoy it? i proposed a solution

[loki100]

still remains the case vs AI far outnumbers HtH as a mode of play ...

[Stamb]

am i saying opposite?

[Zovs]

I don’t believe 90% play only against the AI.

Let’s create a poll and see?

Give options for :

Solo only
Solo and H2H
H2H only

You could expand such a poll as :

PBEM only
PBEM and MP
MP only

Or maybe that is another poll?

I think the form software has these features and I’d be interested in seeing the results.

[Zovs]

First poll is created let’s see the results, only one choice per user and no changes.