INVASION! Will the AI suck at it?

[neuromancer]

First let me say that I know some people aren't expecting much from the AI, but others find that in some games the AI is a decent enough opponent to keep you entertained for a while. It is for that latter group - which includes myself - that I wish to speak.

It occured to me last night that - for some reason - I have yet to see a game where the AI can do an amphibious invasion. Off the top of my head: Uncommon Valour, Civilization (any), Axis and Allies, Hearts of Iron - all had the same problem. The AI can'tt do an amphibious invasion to save its life.

That isn't to say the computer doesn't try. It does. But it always does so badly. The computer will drive up with only a few transports, and disgorge one or two units, and that is it. Or in some cases, a whole bunch of transports, carrying only a couple units among them.

I remember that in one game I was playing. Watching this huge fleet sail up, and knowing I was in trouble. And then it unloads two units, and sails away. And I'm thinking "WTF was the point in that?"

When a human does an invasion, we usually do it thinking 'Overlord', every unit that can possibly be stuffed into a ship is, and dumped on the least defensible stretch of land we can find that we can also support with air and naval power.

The result is an epic fight worthy of the history books.

The computer meanwhile apparently went to the General Montgomery school of invasion (send in too few men with inadequate support, and make sure you ignore any intel on the opponents strength).
For some of Monty's greatest hits, refer to the invasion of Dieppe (we Canadians are still rather bitter over that one), and Operation Market-Garden (Canadians, Poles, and British took that one on the chin, and the American airborne didn't exactly come away hale and healthy either).

So, I am hoping Matrix is making a determined effort to correct this in WaW (and WitP as well), otherwise you only need to moderately defend your coastlines because the computer will never seriously threaten them.

[a19999577]

Anyone remember "Clash of Steel"? I think the AI carried out decent-enough amphibious invasions.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: a19999577

Anyone remember "Clash of Steel"? I think the AI carried out decent-enough amphibious invasions.

In "The Future Edition" revision, the AI was quite good.

[Becket]

ORIGINAL: neuromancer
The computer meanwhile apparently went to the General Montgomery school of invasion (send in too few men with inadequate support, and make sure you ignore any intel on the opponents strength).
For some of Monty's greatest hits, refer to the invasion of Dieppe (we Canadians are still rather bitter over that one), and Operation Market-Garden (Canadians, Poles, and British took that one on the chin, and the American airborne didn't exactly come away hale and healthy either).

One would think that "Monty's greatest hit" is Alamein, arguably the turning point for the British in WWII. It is interesting that if you base your assessment of Monty or Rommel based solely on what they accomplished in Europe, then both men come away lacking. Both were responsible for stunning successes in the desert war, and it would be the height of folly to simply remove those successes from consideration.

As for Monty in Europe, his misfortunes were not the exception for Allied commanders, but rather the rule...consider that Patton and Bradley had their own share of problems and the Allied invasion as whole could not get out of Normandy at a time when the Soviets had perfected the art of the deep operational strike and were slashing through East Europe.

Of course, since you appear to base your assessment solely on combat losses, even men like Zhukov, Rokossovsky and Vasilevsky come away wanting.

Oops, I've gone off topic. I, too, hope that the AI is good.

[dinsdale]

Montgomery had nothing to do with Dieppe, that would be Mountbatten you are thinking of.

Bradley did most of the D-Day planning not Montgomery, regardless; Gold, Sword and Juno (the British and Canadian beaches) were all taken within hours of D-Day, so I'm not sure what you're talking about taking it on the chin. As far as invasions go D-Day was a remarkable success. If you're thinking of the problems faced on Omaha or Utah, even the casualties there were light considering an amphibious assault against a coastline which had been preparing for two years.

If you wish to slam Montgomery then try Caen, Market Garden, and Sicily, only one was an amphibious invasion, and even that was not a failure due to lack of men but rather the slow advance once ashore.

[MButtazoni]

Strategic Command actually did a pretty good job of invasions.

[Rummy]

I just wanted to say that I loved Neuromancer's comments on Monty. Made my day.

Some points:

Becket's arguments are a bit faulty IMO. Patton and Bradley did enounter some problems, and probably get a little more credit than they deserve, but Monty himself admits that he was always more casualty-sensitive than the American commanders. And while Market-Garden was his most infamous disaster, at least he was imaginative with that one.

Another Monty blunder came at Falaise, where he (and Bradley) failed to close the trap, allowing several tens of thousands of Germans to escape.

As for Becket's comparison of the Russian thrusts to the American's inertia in Normandy, I have to point out that the Soviets weren't fighting through hedgerows.

Finally, I echo Neuromancer's hope for the AI. Let's hope the Germans are not allowed to keep France and Italy naked.

[Becket]

ORIGINAL: Rummy
Becket's arguments are a bit faulty IMO.

Which part? That I think you have to consider Alamein when you evaluate Monty? [X(]

Patton and Bradley did enounter some problems, and probably get a little more credit than they deserve, but Monty himself admits that he was always more casualty-sensitive than the American commanders. And while Market-Garden was his most infamous disaster, at least he was imaginative with that one.

My point here was that the immediate post-Normandy attacks saw several of the Allied leaders falter, and that Monty is not alone in his errors. Let's not confuse that with a defense of Market Garden. [:D]

As for Becket's comparison of the Russian thrusts to the American's inertia in Normandy, I have to point out that the Soviets weren't fighting through hedgerows.

No, they were fighting through the overwhelming bulk of the German forces. [:)] But my comparison was about the art of deep operations (a.k.a. Blitzkrieg tactics) that the Germans and Soviets mastered, but that the US and UK never employed. Now, that's not really their fault, because they did not really have a field to learn on -- but the lack of experience showed in the month after Normandy as they remained mired in a small area.

Finally, I echo Neuromancer's hope for the AI. Let's hope the Germans are not allowed to keep France and Italy naked.

Agreed. [:)]

[Cheesehead]

Another Monty blunder came at Falaise, where he (and Bradley) failed to close the trap, allowing several tens of thousands of Germans to escape.

Eisenhower is responsible for that. He was more concerned with friendly fire from two Allied armies driving straight at each other. He gave the orders to halt before that could happen.

No, they were fighting through the overwhelming bulk of the German forces. But my comparison was about the art of deep operations (a.k.a. Blitzkrieg tactics) that the Germans and Soviets mastered, but that the US and UK never employed. Now, that's not really their fault, because they did not really have a field to learn on -- but the lack of experience showed in the month after Normandy as they remained mired in a small area.

That's not true, either. Patton's dash across France combined with Dragoon (The invasion of Southern France later in the summer created a double envelopement, something every commander in history has strived for, of most of the remaining Germans in France. Add to this Eisenhower's emphasis on close air support (he gave each Army commander control of their own tactical air wing) and I would say that the American's figured out blitzkrieg tactics pretty quick. The delay in effecting the breakout from Normandy was owing to the lack of material supply (Cherbourg wasn't operational until July).

[Becket]

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

No, they were fighting through the overwhelming bulk of the German forces. But my comparison was about the art of deep operations (a.k.a. Blitzkrieg tactics) that the Germans and Soviets mastered, but that the US and UK never employed. Now, that's not really their fault, because they did not really have a field to learn on -- but the lack of experience showed in the month after Normandy as they remained mired in a small area.

That's not true, either. Patton's dash across France combined with Dragoon (The invasion of Southern France later in the summer created a double envelopement, something every commander in history has strived for, of most of the remaining Germans in France. Add to this Eisenhower's emphasis on close air support (he gave each Army commander control of their own tactical air wing) and I would say that the American's figured out blitzkrieg tactics pretty quick. The delay in effecting the breakout from Normandy was owing to the lack of material supply (Cherbourg wasn't operational until July).

I base my assertion on the findings of David M. Glantz (Colonel, U.S. Army, retired, founder and former director of the U.S. Army's office of foreign military studies), that the US and the UK did not master deep operations. I'll present the direct quote tonight.

Just because an assault resulted in an envelopment does not render it into a deep penetration by armor into the operational depths, followed up by exploiting infantry.

To my knowledge, there is no example of the US or UK making effective use of such operations from Normandy to VE day. I freely admit, however, that there may be one I am unaware of, as my area of focus is the East Front, not the West.

And, not to harp on it, but I note the extreme silence of the Monty bashers when asked to comment on Alamein. [:D]

[Hanal]

ORIGINAL: MButtazoni

Strategic Command actually did a pretty good job of invasions.

To a degree...the Allies never invade Italy in a full campaign and they always invade France in the Cherbourg area.....SC2 hopefully will have a more aggressive AI....

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: neuromancer


It occured to me last night that - for some reason - I have yet to see a game where the AI can do an amphibious invasion. Off the top of my head: Uncommon Valour, Civilization (any), Axis and Allies, Hearts of Iron - all had the same problem. The AI can'tt do an amphibious invasion to save its life.

When a human does an invasion, we usually do it thinking 'Overlord', every unit that can possibly be stuffed into a ship is, and dumped on the least defensible stretch of land we can find that we can also support with air and naval power.

So, I am hoping Matrix is making a determined effort to correct this in WaW (and WitP as well), otherwise you only need to moderately defend your coastlines because the computer will never seriously threaten them.

Wow, was this thread hijacked. As for the origninal question, in my last tests against the AI, if anything the AI was shy about attacking until it had overwhelming superiority. Once it attacked, it always took the territory and was able to hold it. Hopefully before we're done we'll make sure that the AI takes advantage of weak areas and is willing to attack a little sooner. One problem the AI was having was in putting what it considered sufficient transport power together, but hopefully we'll work that all out.

[Rummy]

Okay, I'll comment.

Monty certainly deserves credit for Alamein. He was an effective, cautious commander who (usually) made certain that he had sufficient (and sufficiently prepared) forces for launching an attack. We all know, though, that victory at Alamein was as much due to Hitler's failure to supply Rommel as Monty's tactical genius.

Bottom line: Monty is not as lousy a commander as many (myself included) portray him to be, but he's also not as great a commander as many (himself included) claimed him to be.

And BTW, wasn't Cobra a pretty effective envelopment operation? How 'bout our capture of the Ruhr and Army Group B (?)?

[spence]

Good ole Monty

It has been some time since I read this but I will quote Corelli Barret in "The Desert Generals:

"it is not so remarkable that Montgomery won the Battle of El Alemain but that he came so close to losing it"

The apparent saving personal characteristic Montgomery possessed was a stubborn refusal to admit defeat although many of his subordinates were ready to throw in the towel. Eventually by forcing them to continue his overwhelming material superiority wore the Axis forces down... and out.[:)]

[Becket]

ORIGINAL: spence

Good ole Monty

It has been some time since I read this but I will quote Corelli Barret in "The Desert Generals:

"it is not so remarkable that Montgomery won the Battle of El Alemain but that he came so close to losing it"

The apparent saving personal characteristic Montgomery possessed was a stubborn refusal to admit defeat although many of his subordinates were ready to throw in the towel. Eventually by forcing them to continue his overwhelming material superiority wore the Axis forces down... and out.[:)]

[:)] I've been waiting for someone to mention that. As I mentioned, I'm not a fan of Monty. With 20/20 hindsight, it would have been a horrible blunder to lose Alamein given the superiority of his position (and thus, we really should be thanking Auchinleck for halting Rommel and leaving Monty in position to win). However, at the time, the Brits needed a victory -- any victory -- and Monty provided a huge one. Second, Monty's subordinates were guilty of horrible mismanagement of his armor forces -- only after he stepped in and redirected the armor for Operation Supercharge was the Axis routed. So, certainly, he is no baffoon bereft of tactical ability -- though he is also not a Rommel with regard to tactics.

In the final analysis, he was a general who understood the advantages that supply and material superiority, and who used them to his advantage, but in later events he faltered. Intriguingly, his opponent Rommel was a brilliant tactician who had no conception of the value of supply and material superiority (a fault shared with many of his fellow Axis generals).

[neuromancer]

And, not to harp on it, but I note the extreme silence of the Monty bashers when asked to comment on Alamein.

Sorry, I hadn't been checking this thread.
Ask, and ye shall receive.


Monty arrived at the end of the campaign, fought a defensive battle until he had superior numbers (at least that makes sense), had a bunch of new American equipment (the Sherman being better than the average German panzer of that time, although not the case at Normandy), and then fought El Alamein. By that time the Africa Korps supply lines were stretched beyond recognition, and their supply at the best of times was very thin. Monty still managed to get a lot of his men killed, taking as heavy of losses as the Germans despite having a significant numerical superiority, better supply, and mostly better equipment.

He won, but at an unnecessary cost in the lives of his men.
Victory was practically a certainty, but he took credit for it and claimed it was due to his 'brilliance'.

In Italy his ego kept on getting him - well his men actually - in trouble because of 'racing' up the coast with Patton (the two battling egos, but Patton was the better general). The Canadians had to bail out the Brits on a few occassions because Monty was being rash with the lives of the men in his command.


By the time Rommel was in Europe he had lost a lot of his heart in the war as well, the German army was already getting stretched pretty thin due to the disasterous campaign against the Soviets, and Hitler was running around second guessing his generals.

And I don't think comparing Monty to the Soviet generals is a good thing. I don't think you'll ever find me claiming brilliance on the part of Soviet generals. Seeing as for a long time their favourite tactic was to drown the Germans in Soviet blood, I'm not very fond of them either.

And as for the Americans in Europe, they really weren't very good at the start. People don't seem to like to talk about that, but really, until the Americans got some battle experience, their troops and commanders did extremely poorly, mostly winning by sheer force of numbers (although at least not taking the same kind of casualties as the Russians).

True most armies really need to gain some battle experience before being note worthy, but the US was particularly bad. That actually seemed to continue until after Vietnam.

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale
Montgomery had nothing to do with Dieppe, that would be Mountbatten you are thinking of.

No, sorry. Monty planned that debacle, and then was transfered to Africa where he could get more men under his command killed.

Bradley did most of the D-Day planning not Montgomery, regardless; Gold, Sword and Juno (the British and Canadian beaches) were all taken within hours of D-Day, so I'm not sure what you're talking about taking it on the chin. As far as invasions go D-Day was a remarkable success. If you're thinking of the problems faced on Omaha or Utah, even the casualties there were light considering an amphibious assault against a coastline which had been preparing for two years.

No, and no. Normandy was Overlord, and was planned by a large staff of people for over a year, led by Eisenhower actually. The Canadians did very well on Juno, the British did well on Sword and Gold, and the Americans did very well on Utah (although at first they thought they were in trouble, and then realised they were at one end of the defensive line, so could 'roll it up').
Omaha was a bloodbath, but that was because of some extraordinary bad luck that the Americans had no control over (a battle hardened veteran unit holding the line instead of the expected second line troops, they had been planning on a drill that day anyway, so were at a higher level of readiness, and the bombing was of minimal effectiveness).

No, Market-Garden was the 'Bridge too Far' operation. And most analysts dump the over-all blame for the failure of that operation squarely on Monty.

If you wish to slam Montgomery then try Caen, Market Garden, and Sicily, only one was an amphibious invasion, and even that was not a failure due to lack of men but rather the slow advance once ashore.

I was slamming him for M-G.


I think you guys are missing the point. Making the reference to Monty was a throw away comment, it really didn't mean that much.

The main question is, have the programmers made the AI able to do proper amphibious invasions in WaW!? This wasn't supposed to be a debate about whether Monty was an idiot or not!

[pasternakski]

So, I guess you are all pretty much saying that Montgomery is the AI (a little stupid, a little conservative, a little erratic, but somebody you can play against for fun).

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

So, I guess you are all pretty much saying that Montgomery is the AI (a little stupid, a little conservative, a little erratic, but somebody you can play against for fun).

[:D]

Good one.

That wasn't quite my point, but it'll do.
I'm actually hoping the AI will be better than Monty. You wouldn't think it all that hard.

[:D]

[neuromancer]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
Wow, was this thread hijacked.

No kidding.

As for the origninal question, in my last tests against the AI, if anything the AI was shy about attacking until it had overwhelming superiority. Once it attacked, it always took the territory and was able to hold it. Hopefully before we're done we'll make sure that the AI takes advantage of weak areas and is willing to attack a little sooner. One problem the AI was having was in putting what it considered sufficient transport power together, but hopefully we'll work that all out.

Thanks! That is what I wanted to know. Hope you get it to the desired level!
[&o]