Slitherine

Another thing to keep in mind regarding multiplayer is: you cannot play a campaign and lose the "metagame" of leveling up your units and managing your core.
Also, with good reason, your typical multiplayer scenario will try to achieve equality between forces, something that was the exception rather than the norm in WW2.
_____
rezaf

I lost Gazala line a few days ago - I'd captured Tobruk, but had two objectives uncaptured. By this time, the AI had killed off one of my decent 3* Italian fighters and a 2* Sahariana and a few others and I had so little prestige I was frequently losing 2* from 3* to 1* to reinforce units to Str10 from 2 or 3. I was playing at General, using 1.21, and had just completed AC with a high proportion of Triumphs, Last time I played AK I did fine up to Persia, where my reliance on air supremacy fell short in the face of AA and superior air power. So although I agree it's not that brilliant, sometimes, the AI does OK.

captainjack wrote:I lost Gazala line a few days ago - I'd captured Tobruk, but had two objectives uncaptured. By this time, the AI had killed off one of my decent 3* Italian fighters and a 2* Sahariana and a few others and I had so little prestige I was frequently losing 2* from 3* to 1* to reinforce units to Str10 from 2 or 3. I was playing at General, using 1.21, and had just completed AC with a high proportion of Triumphs, Last time I played AK I did fine up to Persia, where my reliance on air supremacy fell short in the face of AA and superior air power. So although I agree it's not that brilliant, sometimes, the AI does OK.

Gazala scenario is one of the hardest scenarios in all of 3 games (PC, AK and AC). The other one that comes to my mind is Cobra from AC, as well as 3 Stalingrads and some other scenarios from DLCs.

The difficulty itself is not much a product of a good AI, but more of great scenario design. The enemy is extremely entrenched, mines are everywhere, the time window is narrow, there are plenty of enemy planes and airfields are very far apart (so you cannot refuel easily). AI doesn't do anything too clever in Gazala, he is just very well placed and in much better tactical position compared to you.

The funny thing is that in AC you have similar scenario playing as ally but it is not the same as if you just switched sides. Here Axis already broke Gazala line and you have to help your comrades in "cauldron". This just emphasizes need to artificially buff difficulty in order for AI to have a shot. If the roles where just switched, and if same scenario from AK was used, player (as ally) would probably win easily.

This is the simplest AI from the 80's.

It takes each unit as independent. Then moves.

It should look at all units visibility range before it moves.

This would vastly improve game play.

They also need to program the number of units the AI will place around a victory hex. This can be done.

Unfortunately the AI wlll now place a unit around every victory hex before it proceeds to move forward and be aggressive.

I have seen the problem in the GCs 42 and 43e

Soviets have units called outreageous things like "154th Conscript" or stuff so this is indicating: up to 7:1 ratio in units (my core force is usually mauled and often plays at 2/3 strength (somehow I have made it to Korsun with 50k pp - massive 110k at end of '42) - 26:154 or 6-7:1 is preposterous for KURSK! (Think - if they have this many now, how many in Minsk44 or Babruysk44, and then again at Berlin.) Historically the Soviets never had more than 4.5:1 in troops until D-Day/Bagration

- Better AI, less "steamroll with 200 units strategy"

- BNC

You gained that much prestige with new 1.21 rules and prestige cap?!?

The funny thing is even that many units don't help AI against decent player. When you have seen one scenario with zounds of AI units you have seen them all. Artificial intelligence is not the strongest part of this game. As a matter of fact I cannot recall a game that has really strong AI (half life was the last one where I felt that computer knew what it does).

Here however, simply better usage of artillery and airplanes, or simply better sequencing of moving and firing would create lots of problems for player. Also better usage of bridge engineers in undefended places could create more entertaining fights. I don't understand how this is a problem to program. It should be easy to program Soviet or Allied SP artillery to take in range positions and fire first, AND THEN planes should bomb AND THEN tanks and infantry attacks. Air defense should be taken out first. This is called PREPARATION for attack. It is how it is done in reality and there is no logic in doing otherwise.

Right now it works similar to this EXCEPT (and this creates huge problems for AI) IT DOESN'T MOVE ARTILLERY IN FIRING POSITION FIRST! I mean how hard is to implement that? Instead AI moves artillery at the dead end, which makes no logic and basically gives 10% of possible suppression for the AI. I believe this is so easy to program that it could be a potential patch, and it would drastically raise the level of game challenge. Also programming AI bridge engineers to take positions in undefended parts of the front (or weak parts) is also a potential for nice challenges. I would like to know if any of developers are looking at this thread or have anything to comment on this (and say weather this is hard to implement or not).

It seems the AI has a few handicaps. The biggest one: it seem it must always move + fire with a unit in a single action, it can't move and park units one by one and then open fire with them. You can enable this setting for human players as well, in the gamerules file. I tried it, but it is very difficult to play with.

The AI also doesn't have a memory; if I see something withdraw into the fog of war I can go after it, but the AI forgets the unit is still out there. This is why I try to blind the AI by taking out units which have high spotting, so ambushing becomes easier.

There is also the matter that sometimes the AI has specific orders given in the scenario editor. Sometimes they will just sit there, sometimes they will blindly rush to the nearest victory hex in their transports. So this may explain some of the strange behaviour as well.

timek28 wrote:You gained that much prestige with new 1.21 rules and prestige cap?!?

Actually I played it a while ago on v1.13 on Sergeant but even so, I still don't quite understand how I got that much - I don't believe there was a prestige cap in that version.

Well, I think the AI does just fine in the new version. I am up to Stalingrad and believe, at Field Marshal, the Russian SMG units with 2 and a half stars will give you all the challenge you could ask for. On rain turns it pays to be extremely cautious. W/o a lot of infantry(I used 12) the cost of moving forward is extremely high. I finished both Storming Stalingrad and Stalingrad Docks on the last turn for the DVs. Can't get much more challenging than that.

shawkhan wrote:Well, I think the AI does just fine in the new version. I am up to Stalingrad and believe, at Field Marshal, the Russian SMG units with 2 and a half stars will give you all the challenge you could ask for. On rain turns it pays to be extremely cautious. W/o a lot of infantry(I used 12) the cost of moving forward is extremely high. I finished both Storming Stalingrad and Stalingrad Docks on the last turn for the DVs. Can't get much more challenging than that.

I thought the same thing as you the first time I played Stalingrad. But after a little consideration I realized Stalingrad is not measurement of great AI, but a measurement of clever scenario design. Developers placed dozens of Russian SMG infantry exactly out of sighting range of most of German units and in range of SMG infantry movement (3 hexes). Thus you almost always realize too late that you are in SMG attack range before you can attack them, so in next turn they can attack you and create huge losses if there is no artillery support available at all times. It is a great design trick but IMO it has nothing to do with good AI.

Well, stil it happens to be my favourite game, so I really don't wanna bash it.

Just sometimes I wished the AI would do certain stuff better, like not smashing tanks vs. entrenched inf in close defense terrain. Or using bridge guys better. Or other things mentioned in this thread. IMO arty use it a lot better now compared to the earlier versions, even with the probs still there...

Sure the game is awesome as it is. Probably the most visceral game in the market and it engages you deeply. I just wish those few points where corrected, no bashing intended

If the AI played like a human in these scenarios, I doubt that anyone could achieve DV. As I said, I can barely win now, call it excellent scenario design if you will.