AI Deployment Differs from Human Player Options

[wandrr]

Scenario: High Sticking
I have found that the AI has a definite advantage in this scenario (and possibly others). It appears that the AI can make initial deployments that are simply not available to a human player. Some of these AI deployments are extremely advantageous. For example, the AI places NATO Recce and Anti-tank units far forward of the “deployment areas” allowed for the human player. This gives a huge advantage since the AI now has immediately available good spotting locations as well as excellent anti-tank fields of fire. The human player has to move the same units into position, creating vulnerabilities and delays. As another example, the AI places the four NATO Artillery companies on-map as opposed to the human player being required to have them off-map. This gives a range advantage since the artillery can now cover the entire map.

The map below shows the positions of units immediately after the scenario starts. Units placed by the AI in far different locations than permitted for a human player are generally far forward, effectively adjacent to the Main-Donau Kanal.
I also attach a save game, basically just a couple of seconds after the scenario starts.

HighStickingDeployments.png (3.05 MiB) Viewed 615 times

This information was gathered using the “computer plays both sides” option, and a random selection of battle plans for both sides. Since I always play solitaire (that is, against the AI), it seems that this advantage to the AI is unfair. In addition, I use the “computer plays both sides” option to examine how the battle might go. The different deployment options given to the AI make that usage very uninstructive.

Has this advantage been deliberately given to the AI?

[cbelva]

I am not the author of this scenario so I can't comment as to the author's intent. But personally, I don't see a problem. The AI is not a human player and in setting up a defense needs help. The Battle Planner in the editor allows the scenario author to play the part of the commander and to set his forces up for a proper defense. You could not do that in Red Storm. As good as the AI is, it cannot properly select the best terrain for defense or the best field of vision. That is what I see the author doing. I don't see that as being a cheat at any level.

I have played this scenario multiple of times and have found it to be a good scenario and quite challenging. As the Canadian player, I have been able to push my forces forward and get them setup for the defense before the Czech AI has been able to get their forces up into position. Unfortunately, the AI is unable to do that. If the AI had the exact same setup as the human player, it would be a very lobsided and boring scenario for the human player. I have found that the Candian AI will give you a good fight with the three Battle Plans that the scenario author designed.

[wandrr]

OK, I understand. To paraphrase, I think you are saying that giving the AI (really the scenario designer) the ability to do optimum placements makes up for shortcomings in the capability of the AI. As you say "it cannot properly select the best terrain for defense or the best field of vision." That answers the question.

Any comments about the on-board artillery? That seems to be a pretty significant change.

I agree that this scenario is a good challenge. I have not yet managed to get more than a tactical victory playing the Canadian side.

[cbelva]

I don't know why the author placed the arty on the map for the AI and off map for the player. It shouldn't matter for the AI. It will use the arty whether it is on map or off. Of course, that does give the AI the ability to cover more of the map than the player.

[WildCatNL]

Any comments about the on-board artillery? That seems to be a pretty significant change.

That's another placement change which the scenario designer can make for game play balance.

There are two sides of the coin: his artillery being closer to the front also brings it closer to your (counter-battery) artillery.