The AI does analyze terrain cover, elevation and such. If the scenario designer wants the AI to use closed terrain to approach objectives then he should select the 'infantry' force type for the AI. Open terrain is usually seen optimal for tanks. Just like in any game, you must know how the game works to make good, balanced scenarios. The game offers some AI analysis tools for scenario designers.
This is absolutely true. I don't think anyone has ever made a good AI for a game without also carefully thinking about how to tailor the game mechanics, scenario/level design, etc. in a way that allows the AI to perform optimally. So it's important for a scenario maker to not create a battle where the AI is basically set up to fail.
I admit though, I really didn't understand why that battle was not a good setup for the AI to work well. At least until your explanation, I guess... however it's pretty clear to me that a Mechanized force (it was a Mech vs. Mech battle) is also really not well suited to open terrain - APCs/IFVs are extremely fragile, and not very good at attacking targets at a distance unless they have ATGMs or cannon (which some do, but many also do not). The APCs really should have been held back, or taken a different route.
Wouldn't it make more sense for the AI to apply these rules based on the type of individual formations, instead of the type of the entire force? Or forgive me if it does already do that.
I don't mean to criticize the game by pointing out an instance where the AI performs poorly, but I would like to discuss it. It does seem like creating a good scenario requires knowing more about exactly how the AI thinks and makes decisions in this game, beyond simply knowing the standard tactics and doctrines of the cold-war era (I don't consider myself an expert, but I do think I have a decent grasp, I hope ).
Really curious about those AI analysis tools you mentioned.
< Message edited by dholedays -- 10/24/2018 6:38:41 AM >