Suicide assaults by AI. Can a dev weigh in?

[BurningEGO]

All AIs can be suicidal one way or another but some are more aggressive than others (Italy comes to mind). If you can fake intel, some AIs will not be able to determine the number/quality of your troops properly so they will attack you more / or less depending on that. If you played since start you would understand this specially when Intel / decryption / encryption was locked behind techs. All of a sudden, after completing one of those research techs, in more than 1 case, the AI would suddently stop attacking you, or start attacking you.

"Brainless" or "Suicidal" attacks aren't all that bad. In many cases, all it takes to advance a front, is breaking the (direct) frontline. And breaking it, requires breaking heavily entrenched units. If you exhaust their org, by not allowing it to recover, you can, technically, collapse a front. And continually do so (preventing new units from digging in and regaining org). This can be powerful specially when using certain doctrines and for countries with men to throw around, like USSR or China. Can also be amplified with other factors, like support companies, etc.

Even the UK does this when you invade their islands. Its not that bad, because in this case you barely have any provinces to retreat to (after invading the islands), so even the AI can be an annoyance if they break your division's org and you don't have time enough to recover it.

 

[American Traveler]

All AIs can be suicidal one way or another but some are more aggressive than others (Italy comes to mind). If you can fake intel, some AIs will not be able to determine the number/quality of your troops properly so they will attack you more / or less depending on that. If you played since start you would understand this specially when Intel / decryption / encryption was locked behind techs. All of a sudden, after completing one of those research techs, in more than 1 case, the AI would suddently stop attacking you, or start attacking you.

"Brainless" or "Suicidal" attacks aren't all that bad. In many cases, all it takes to advance a front, is breaking the (direct) frontline. And breaking it, requires breaking heavily entrenched units. If you exhaust their org, by not allowing it to recover, you can, technically, collapse a front. And continually do so (preventing new units from digging in and regaining org). This can be powerful specially when using certain doctrines and for countries with men to throw around, like USSR or China. Can also be amplified with other factors, like support companies, etc.

Even the UK does this when you invade their islands. Its not that bad, because in this case you barely have any provinces to retreat to (after invading the islands), so even the AI can be an annoyance if they break your division's org and you don't have time enough to recover it.

If it was part of a logical strategy, sure, I think everyone would be fine with it. But Germany wouldn't attack France and suffer 30 or 40 to 1 casualties. How do we fix this big issue?

 

[BurningEGO]

If it was part of a logical strategy, sure, I think everyone would be fine with it. But Germany wouldn't attack France and suffer 30 or 40 to 1 casualties. How do we fix this big issue?

Did this occur across a really big frontline and in countless cases, or was the screenshot you showed an isolated case? Because the power of that division is extremely small, and the icon probably demonstrates its a garrison and underpowered division. Its hard to form an opinion without more information.

Judging from the division and the dude in question, I would even say those were inherited from the Anschluss, and its not a normal german division.

 

[General Tao]

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.

If it's a garrison order then that's exactly what will happen - the unit is set to make sure all tiles in a state are under its control. If you take a tile, the unit will try to take it back regardless of what's in that tile. It doesn't even recognise there's an enemy unit there, it will just try to go there as long as it has org to move. No strategy or AI involved.

Can replicate this yourself with garrison orders on a coastline and watch when the enemy does a failed landing without a port, your garrisons will flock to the area to retake the bit of coast with 20 stranded divisions and likely get badly hurt endlessly attacking a set of divisions that would just be starved out (as well as abandoning the ports in the process).

I heavily suspect that's what's happening here, but as others said need a picture of the map to confirm, or tag and see for yourself?

 

[American Traveler]

Did this occur across a really big frontline and in countless cases, or was the screenshot you showed an isolated case? Because the power of that division is extremely small, and the icon probably demonstrates its a garrison and underpowered division. Its hard to form an opinion without more information.

Judging from the division and the dude in question, I would even say those were inherited from the Anschluss, and its not a normal german division.

Yes, this occurs constantly. I'm surprised to hear anyone ask that question. Have you never seen a game where you have 30 or 40 to 1 casualties because of suicide AI assaults across entire front lines with weak divisions? Again I'm so surprised to hear that this has not been the experience of some. Are you all playing SP, and if so, what countries do you usually play?

 

[American Traveler]

If it's a garrison order then that's exactly what will happen - the unit is set to make sure all tiles in a state are under its control. If you take a tile, the unit will try to take it back regardless of what's in that tile. It doesn't even recognise there's an enemy unit there, it will just try to go there as long as it has org to move. No strategy or AI involved.

Can replicate this yourself with garrison orders on a coastline and watch when the enemy does a failed landing without a port, your garrisons will flock to the area to retake the bit of coast with 20 stranded divisions and likely get badly hurt endlessly attacking a set of divisions that would just be starved out (as well as abandoning the ports in the process).

I heavily suspect that's what's happening here, but as others said need a picture of the map to confirm, or tag and see for yourself?

Interesting, so that probably explains the single division assault. Can this bug not be fixed? The front will have been static for 12 months and still one division will repeatedly attack and be slaughtered, apparently because of a garrison order. Would this not be an easy fix?

Still, this is not the culprit of the 30 to 40 to 1 casualty ratio. That is the entire front line engaging in repeated, reckless assaults, with no hope of success.

 

[BurningEGO]

I don't know what casualty ratio you are refering to. If you build strong divisions, dug them in, gave them a ton of armor, supplied them and piled a ton of forts on top of them (and even enjoy air superiority, lol), of course the enemy AI won't be able to do a thing. Even humans won't under such case scenarios unless they bring some space marines or nuke supply to kingdom come.

I have had the USSR lose over 2 million of men while having no casualties (or killed 12m with 300k losses as well). But my divisions had a ton of artillery, were dug in and had at least level 5 forts across the front. But this was on very old versions years ago. Nowadays I am only on the offensive, as there is only attack and attack and attack some more.

Steam Community :: Screenshot :: The power of massed Artillery. Note the Soviet losses against Axis Forces (or mine, i am Austria-Hungary).

Steam Community: Hearts of Iron IV. The power of massed Artillery. Note the Soviet losses against Axis Forces (or mine, i am Austria-Hungary).

steamcommunity.com

Steam Community :: Screenshot :: Achievement "Totally not Cool, Bromania!" completed! Bromania, the defender of Democracy! 12 million dead roskies vs 300k romanians!

Steam Community: Hearts of Iron IV. Achievement "Totally not Cool, Bromania!" completed! Bromania, the defender of Democracy! 12 million dead roskies vs 300k romanians!

steamcommunity.com

You can replicate this more or less, but I am surprised about your results. Many things could be the culprit in here. If NL or Belgium used one of their decisions / focus that destroy dams and gives certain provinces a lot of defensive stats (and you are fighting on THOSE provinces), I wouldn't be THAT surprised. Again, its hard to get an opinion without more info.

 

[vermicious knid]

"Only make logical attacks" is probably a command beyond the reach of the AI. Paradox has tweaked how agressively the AI attacks and where it chooses to attack many times over the course of development. Given the limitations of the game they have to aim for something short of "only make attacks when you are sure of winning" or you get the situation that was mentioned earlier in the thread...passive AI that just hunkers down and waits.

It really isn't a simple thing to fix.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"Only make logical attacks" is probably a command beyond the reach of the AI. Paradox has tweaked how agressively the AI attacks and where it chooses to attack many times over the course of development. Given the limitations of the game they have to aim for something short of "only make attacks when you are sure of winning" or you get the situation that was mentioned earlier in the thread...passive AI that just hunkers down and waits.

It really isn't a simple thing to fix.

making an algorithm which reliably makes excellent tactical and strategic decisions would be very challenging.

making an algorithm which does not continue attacks unless an attack was ordered is not. many games achieve this.

making an algorithm for ai which considers an attack unacceptable and doesn't execute it if the stats are very unfavorable is also possible, and other games achieve this.

even in player hands, units attack when not ordered. if you make a breakthrough on the line, units will "reposition" (green arrow) through enemy territory, resulting in poor casualty trades or sometimes even encircling themselves. shoddy ui.

as for op, ai uses pawns for garrison order, so that's an example of why the garrison order is bad. orders in this game are out of whack and bizarre in many instances. garrison command is bad for any purpose other than garrisoning territory you can't enter so your troops are part of an order. fallback lines are horrific for controlled retreats and a complete beginner trap...but they are sometimes an effective replacement for coastal garrison orders. battleplans are bad generally (and blatantly lie about how they will be executed), but good for building planning so you can micromanage troops yourself.

 

[vermicious knid]

making an algorithm which reliably makes excellent tactical and strategic decisions would be very challenging.

making an algorithm which does not continue attacks unless an attack was ordered is not. many games achieve this.

making an algorithm for ai which considers an attack unacceptable and doesn't execute it if the stats are very unfavorable is also possible, and other games achieve this.

even in player hands, units attack when not ordered. if you make a breakthrough on the line, units will "reposition" (green arrow) through enemy territory, resulting in poor casualty trades or sometimes even encircling themselves. shoddy ui.

as for op, ai uses pawns for garrison order, so that's an example of why the garrison order is bad. orders in this game are out of whack and bizarre in many instances. garrison command is bad for any purpose other than garrisoning territory you can't enter so your troops are part of an order. fallback lines are horrific for controlled retreats and a complete beginner trap...but they are sometimes an effective replacement for coastal garrison orders. battleplans are bad generally (and blatantly lie about how they will be executed), but good for building planning so you can micromanage troops yourself.

I think you have to let the AI make some very unfavorable attacks or you end up with excessive passivity. You can already see some of that with fort lines...if you go overboard the AI will just sit and stare at them.

As far as your other poitns...don't really disagree but I think that is a little outside of the scope of the OP's question.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think you have to let the AI make some very unfavorable attacks or you end up with excessive passivity. You can already see some of that with fort lines...if you go overboard the AI will just sit and stare at them.

As far as your other poitns...don't really disagree but I think that is a little outside of the scope of the OP's question.

sure, there's a cutoff for how "unfavorable" is reasonable though!

also i'm not sure the other stuff is out of scope. while the ai will certainly battleplan suicide attacks too, the observed attack looks like an instance of the bad garrison order implementation.

 

[BurningEGO]

I think you have to let the AI make some very unfavorable attacks or you end up with excessive passivity. You can already see some of that with fort lines...if you go overboard the AI will just sit and stare at them.

This is because the AI is made in a way it calculates pre-battles, just like in other paradox titles, with some "randomness". If it falls on the "chances to win = very high or high", it will consider an attack and march on you. If it falls on the "chances to win = very low or low" it won't engage. And in many titles, it will just run away from you.

Its hard to know if the topic creator doesn't give more info to be frank (and we are wasting time with guess work). Right now we can see only a few things:

1º bad general with low level being used by the AI
2º good general with much higher level being used by the player
3º tactic being neutered (countered) easily because of that
4º a lot of garrison templates use the icon the ai is using for its division, so its probably a subpar and already weak division to start with so i am not surprised about ratios
5º ai is attacking with just 1 division and 0 reserves. Sorry, but german ai rarely does that. Even when the ai barely has troops, it will prefer to have them sitting around instead of wasting them on frontal attacks rambo-like. its probably more of a case of an army using "area defense" ability - and this has nothing to do with AI, but with the way army abilities work. The player will be doing the same over and over again if the AI occupies 1 tile on the state where the player is performing area defense. (if the screenshot showed to us where this was hapening we could have reached a conclusion for instance, but topic creator decided to give only a picture of a battle that pratically shows nothing or a hand full of nothing).
6º barely any equipment on the division in question. this can be because the ai barely has any equipment to provide to the troops, or because it did not replenish from previous engagments (with the new german AI, if we are speaking about a late timeperiod or ahistorical game, I wouldn't be surprised if the german AI's industrial capabilities are more than tanked due to mefo bills and so the ai is unable to provide equipment to the troops)