AI reverse handicapping

[sbpc1]

The AI is .. dumb.
Occasionally it's forces can give you a bloody nose and when given numerically superior forces it can challenge your skills but in general you will win no danger - maybe even "map wiping" the scenario.
you can adjust the difficulty level of course to make you weaker/them stronger but some skilled players seem to be able to give +5 strength to AI side and still win - that is is some weak sauce opponent.

So what i'm proposing is an unequal equipment file - the AI side gets bonuses to the various CLASSES of units to compensate for it's dumb use of resources/decision making/order of attack execution.

my initial thoughts class by class:-
class 0 - not sure it is reasonably effective with infantry, i feel
class 1 - negative (i.e. defensive fire only) AA value - -4 maybe. it has no idea how to use fighter cover or position AA defences to protect it's armoured assets
class 2 - not sure i struggle to find recon units useful
class 3 - +1 defence maybe - the player never stumbles into them and can always attack them with infantry or suppress them first. player always unpicks that part of an AI defensive position first. the AI never does that to the player because .. well .. it is dumb
class 4 - +2 spotting. was thinking of making spotting = 9 for ALL AI classes but that might be a bit much. although it does work (tested). too easy to trap AI units into walking into a players sneaky artillery support fire. the AI cannot move, have a look, then decide whether to proceed with the attack like the player can so they get slaughtered WWI-style
class 5 - +1 spotting
class 6 - not important
class 7 - +1 initiative +1 spotting. also always HA = 0 for fighters. so easy to trap and they never escort bombers properly or even attack "en masse" like the player does
class 8 - +2 GD always getting suckered into AA traps
class 9 - -2 to (negative) AA. because it never escorts it's bombers like the player does

i suggest a class-by-class approach to these because it's easy to filter by class in a spreadsheet as you edit/calculate values in a column.
some people will be against this idea on the basis that it's not the same for both sides (and say that is bad game design). well it isn't the same for both sides now because you are smart and it is .. dumb.

also does someone know the exact order the AI moves/fires it's units? it is a set order, class-by-class and never varies. that is also part of the problem. if only it fired it's artillery first like the player does it would be a better opponent. so my changes could take that dumbness into account as well

comments/suggestions/other radical ideas welcome

[rubyjuno]

I tried something similar with Bluebyte's Battle Isle 3 many years ago, also due to the AI being pretty dumb. The campaign wasn't bad due to scripting and some decent scenarios, but I (and others) liked to make my own scenarios and found it difficult to create a meaningful challenge. I gave AI units extra fuel and ammo (the supply mechanic was completely different to PzC, relying on supply units), higher movement and changed some other stats; and also increased the costs of human units. This definitely helped, but I was never completely happy with the results as one of the biggest weaknesses was that the AI made poor unit production choices despite my attempts to steer it in the right direction.

As Yreborn says, scenario design can also make a big difference, although I struggled to understand exactly how the BI3 AI worked. However, BI3 was a much simpler model than PzC, and there is such a wealth of help and information on the PzC forums that I'm sure you're attempts will result in some improvement. I wouldn't know where to start with PzC, so good luck with your project!

[fgiannet]

Class 3 towed AT guns should have camo trait at the very least.

[bondjamesbond]

AI must be taught first to shell the city, then to bomb and only then to attack with armored vehicles and infantry))) And not the other way around as the AI does ! Or how to explain the massive purchase of unnecessary AI units , if only it would be difficult to break through to the city )

[sbpc1]

thanks for the comments so far, here's what i know/think
true - there is a lot of potential in scripting in scenarios to make the AI less dumb - but you have to edit each and every scenario to do it. you can't even copy and paste scripts (for some reason). editing one file (equipment.pzdat) applies to every scenario = a lot less work. i have and will write clever scripts as well, though

camo for AT guns - makes sense but i find camo a bit "unfun" and frustrating. also you can savescum your way around it.
i had and idea to give ALL AI units camo and spotting = 9. that might be a challenge but obviously unfair so people will hate it.

AI order of attack - shell the city first etc. - slitherine should have made that better/more logical when writing the source code. too late now. unless they want to give us the source code.

i think spotting bonuses for class 4, 5 and 7 are the easiest to implement for me (or anybody else - edit your own equipment file and see what happens).

also thinking +1 SA +1 HA for class 4 - that might cause the player some problems

[fgiannet]

So “no one runs into AT guns”......but “camo is ’unfun’ and frustrating?”. Maybe you just do not like AT guns

“People can savescum their way around it”. People can savescum their way around anything. Some people savescum non-stop and that is how they enjoy playing. They could also use the fow cheat code and see everything. Nothing will prevent that.

Camo can be fun because it adds uncertainty, which might not be enjoyable for most Panzer Corps players now that I think about it, and can be a very effective tool for the player. It provides an incentive to take guns along and analyze were to position them for maximum effect (the AI can not see players camo units). It opens new opportunities for strategy.

Giving all the AI units camo is a very interesting idea (it is astonishing how many interesting ideas your brain comes up with). “Well that is ridiculous” is what I thought when I first read that idea but.....it actually would be much more historical than seeing as much as the player does now. I suppose you could just lower the observation for your forces (including aircraft except air recon). Then you would see less of the battlefield but your recon would still be necessary/effective (lets hear it for the cavalry scouts!). Pak mod might have that......that is an interesting idea I have never even considered (and I was a cavalry scout! Shame on me).

Your idea (given over a pm during the summer) about different sized units was very smart and became the cornerstone for my equipment changes. I even created different sized units for the motorized infantry and panzer divisions (regiments in Panzer divisions only had two battalions). It was very interesting to see the panzers waiting/relying on the motorized infantry units at certain points (and both being grateful when the larger infantry divisions finally marched up).

You are right about modifying the equipment file to make one universal change but most scenarios are written with their own file as the foundation. Changing things usually throws everything off (is not the creators intention). Sometimes it is best just to play/enjoy the mod as created and move on. I spent so much time making equipment changes to Akkula’s incomparable Soviet Storm mod that I lost my appreciation/enjoyment for all the great things in it. Now I have set my mind to simply play it (I have never finished it) and am really enjoying it once again (the old pictures, deep history, innovative missions, what an incredible work of art). It was fun to play with the inner workings of the game itself (and the game is capable of much more than it was used for) but sometimes we can make ourselves crazy with the possibilities.

I would bet most players like the equipment file/gameplay as it is. They just want more mods and equipment (more, more, more ).

[rubyjuno]

I would bet most players like the equipment file/gameplay as it is. They just want more mods and equipment (more, more, more ).

Your bet would be right, I think. While I appreciate that PzC isn't perfect, I love it and all its DLCs. I'm also incredibly grateful for the wonderful community who have given us so many great mods