Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by IanL

  1. Let me start by saying I am well aware that the US pushes its own agenda and wishes on the rest of the world quite assertively.

    2 hours ago, IMHO said:

    I meant that the view of today of US establishment is every country on this planet is bound to act according to US interests irrespective of their own.

    Are you saying that the US government has been forcing / convincing other countries to act according to US interests instead of their own more than previous governments?

    If so that's not true. The opposite is happening - more countries are moving away from some cooperation with the US because the US government has become more self centred than before. Just look at the example of Iran. There were two separate initiatives to protect shipping in the strait of Hormuz (seems like the US lead one will actually happen and the German lead one may not - but EU members are still saying they will not join the US lead mission - which would have been unheard of 5 or 10 years ago) and the P5+1 nuclear deal where all the other countries in that deal continue to try to keep it alive against the US government's wishes.

  2. 3 hours ago, IMHO said:

    It's just US has set enough precedents of "MAGA uber alles!" in international relations by now.

    ??? not sure what "MAGA uber allies" means or how any US action relates to an accident during a Russian test.

    3 hours ago, IMHO said:

    I wish Russia would reciprocate one day with transferring rocket/nuclear technologies to Iran/NK. Or selling advanced AA/AD systems to them. THAT could finally make US think before it acts.

    Actually I would be afraid that such an action would cause the US to act before they think.

  3. 42 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

    Is that possible within the present or prospective game code? In theory I have nothing against that, I just don't know if BFC (meaning in this case mostly Charles) could pull it off.


    They do something similar with water now. It is just not permanent. I think in the current engine it would not be able to keep track of permanent one side only effects. But I'm just guessing. 

    Is something like that supported in any of the commercial engines? Just curious if it is a feature that is considered important generically.

  4. 11 minutes ago, BletchleyGeek said:

    Having an animated 3d character go from adjacent nodes in a navigation mesh is a remarkably easier problem than having humanoid robots going up the stairs of a randomly chosen house in America. The videogame developer has literally godly powers to shape physics in such a way that everything runs in real time and looks goid enough.

    And the video game dev does not have to deal with spoofing the AI by an adversary because they control the environment.

    I guess that means that applying these techniques to creating a war game AI would actually be easier than an AI that had to deal with the real world.

  5. 32 minutes ago, ncc1701e said:

    For modern titles such as CMSF2 and CMBS, I think that this will be a good policy to just introduce new countries / formations / vehicles (with packs) and create a kind of sandbox for the community to play with

    I am not totally convinced about this. I get that people see it as a way to get cool stuff faster. I get that Steve knows it would be appreciated. None of that is wrong - that's not what I am concerned about.

    I worry about there not being enough scenarios for it. I can practically see the posts in my minds eye already "packs are nice but what good are they with no scenarios or enough scenarios". Queue the usual discussion about making your own and the understandable frustration with that.

    In a nut shell I worry that we will replace the common complaint "why is BFC's suff always so late" with "why is there not enough value in the new stuff that BFC puts out". Different people will be happy and sad but we'll still have both kinds of people. :)

  6. I honestly have no idea what Stave and Charles are up to in the area of AI so perhaps they will take your thoughts to heart or are already. They have certainly done a great job with what they create so far.


    42 minutes ago, Rattenkrieg said:

    betrays an embryonic understanding of DeepLearning that drastically limits my willingness to engage.

    OK well if you only want to discuss AI and or Deep Learning with people who already know a lot about it or look at it the same way as you then the rest of the humans in this world will be the poorer for it.

  7. 1 hour ago, Rattenkrieg said:

    to construct autonomous tactical models. It's a forward looking hypothesis of a direction in which wargaming AI may evolve, and something game developers should be encouraged to explore,

    OK exploring new AI techniques and how they apply to war gaming is likely a good idea. The level of exploring that BFC can do is probably a bit limited. My impression is they will need to jump in a little later than the research stage.

    Your earlier posts left me with the impression you thought that, now, today, a small shop like BFC could just feed stuff to a deep learning engine and create a good AI for the game. If I am wrong about that then I trust you will enlighten us. I do not believe this is even remotely possible - at this time. My impression is that there are no tools in open source or at an affordable price that a small shop like BFC can use *now* to accomplish that. Again if I am wrong I will be interested to hear.


    4 hours ago, Rattenkrieg said:

    The completely unsubstantiated discrediting of a company perfectly fits your definition of a claim that misinforms the public. If you are, indeed, a scientist then it's even more shameful.

    Can we let that go, please? @BletchleyGeek made a comment (over the top) that triggered a very dramatic response from you and you have not really addressed any of his other his valid areas of concern and instead created an appeal to authority argument to defend it and now you are gaining in ad homenm attacks - cut it out - and let us keep to the topic.

    @BletchleyGeek please consider not taking the bait on this and we can see if @Rattenkrieg can fill in some of the gaps and answer our questions.


  8. 12 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

    Always a good cartoon to keep in mind @sburke. Thanks for that post, too :)

    It very much is. But the flip side is that we should not just let propaganda or false claims or even questionable claims just sit out there without pointing out their flaws.

    Please not I am speaking generally here. I am not calling anything in this thread propaganda or false but we all know we have seen that occasionally on this forum on other topics. So, while it is a bad idea to single handedly try to right the wrongs of the internet we also should not just turn our backs on everything either. We have to choose our battles and hope that all involved choose to be civil.

  9. All very true.

    I was more talking about when a terrain feature - usually elevation - inadvertently renders a door useless. Those issues can often be spotted by inspection.

    Valid points about internal doors though. If you walk through my neighbourhood there are a lot of town homes. I am pretty sure none of them have doors between the units ;) so you have to chose where you place the doors.

    Also, downtown there are very few buildings that don't have more than one way out - even the small ones that have been build around. There are more than a few maps where I have said to my self - how does this business take deliveries? Or let the dish-washing staff take their smoke breaks cause it sure ain't out on that pretty cobble stone street across form the shops. :)

  10. 1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

    The thing to keep in mind is that we've been listening VERY closely to you guys for 20+ years.  The cumulative knowledge we've built up is already baked into whatever designs we come up with before we've even conceived of what to work on next. 


    For the most part customer feedback is best when there is something to lay hands on. 

    Wait, are you saying we have been having one giant conversation about the next Combat Mission product this whole time?

    Mind blown.


  11. 53 minutes ago, Rattenkrieg said:

    I'm still waiting for @BletchleyGeek to back up his claim that Palantir ($800 million contract to build a DeepLearning based warfighting system for the US Army) is full of "pure bull****". How anyone can make a ludicrous claim like that and get away with it speaks volumes.

    LOL well that was pretty bold of him - true ;)  But dude, that was one point in his analysis of how you were overstepping how the technology could be applied. So, even if us readers grant you that he was wrong about that line, it is hardly vindication of your point and the end of his.

  12. 1 hour ago, BletchleyGeek said:

    The technology is there, and in a very useable state - much more than it ever was in the late 1980s and 1990s when first wave of neural networks practical algorithms and applications came up. Here's another paper you may appreciate reading (and sorry if I am making too many assumptions about your background:


    That is for sure. The expert systems I worked with were basically us humans coding a decision tree as close to how we formally analyzed a problem ourselves. Clearly they were helpful and frequently useful but limited to the conditions and categories we considered. For safety reasons (engineering applictions after all) we really were limiting ourselves to the starting point for analysis. Kind of like a qualifying questionnaire that lead to the right people further examining the problem with a good starting point.

    Now we are training something way more sophisticated with reference material and letting it loose on totally unknown documents to get a result (not the same problem space and no safety concerns and engineering involved). Even then we have learned that *we* are not able to train the system and ship the resulting algorithm to customers because there is enough of a difference between various companies material that we aren't getting the results they want. Instead we have created a tool set that lets our customer train the system on their data and incorporate the resulting model into our product. We are hoping that with some more experience and some partnerships we can create a number of models that work in various similar businesses.

    Amazing advances and such a large amount of effort being applied - both in creating the advances and in the application to the real world.

  13. 11 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

    Just some notes on the above, as a member of the research community, I feel I need to comment on this briefly.

    That was an awesome post. Thanks for the background info and the links to references. My AI knowledge is from listening to and reading podcasts of interviews with technology inventors and practitioners and interacting with the group in my company that are working on integrating some machine learning into our product line. It is very interesting to see how things are progressing from the expert systems that I started working on using Fortran back in my university days. Also, very predictable that the latest work builds upon the previous work - duh :)

    As a side note there is a clear difference in reading your well thought out charitable arguments on the subject. References certainly help solidify your posts.

  14. 5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

    Part of the fun is to try other branches in the campaign, so I wanted to know what decisions would lead me to the open version of the final battle, in case I go back and play through the campaign a third time.

    But maybe you mean I could just unpack the campaign and pick the battles I want to try out? That's an option too, I guess.

    No, I just meant that loosing a battle to try another branch doesn't sound particularly fun. At least not to me.

  • Create New...