A question of AI

bobk · Post by **bobk** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:00 pm

I think the poll showed that many people will be enjoying PzC as single player only. While the computer plays a fine game, a lot of it's combat power is tied up sitting in cities, waiting for you to show up.
Why not have a garrison or home guard unit assigned to each city? The combat units could now be setup in woods for ambushes, or for counter attacks. They might even threaten your rear areas, militaraly speaking that is!
These garrison units would be restricted to one hex beyond their home city, so they could slide over to the airport if needed.
Have been thinking about this for awhile, would appreciate some feedback.

Razz1 · Post by **Razz1** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:49 pm

This has already been discussed and the team will review the AI again after release.

Currently there is only Offense and Defense roles. We need a offense offense role. Also the AI is programed to place a unit in every city and every hex around every city before it will attempt to attack you.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:12 pm

The AI is actually better than we have typically seen. The problem is that it is generally not configured to maximum effect through the editor. No units are set to use 'active hold position' 'passive hold position' or have any other setting than default (with a few minor exceptions in the two final USA scenarios)

So with more proper configuration, the AI is actually fairly decent and can be made to be far less predictable.

However there still are a few problems. To name a couple:
1. Trucks and artillery moving point blank into range of player units voluntarily.
2. New purchase logic and placement.

But lastly, there is no trigger to modify the behavior of units, yet. You cannot place a unit, and have it's brain changed mid game. Player take Victory Hex A. Units X Y Z switch from hold position to attack mode. This does simply not exist yet.

All the pieces are set for the foundation, and with proper configuration of units the AI's performance does significantly improve, but there are still a few gaps needed to make it really robust.

Conversely, if you still find the AI to be trivial, I recommend Field Marshal, and if you can handle that, there's 3 more bonus difficulties settings that are even higher.

VPaulus · Post by **VPaulus** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 10:03 pm

Kerensky wrote: Conversely, if you still find the AI to be trivial, I recommend Field Marshal, and if you can handle that, there's 3 more bonus difficulties settings that are even higher.

As far as I can understand, in PzC, a better AI isn't connected with the level of difficulty, or is it?

Rudankort · Post by **Rudankort** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 10:17 pm

VPaulus wrote:As far as I can understand, in PzC, a better AI isn't connected with the level of difficulty, or is it?

To some extent. The first two levels use the basic AI level, Colonel plays on intermediate, and all the higher levels use advanced AI level.

bobk · Post by **bobk** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 11:31 pm

Conversely, if you still find the AI to be trivial

Don`t misunderstand me guys, I don`t find the AI trivial. In fact, on the third level it took me till the last turn to win several games. My thinking was, if some AI units were freed from guarding the cities, they would be able to surprise you from some unexpected directions.

Now your explanation of the AI code is the kind of valuable information a newbie beta tester learns so he can be a bigger help next time you select him...

Good luck on the launch, looking forward to something from the cold war era in the future.

Rudankort · Post by **Rudankort** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:04 am

bobk wrote: Don`t misunderstand me guys, I don`t find the AI trivial. In fact, on the third level it took me till the last turn to win several games. My thinking was, if some AI units were freed from guarding the cities, they would be able to surprise you from some unexpected directions.

For the record, I agree with you, but it is only one of many things which can be done to improve the AI performance. I hope that I will be able to pay much more attention to this aspect in an expansion.

OmegaMan1 · Post by **OmegaMan1** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:19 am

I agree the AI has come a long way since I first started testing PzC. In fact, I've found the AI has gotten quite good at a number of things -- for example, if you move your troops along in transports, and a few AI units are nearby in a city/objective hex, the AI will send the strongest unit to attack the transport, and even move a unit into the objective hex if said hex was vacated. Of course it still has some issues (like never landing its paratroops), but overall the AI is more competant now than before.

uran21 · Post by **uran21** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:37 am

Kerensky wrote:The AI is actually better than we have typically seen. The problem is that it is generally not configured to maximum effect through the editor. No units are set to use 'active hold position' 'passive hold position' or have any other setting than default (with a few minor exceptions in the two final USA scenarios)

It was me who specifically asked for "active hold position" and "passive hold position" from Alex on question what to add in editor to enhance AI behaveiour and I also asked "hold position exchange fire" later which never materialized. I was very glad to see an option to fight default AI behaveiour and it is used in scenarios where Allied AI is in defense. You can see it already in Poland and many other scenarios. What is the reason for false claim no units are set to have other settings than default?

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:17 am

uran21 wrote:It was me who specifically asked for "active hold position" and "passive hold position" from Alex on question what to add in editor to enhance AI behaveiour and I also asked "hold position exchange fire" later which never materialized. I was very glad to see an option to fight default AI behaveiour and it is used in scenarios where Allied AI is in defense. You can see it already in Poland and many other scenarios. What is the reason for false claim no units are set to have other settings than default?

Are you sure you want the answer to this?

bobk · Post by **bobk** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:29 pm

I'm sure the AI will keep improving, but for now it seems to be the amount of units. I dropped down to the second level and was invading France. Once I took my losses and broke through, nobody was home!
That is what prompted my garrison comment. I think it would be better to fight for each city, and also would give the computer more forces to work with, not just overstrength ones.

uran21 · Post by **uran21** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 8:05 am

Kerensky wrote:
uran21 wrote:It was me who specifically asked for "active hold position" and "passive hold position" from Alex on question what to add in editor to enhance AI behaveiour and I also asked "hold position exchange fire" later which never materialized. I was very glad to see an option to fight default AI behaveiour and it is used in scenarios where Allied AI is in defense. You can see it already in Poland and many other scenarios. What is the reason for false claim no units are set to have other settings than default?
Are you sure you want the answer to this?

Of course I want an answer. The fact it is not used in evr scenario and on Axis units not at all is far be ond it is not used at all as can be read from statement ou posted.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:43 am

uran21 wrote:Of course I want an answer. The fact it is not used in evr scenario and on Axis units not at all is far be ond it is not used at all as can be read from statement ou posted.

You asked for it:

Scenarios where 100% of units are actually set to default:
USA East Coast
Moscow 43

That's actually not bad looking, but let's analyze what a scenario with settings actually does.

Poland: We have one unit set to active hold position, and four set to passive hold position.
Passive hold position is the equivalent of waiting to die (never move, never shoot, only wait to be attacked).

How many Polish units are encountered in the course of 14 turns?

Out of 25 enemy units encountered, one has been set to a marginally active state, four have been set to a completely passive state, and the remainder, including new purchases, are all defaults.

Was I wrong to say 100%? Yes. Do you really want to argue when your 'configured units' amount to 20%?
And the vast majority of these configured units are indistinguishable from units who are set to 'default'?
And when absolutely 100% in the entire campaign (except 2 maps) are set to default 10 strength, default name, and default experience level...?

The original point of the thread:

While the computer plays a fine game, a lot of it's combat power is tied up sitting in cities, waiting for you to show up.
Why not have a garrison or home guard unit assigned to each city? The combat units could now be setup in woods for ambushes, or for counter attacks. They might even threaten your rear areas, militaraly speaking that is!

The point is that even if a few pre-placed units have some configuration, the vast majority of their configurations amount to little more than waiting for the player to show up, which is basically what 'default' also behaves as. Part of the problem is there is no current functionality for new purchases of a defending AI to be set as anything except default either, which only further unbalances the ratio of pro-active units to those who are waiting for the player to show up.