AI Defensive Improvement Idea- Improved LMG behavior

[Cpl. J. C. Pedersen 3rd ID]

As I may have mentioned in my winter update observations which were unfortunately buried I feel like the defensive capabilities of AI should be improved upon.

At the moment bots are unable to lay down much in the way of supressive fire on no man's land, this leads to rapid capture of trench lines. I feel that a possible way to supress attacking forces is to utilize LMG deployment zones for AI.

These would be pin pointed parts of the trench line where AI LMG gunners would automatically go to and deploy the weapon while they are in defense stages. These deployment zones should be along the parapet facing the enemy and should have a viable command over the field so they can provide optimum supression of attacking forces.

If the bots are in an attack mode while issued with LMG they should default to sidearm usage until killed where they would default to a rifle loadout.

I feel that there should be no less than four to six deployment spots per line and that they should be set up to deliver sweeping crossfire. This should help to prevent the issue of intsant trench capture by assaulting forces.

[Yuithgf]

another thing that would greatly improve the bots is that the attacking bots could sometimes hide in shell holes when theyre out of stamina. they really look dumb just walking towards the ennemy trench without any cover.

but yeah, i agree with what you say. even though laying some suppressive fire when they attack would be good too.

[Cpl. J. C. Pedersen 3rd ID]

What I was suggesting this particular idea for is mostly due to the fact that most central powers lmgs require deployment to fire, I think that taking cover in shell holes and craters is also a good idea especially when under heavy supression from artillery and small arms. I agree that walking fire if applicable could be better employed by attacking forces as well. The other option is sole implementation of HMG's in the x64 game mode but I imagine the developers would want to rule out AI LMG deployment before they consider looking into HMG's

[biggalloot]

good suggestion.

i wonder if in the meantime the devs can have the bot gunners take the rifle tier until they can learn to deploy and use the LMG?

of course the bots still need to do better facing threats from no-man's land.

[LV|Ironstorm767]

Let's stay on topic, folks.

Warned X for spamming and pretty much backseat moderating.

[Yuithgf]

well tbh i thought that most moderators would agree with a message saying ''lets stay civil and respect other's opinions''

[Yuithgf]

ik moderators have had some.... trouble with one part of the verdun community. i was on the support website when the december update was announced. and im also assuming what happened there played a part in why the support website is now closed.

but the way you moderate can sometimes seem.... random. some threads that got merged without a warning to the 64x feedback while others that were literally feedback on the new update didnt, messages deleted because ''off topic'' even though they were written by the creator of the topic...

maybe warning more often before censoring, or giving more explanation when you do could really be appreciated.

a few weeks ago X was unconditionally supporting the devs in what they were doing, and now he seems to care less and less.

i get moderating that kind of community isnt easy, but the way some of you handle that seems unfair to many.

with the support website closed, these steam discutions is the only place verdun players can talk about what they all want for the game.
and yes they often want different things, so delete messages/posts when people are strating to insult each other (or insult the devs).

but maybe think about letting people go slightly ''off topic'' sometimes?

[Yuithgf]

Originally posted by X:

Unconditionally is a strong word

my bad, i lack vocabulary in english.

for the rest of your comment though, i understand (especially for the teamplay part).

i agree 64 players is too much verdun can handle. not only lag, but map arent meant for that much people. before the update, verdun maps felt empty because full lobbys were rare, not because maps were too big.

yeah, the update also brought more lag. that sucks too.

ik it feels bad to report a bug and never get a response, but getting angry at the modos wont help. for the best and the worst verdun devs now listen less to their community, we can just try to get heard and see where the game goes.

agreed we should get real answers sometimes though.

(i agree with X's post below, but im not gonna write a whole new comment about it as i think everything that needed to be said has been said for now.)

[Cpl. J. C. Pedersen 3rd ID]

Well, I'm not about to let this thread get derailed and buried so I am going to further elaborate on the idea of improved AI defensive properties and a few other suggestions that may improve the overall gameplay experience.

Not only do I believe that defensive AI should be able to have LMG deployment zones but I also feel that a trench capture should result in a full fallback to the next friendly trench. As it is, when a trench is forced the AI and players can simply turn around and hop right back in. This would seem unlikely because if trenches were taken it is usually because defenders could no longer hold the line due to heavy losses or they are employing a tactical withdrawal.

I think that counterattacks should not be initiated until the last defenders have fallen back or their stragglers have been killed, this gives time to reconsolidate forces for the counterassault. This will also allow the men who captured the trench to ready up to defend the taken ground.

The artillery of AI should be employed in two manners offensive strikes soften the enemy resistance and defensive strikes to reduce the morale of and suppress and/or rout attacking forces.

Attacking AI should have no artillery control while advancing because they are beyond their own lines

Defending AI should be able to rain hell on the attackers due to being within friendly lines

The artillery strikes of defending troops should cease as soon as there is a breach in the line because realistically armies would generally not intentionally shell their own men just to get a few enemy troops with them. If they did I guarantee you their commanders would be dodging handgrenades for the remainder of the war. The defensive arty can resume if the attackers are repulsed or they take the ground in which the defensive artillery would become offensive artillery and the process would continue.

I think if mechanics such as these were looked into a few of the "artillery issues" could be resolved.

This is an alternative to Tannenberg's landlines

[biggalloot]

the idea of adding a second retreat clock is interesting. a trench lost means retreat to next line to get organized before given a proper attack order. of course, the team which just captured the trench should not be allowed to follow the routed defenders. it will take some work, but it has a lot of merit in your idea.

i think the main problem with bots generally on defense is that they dont seem to cover no-man's land very well and seem to prefer to remain in the trench and wait for melee. until that is fixed the retreat after losing a trench would i think only delay time because once retreated and reorganized, the counterattack would easily reach that original trench if the bots can't defend no-man's land.

i still see lots of games with mostly bots with high capture scores of 5 to 4 or 7 to 6. this might be due to the bots unable to defend no-man's land. the trench is captured and then recaptured and captured and recaptured back and forth without end.