Suicide assaults by AI. Can a dev weigh in?

[American Traveler]

Why does the AI order this assault? Why can't the AI be coded " don't attack with less than 80% equip unless, unless. . ."

EDIT: to be crystal clear, I captured this assault in it's first couple hours. This was the plan, assault with one destroyed division with a soft attack at 10 and extremely low org, against four entrenched, fully equipped and org'd french divisions.

 

[American Traveler]

I'm so interested with the "respectfully disagree" I just got. What do you disagree about? Do you think this is realistic? In my France playthroughs I get 30 to 1 casualty ratios against the German army. Do you agree with those ratios?

 

[Kanitatlan]

This attack is highly unusual but I can think of explanations. I have spent some time in the past trying to work out how the AI decides about attacks and come to the conclusion that its willingness to attack takes to much note of a units current org and pays insufficient attention to its current strength. BUT that isn't the case here.

The most likely explanation is that AI had ordered the division to move somewhere that didn't involve an attack but the situation has changed and now it does. Unfortunately such attacks don't seem to get cancelled but are allowed to continue until they fail. This is a particularly annoying feature of the army AI when told to hold a line in that divisions being moved to reinforce a position will attack enemy units that have moved in until the attack fails a never cancel because the attack will obviously not succeed.

So, since the game does that to the player's forces, I pretty sure it would quite happily do the same to its own.

I also agree with the comment about "respectfully disagree". All too often those disagreements turn up and it is impossible to work out exactly what it was intended to convey.

 

[KubiG37]

I'd need to see the whole area, not just the battle screen.

Are you sure it was a 'planned attack'? This is clearly an AI garrison division.

This might be an unfortunate side-effect of AI ordering a garrison of partially occupied state. The units then automatically attack any enemy unit that enters the state.
Your units would do the same if you ordered them to garrison a state that has enemy units in it.

 

[Ilyasviel]

I remember a while ago (a few years?) a dev came in and said that the AI was programmed to make suicide attacks because otherwise, according to him, it would be too boring if the AI just sat there and did nothing. Basically, the AI is dumb on purpose.

 

[KubiG37]

I remember a while ago (a few years?) a dev came in and said that the AI was programmed to make suicide attacks because otherwise, according to him, it would be too boring if the AI just sat there and did nothing. Basically, the AI is dumb on purpose.

True. If they did otherwise, Germany would just 'resign from the game' once USA joined the war and waited to lose.

But still, it's simply not true that ai is 'still' doing suicide attacks, because it isn't. That behaviour was fixed long ago, it does try to attack, but if it doesn't work, it stops, it doesn't grind endlessly.

 

[Kanitatlan]

If it was up to me I would significantly adjust the AI's decision making on attacks.

• Severely downgrade the likelihood of a division attacking based on how below strength it is
• If a unit is executing an order which is a movement to a friendly province and it finds itself in an attack it should immediately re-evaluate the order and cancel the attack if appropriate. This could even take account of the aggressiveness setting for the army so that it is relevant for defensive orders as well as offensive orders
• Apply a global reluctance to attack when it has a severe equipment or manpower deficit (or at least apply that to the affected division types)

 

[pdBravo]

I sometimes do similar attacks to prevent the AI from reinforcing an adjacent tile I'm attacking. The troops under attack don't move even though it's a highly ineffective attack.

Not saying the AI is advanced enough to be doing this on purpose in your example, but it is a valid tactic.

You could argue that one very low org division shouldn't be able to stop 4 full health divisions from reinforcing a nearby tile and I'd agree with you, but that's another issue.

 

[American Traveler]

True. If they did otherwise, Germany would just 'resign from the game' once USA joined the war and waited to lose.

But still, it's simply not true that ai is 'still' doing suicide attacks, because it isn't. That behaviour was fixed long ago, it does try to attack, but if it doesn't work, it stops, it doesn't grind endlessly.

We must be playing different versions of the game. Are other people having this experience?

I play as France or Italy. France achieves 30 to 1 casualty ratio against Germany and Soviet Union based on suicide attacks. Italy achieves about the same on USA based on suicide attacks. This has certainly not been fixed, it is game-breaking. Only the first 6-7 months of the war is fun. After that it's just mindless mopping up.

 

[American Traveler]

I sometimes do similar attacks to prevent the AI from reinforcing an adjacent tile I'm attacking. The troops under attack don't move even though it's a highly ineffective attack.

Not saying the AI is advanced enough to be doing this on purpose in your example, but it is a valid tactic.

You could argue that one very low org division shouldn't be able to stop 4 full health divisions from reinforcing a nearby tile and I'd agree with you, but that's another issue.

That's not what is happening. This isn't a clever pinning attack.

Are you guys not seeing 30 to 1 casualty ratios in your Single Player games?

 

[American Traveler]

True. If they did otherwise, Germany would just 'resign from the game' once USA joined the war and waited to lose.

But still, it's simply not true that ai is 'still' doing suicide attacks, because it isn't. That behaviour was fixed long ago, it does try to attack, but if it doesn't work, it stops, it doesn't grind endlessly.

I hope a dev will come on this thread and speak to this issue. The game would be so much more fun on Single Player if the attacker would wait until it had near full org and strength before launching an offensive.

If that would mess up balance, make the rule only apply to AI vs. Human.

"Don't attack unless 85 percent strength and org, unless both players AI, unless mass mob and have X percent equipment ledger and Y manpower, etc. etc."

 

[American Traveler]

I'd need to see the whole area, not just the battle screen.

Are you sure it was a 'planned attack'? This is clearly an AI garrison division.

This might be an unfortunate side-effect of AI ordering a garrison of partially occupied state. The units then automatically attack any enemy unit that enters the state.
Your units would do the same if you ordered them to garrison a state that has enemy units in it.

If it's some garrison order going wrong, why does it happen all the time? I mean, this suicide attack where 1 or 2 divisions launch a hopeless assault happens multiple times per week. It amounts to tons of manpower loss and equipment loss for AI.

A separate problem is when the AI launches and entirely hopeless offensive. German AI launches offensives with fifty or sixty divisions, none of them having more than 50 percent strength, against dug in, unpierced, french divisions at full strength. It's a slaughter and they just do it over and over again.

 

[American Traveler]

This attack is highly unusual but I can think of explanations. I have spent some time in the past trying to work out how the AI decides about attacks and come to the conclusion that its willingness to attack takes to much note of a units current org and pays insufficient attention to its current strength. BUT that isn't the case here.

The most likely explanation is that AI had ordered the division to move somewhere that didn't involve an attack but the situation has changed and now it does. Unfortunately such attacks don't seem to get cancelled but are allowed to continue until they fail. This is a particularly annoying feature of the army AI when told to hold a line in that divisions being moved to reinforce a position will attack enemy units that have moved in until the attack fails a never cancel because the attack will obviously not succeed.

So, since the game does that to the player's forces, I pretty sure it would quite happily do the same to its own.

I also agree with the comment about "respectfully disagree". All too often those disagreements turn up and it is impossible to work out exactly what it was intended to convey.

Front line had been unchanged for six months. This happens multiple times per week.

Are you guys playing a different game? Are you only playing MP? I also notice this doesn't happen when I play a minor against another minor.

 

[Ossiv]

Front line had been unchanged for six months. This happens multiple times per week.

Are you guys playing a different game? Are you only playing MP? I also notice this doesn't happen when I play a minor against another minor.

Do you have all DLCs? Players with different content may (and should) have different game experience.

 

[Kanitatlan]

Front line had been unchanged for six months. This happens multiple times per week.

Are you guys playing a different game? Are you only playing MP? I also notice this doesn't happen when I play a minor against another minor.

That should not be happening. The "shall I attack" formula isn't supposed to allow attacks from weak units with such low org. Is the issue here that the unit actually had quite high org when it decided to attack but lost org really, really quickly because it is so weak. That is a possibility as I've seen the AI attack with ludicrously weakened divisions in the past.

 

[American Traveler]

Front line had been unchanged for six months. This happens multiple times per week.

Are you guys playing a different game? Are you only playing MP? I also notice this doesn't happen when I play a minor against another minor.

Do you have all DLCs? Players with different content may (and should) have different game experience.

I have all the DLCs except for the south america DLC and the new afgan DLC.

To be clear, I have played this game since it came out and have complained, and seen others complain, about this issue the whole time. So I'm surprised that I'm hearing anyone say it's not an issue. It makes me want to investigate this more.

 

[American Traveler]

That should not be happening. The "shall I attack" formula isn't supposed to allow attacks from weak units with such low org. Is the issue here that the unit actually had quite high org when it decided to attack but lost org really, really quickly because it is so weak. That is a possibility as I've seen the AI attack with ludicrously weakened divisions in the past.

Yes, it's possible the unit attacked at full org. But it's strength was so low it had a grand total soft attack of 7. The fact that it may have had org doesn't change anything.

I will also say with confidence that I see the AI launch larger assaults with units that have very little org and strength. As I said in my last post, I'm surprised that there are people out there that have no idea what I'm talking about.

To be crystal clear, each time I play as France or Italy I beat the enemy with favorable casualty ratios of around 30 to 1, which is insane and ahistorical. When I have played as a minor nation, like Greece, and fought Turkey, I haven't experienced this problem. When I have played as France and tried to conquer Germany early before they had so many divisions, I did not experience this problem. It has something to do with the AI not taking into account strength and org. The AI will think-- I have forty divisions here and they only have eighteen, so I must attack non-stop. When in reality the forty divisions have about ten percent of the soft-attack as the defending divisions due to the fact the forty divisions are completely decimated by prior assaults.

 

[Kanitatlan]

I will also say with confidence that I see the AI launch larger assaults with units that have very little org and strength. As I said in my last post, I'm surprised that there are people out there that have no idea what I'm talking about.

So am I. The zergling attack behaviour of the AI is a very clear tendency. My experience of weak division attacks has tended to be that they keep returning to the attack after recovering org despite equipment or manpower deficiencies preventing recovery of division strength.

To be crystal clear, each time I play as France or Italy I beat the enemy with favorable casualty ratios of around 30 to 1,

I usually end up with a bit better than this. The stand-fast letting the Axis exhaust itself is usually around 40:1 by the time it finishes with the high ratio being driven by the Axis continuing to attack once their divisions are badly depleted. However, once I have the numbers for offensive operations the ratio tends to head to 100:1 and even higher.

 

[American Traveler]

So am I. The zergling attack behaviour of the AI is a very clear tendency. My experience of weak division attacks has tended to be that they keep returning to the attack after recovering org despite equipment or manpower deficiencies preventing recovery of division strength.

I usually end up with a bit better than this. The stand-fast letting the Axis exhaust itself is usually around 40:1 by the time it finishes with the high ratio being driven by the Axis continuing to attack once their divisions are badly depleted. However, once I have the numbers for offensive operations the ratio tends to head to 100:1 and even higher.

I think I'd have 40 to 1 or better if I kept the game going. I lose interest and restart, which is kinda the point of my thread.

If the DEVS altered the code just against human players, would this protect the hard-won balance they have achieved? I'd love to play against a Germany that only launched the types of attacks they would have launched in real life, after stockpile of supplies, prepared, etc.

 

[American Traveler]

Full transparency this is my favorite game, I just think it can be ever better with an altered code when its AI v. Human.