[hveldenz]

I think it is better. Smarter is a hard word to use as to me that requires 'learning'. Until Neural Network systems are part of the AI (big task and wishlist item!) it probably cannot be trained. I have played since SP1/2/3 and earlier versions from Don/Andy/et al (Many props to them and the crew btw!)

My observsations on better AI behaviors as an opponent (in a long campaign):

1. AI Arty targeting smoke/dust/activity clusters (I remember keeping MRLS's by ammo dumps in SP3 and they would NEVER be hit)
2. Feint attacks along an edge - I have to think of protecting the backfield arty/aa units.
3. Better Bunker/fortification placements with coverage.
4. Better opportunity fire targerting algorithms (no routine 'everyone fire on that jeep and become sighted' like in SP1 and SP2)
5. IMHO excellent use of HMG positions, including timing of fire (I have had more than I care to admit inf casualties from the British Vickers in the desert!)
6. No immediate abandoning of positions just because an objective or two has fallen.

My opinion of lesser behaviors/things I do not think are good in the AI (and I know some of these are difficult to fix):
1. Weenie tank overload force mixes, but this is unavoidable I guess if I play Ger-Pol 1939 with "AI heavy tank". I guess I am still waiting to see T-34s in more than 2-3 total numbers, now in 6/42 in USSR vs. my Wehrmacht.
2. Heavy AA force mixes (if someone can tell me the amount of AA per company or battalion attachment - I would be happy to learn).
3. The occasional Monster Arty packs from the AI buyouts. I still remember a British approx 4000 pt force in a meeting engagement having 8 25#, 6 5.5in batteries and still had a load of mortars (sorry Don - never did save that one like I said before.)

I think the AI and its algorithms have been a major improvement along each step of the way.

Props to the crew again.