Something I stumbled upon

[DRG]

https://nodicenoglory.com/2021/11/10...tive-part-one/

Grigsby describes the AI as “…a bunch of kludges used to make something that’s really stupid look not quite so stupid.” The AI, in practice, was way better and smarter than just “…not so stupid…”

The development of Steel Panthers was marred by “a considerable amount of tension” and “bad karma” between SSI executives and Grigsby and Brors. The main point of contention was that the company wanted Grigsby to simplify his design, to be more in line with Panzer General, which would reach a much wider audience. Grigsby simply “refused to compromise his standards of realism and detail.”

"a bunch of kludges used to make something that’s really stupid look not quite so stupid.” The AI, in practice, was way better and smarter than just “…not so stupid"

...Is DEAD ON Accurate......... A coding tradition we have continued and enhanced ...... thanks to Andys skill of being able to make sense of other peoples kludges......


Further EDIT

As for the “bad karma” part........yeah, that latched onto the mods as well

[Suhiir]

I'd say the AI in the games is "adequate".
And better then that in a good many other, and newer, games.

[Aeraaa]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

I'd say the AI in the games is "adequate".
And better then that in a good many other, and newer, games.

True, but one should play a PBEM game to see how vastly different an SP game actually is.

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Aeraaa

True, but one should play a PBEM game to see how vastly different an SP game actually is.

Yes, a human player does stuff the AI wont do - like using scouts on your flank to get eyes on your stuff and call accurate arty on them for example. So always sweep your flanks with recce stuff to look for spotters when playing a human.

Human players can also forget to do something as well. Played a game versus the Soviets PBEM in the Cuba missile crisis era as British where he a) forgot to buy any AAA and b) his T-62s were the type that had no 12.7 AAMG. ISTR that he had a few BRDMs with an AAMG, which I toasted easily. Once I had realised there was no flak or SAMs, I could enter from his side of the map and shoot the T-62s up the kilt with impunity once those 3 or 4 BRDMs were liquidated. He gave me the game after several turns. (Humans will also pack it in early when it is completely hopeless, unlike the AI)

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

(Humans will also pack it in early when it is completely hopeless, unlike the AI)

The AI does occasionally go into a kinda No retreat/No surrender "Black Knight mode".......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWlb57OSBlY

[wulfir]

The AI is an advantage when the set-up is unbalanced. Human players typically want "fair games" - often meeting engagements, equal points, opponent countries that are evenly matched, a few house rules (I played at the Blitz and it could be stuff like 10% artillery, no off-board artillery, limit on 0 size units, limit on Z-fire, only one tank per hex, AFVs only allowed to enter the first forest hex...)

This is understandable for a fun game - but that said, the AI will not complain if the set-up is lopsided...

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Aeraaa

True, but one should play a PBEM game to see how vastly different an SP game actually is.

Agreed.

But then that's one of the reasons I make scenarios. To give players that don't PBEM (for whatever reason) situations that, for one reason or another, aren't your typical "get on line and attack/defend".

Admittedly I'm biased toward the USMC but part of that is because they're not your "standard" first-world high tech military organization. FAR less armor, generally infantry focused, but it's high tech infantry not "Chinese/Russian Hordes", they do consider/use their aircraft, which are (almost) always present, as "flying artillery" (which Don hates ).

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

I'd say the AI in the games is "adequate".
And better then that in a good many other, and newer, games.

The first thing I did was to make the AI deployment much more random and sensible (aimed at the objectives).

The initial SP AI deployment was always a "phalanx" set smack in the middle of the deployment zone, basically. The more troops, the more lines in that phalanx. In SP3 it was even worse - the AI always deployed precisely 2 hexes back from the (random in SP3) frontline, so a stonk of arty 2 hexes in plotted in turn 0 was guaranteed to bring results - especially since in SP3, track and weapon hits were treated as kills, and deleted a strength pont of each unit which was a platoon, not an individual. Therefore 60mm and higher mortars were exellent ways to deal with armour in SP3, even M1s etc...

So I wrote code that moved the deployment about, and made more use of flanking deployments and also the defensive placement was similarly adjusted. Also, some formations get held back and appear later in order to give the AI a second echelon. Some simply have their reaction turn incremented so that they step off later, some are held offmap as reinforcements.

The other thing we had to do was to introduce some idea of caution to the AI - the original SP games were famed for the AI's "tin lemmings" rush. Our AI is much more cautious now if the enemy is known to be nearby. Mech infantry will tend to debuss rather than charge mounted into the enemy positions. It's still a bit over-keen to try to take nearby objectives, mind. (Objectives exist in order to guide the AI, and arent really "objectives" in the military sense. If there werent any of these then the AI would be hoplessly confused, rather than just plain dumb )

[DRG]

I have played battles against the AI where ( for example ) I let the AI handle the infantry formations and I keep the armour under my control with the assumption my "orders" are to use them as infantry support and had interesting battles. There are many ways to play the game

[Roman]

Excellent alternatives!!