Okay.. So the AI cheats on setup?

[Lanzfeld]

I did a rather involves test many many times. I set up my attacking force in several different configurations and EVERY SINGLE TIME the AI setup perfectly opposite my forces. I setup hard right. AI hard right. I set up hard left AI hard left. The AI waits until you get done with deployment phase and then paints a picture. You can tell with the AI trench deployment. Is this a known thing? I don't believe in coincidence this many times.

[pfmm]

So intensive you took screen shots. Right?

[archibaldthe1]

i assume the OP meant the editor battles specifically.
I think there is some sort adjustment happening after the fact, based on the facing of the trenches. It may be a good feature? Do I really want to run my tanks over defenders who have their backs to me the entire time?
Judging from frequent complaints about "AI's" clueless placement of defenses, a lot of folks here would prefer that behavior during the operations too :)

[andrey12345 v2.0]

Originally posted by Lanzfeld:

So the AI cheats on setup?

AI always cheats, but especially cheats when it does something you don't like.

Originally posted by Lanzfeld:

AI setup perfectly opposite my forces.

In the turn-based part (which is the deployment phase), the sequence of actions is not defined - actions happen simultaneously.

Perhaps it is you who are cheating, setup your forces perfectly opposite to the AI forces?

[andrey12345 v2.0]

Originally posted by archibaldthe1:

It may be a good feature? Do I really want to run my tanks over defenders who have their backs to me the entire time?

It is necessary to make such a version of the game so that: the AI always retreated with minimal losses, avoided battles as much as possible, if it attacked only during the day and along the longest and most confusing trajectory, and of course placed its troops somewhere in the most inconvenient position. And see how many people will continue to play this game.

[MyDude]

Originally posted by Lanzfeld:

I did a rather involves test many many times. I set up my attacking force in several different configurations and EVERY SINGLE TIME the AI setup perfectly opposite my forces.

yeah if u turn off the FOW and observe, after leaving the deployment phase the AI will then setup their troops to usually counter your troops.
AI looks real funny when it's off.
Had a time when I was watching them trying to populate a village they were defending, they pretty much deployed completely outside of the village lol.

[Lanzfeld]

Originally posted by braaaaa:

Originally posted by Lanzfeld:

I did a rather involves test many many times. I set up my attacking force in several different configurations and EVERY SINGLE TIME the AI setup perfectly opposite my forces.

yeah if u turn off the FOW and observe, after leaving the deployment phase the AI will then setup their troops to usually counter your troops.
AI looks real funny when it's off.
Had a time when I was watching them trying to populate a village they were defending, they pretty much deployed completely outside of the village lol.

Ahhh I knew it was true. I don't mind too much but I'm glad to know what I am seeing is true. Great idea. I didn't even think about turning on the "see all troops" setting.

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by andrey12345 v2.0:

Originally posted by archibaldthe1:

It may be a good feature? Do I really want to run my tanks over defenders who have their backs to me the entire time?

It is necessary to make such a version of the game so that: the AI always retreated with minimal losses, avoided battles as much as possible, if it attacked only during the day and along the longest and most confusing trajectory, and of course placed its troops somewhere in the most inconvenient position. And see how many people will continue to play this game.

Yes, that would be a fun version :). Personally I would not mind a more careful AI in some cases. But certainly the battles are what draws most peolple to this game, myself included. And let us face it, a battle when the opponent plays hide and seek and then withdraws when I have found him will not be fun.

Realistic "battles" would need also trenchlines when both sides know perfectly that the enemy is there but no one shoots, because the CO did not give such an order. Indeed we need many "battles" when all you do is waiting for 3 hours and all that happens are some artillery shells exploding somewhere, all the while the opposing forces basically stare at each other because they are not completely ready yet and no one gave an advance or fire order to waste ammunition before the time.

Add then restrictions for certain operations that they only may have five battles total during a 15 turn operation, because real fighting was rare and we need to cut losses further.

We can think of more fun things I am sure :).

[Bulletpoint]

Originally posted by Zephyr:

Originally posted by andrey12345 v2.0:

It is necessary to make such a version of the game so that: the AI always retreated with minimal losses, avoided battles as much as possible, if it attacked only during the day and along the longest and most confusing trajectory, and of course placed its troops somewhere in the most inconvenient position. And see how many people will continue to play this game.

Yes, that would be a fun version :). Personally I would not mind a more careful AI in some cases. But certainly the battles are what draws most peolple to this game, myself included. And let us face it, a battle when the opponent plays hide and seek and then withdraws when I have found him will not be fun.

Realistic "battles" would need also trenchlines when both sides know perfectly that the enemy is there but no one shoots, because the CO did not give such an order. Indeed we need many "battles" when all you do is waiting for 3 hours and all that happens are some artillery shells exploding somewhere, all the while the opposing forces basically stare at each other because they are not completely ready yet and no one gave an advance or fire order to waste ammunition before the time.

Add then resttrictions for certain opperations that they only may have five battles total during a 15 turn operation, because real fighting was rare and we need to cut losses further.

We can think of more fun things I am sure :).

One thing I'm wondering about is if the AI should really be throwing all its forces at me in those battles where it's supposed to be defending. As in the player won the "attack defend lottery" and got one of those battles where the player has 6 squares and the computer gets 3 squares.

But still, the player can just wait, and the AI will rush forward to attack and get destroyed because the player has way more forces.

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by Bulletpoint:

Originally posted by Zephyr:

Yes, that would be a fun version :). Personally I would not mind a more careful AI in some cases. But certainly the battles are what draws most peolple to this game, myself included. And let us face it, a battle when the opponent plays hide and seek and then withdraws when I have found him will not be fun.

Realistic "battles" would need also trenchlines when both sides know perfectly that the enemy is there but no one shoots, because the CO did not give such an order. Indeed we need many "battles" when all you do is waiting for 3 hours and all that happens are some artillery shells exploding somewhere, all the while the opposing forces basically stare at each other because they are not completely ready yet and no one gave an advance or fire order to waste ammunition before the time.

Add then resttrictions for certain opperations that they only may have five battles total during a 15 turn operation, because real fighting was rare and we need to cut losses further.

We can think of more fun things I am sure :).

One thing I'm wondering about is if the AI should really be throwing all its forces at me in those battles where it's supposed to be defending. As in the player won the "attack defend lottery" and got one of those battles where the player has 6 squares and the computer gets 3 squares.

But still, the player can just wait, and the AI will rush forward to attack and get destroyed because the player has way more forces.

I just can say that this essentially never happens to me (with all forces). Yes there are cases when it does a sort of "active defense" that is ill advised in terms of the battle but can still yield acceptable results in operational terms. Or not, mistakes do happen.

You can also avoid this by making a battle plan in the deployment phase. Give attack orders and let the units execute it. If the AI makes an active defense you will get a meeting engagement instead of duck shooting. Do not play the game in ways that resemble an RTS. Make a plan at battle start in the initial phase and let the units strictly follow these orders. Live with what happens. Seriously this is by far the best way to play the game for me.

But... : https://steamcommunity.com/app/312980/discussions/0/4139439021822013776/

In my current Kalach playthrough (historic approach) I have a lot of problems getting at the AI decisively. Part of that is certainly that the AI has sufficient tools. But the other part is that it does rarely move anything in defensive battles at all. It lets me come even if I do nothing for 30 minutes. And my guys suffer horribly for it. Placement was also good, in part even great.

All I am saying is that people tend to pick at the rarer negative impressions and just tend to ignore the good or great things. Some operations will have inherent "bad balancing" and sometimes the AI gets even the job to make "bad attacks" on purpose because it was so in reality.

The human player also makes mistakes and honestly such mistakes should not be corrected if the units in place have no way to know that something goes wrong. The AI does not do it for good reason.