Is ASl all that relevant anymore as the legacy leading towards CM?

[Doug Williams]

Given what I've read about your reckoning (AIUI) that the "core market" is largely solo gamers

Really? Well I suggest they join a good gaming club and find some human opponents. I would estimate my CM playing at 80% PBEM, 20% solo VS AI (when I'm waiting on turns).

[sburke]

Really? Well I suggest they join a good gaming club and find some human opponents. I would estimate my CM playing at 80% PBEM, 20% solo VS AI (when I'm waiting on turns).

LOL I estimate mine as follows

Pre CMBN - 100% solo vs AI (CMSF)

Post CMBN- 80% PBEM, 20% solo VS AI (when I'm waiting on turns).

[Battlefront.com]

I would estimate it differently. There's really no neat and simple answer to any of these questions. How many play PBEM is only a part of the next question. The full question should be "how many play PBEM compared to single player?" This means there is no binary answer of x% play PBEM vs. those who don't. Same with TCP/IP, RT vs. WeGo in general, different play levels, big vs. small battles, QBs vs. scenarios vs. campaigns, etc.

Now perhaps you guys might understand how complicated it would be to get a fair statistical understanding of how our customers work. Because I bet very few of you are so easily pigeonholed into just ONE way of playing the game. Our fault for including so many different options I guess

My take on it is there are very few people that play CM against another player 100% of the time. Very few. There are, however, larger numbers that play against another player 0% of the time. There are fewer players that play an occasional solo game vs. players that plan an occasional multiplayer game. There are probably more players that play either RT or WeGo 100% of the time than players who switch back and forth. But I don't have a good sense of how many play RT vs WeGo other than to say both are a big chunk of our total customer base (which hints that it might be more like 50/50).

Why does this matter? Because when we have to make development decisions we need to take into consideration that one focus is not likely to make most people happy EXCEPT improvements to the core game itself. Adding Flamethrowers, for example, has nothing at all to do with solo vs. mutliplayer, RT vs. WeGo, Iron Man vs. Regular, QB vs. Campaign, etc. It's something pretty much everybody has exposure to no matter what. And that's why we've focused so much of our energies in that area up until now.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Given what I've read about your reckoning (AIUI) that the "core market" is largely solo gamers, would that mean that improvements to AI "scripting" might be in the pipeline?

Yes. Definitely. The evidence of this is already seen in Version 2.0 since we put in a few improvements already, specifically more AI Groups and Copying AI Plans. We actually had a precursor to "Triggers" coded and in the game for Version 2.0, but had to yank it because we found it couldn't work without being tied into other things we hadn't planned on touching this time around. Not wasted time, though, since that work is necessary for Triggers when we get to them more comprehensively.

Steve

[womble]

..."Triggers" coded and in the game for Version 2.0...

Awe.

Some.

...but had to yank it...

Boooo!

Not wasted time, though, since that work is necessary for Triggers when we get to them more comprehensively.

Raaay!

[Doug Williams]

My take on it is there are very few people that play CM against another player 100% of the time. Very few.

I would agree. In fact, I would guess that percentage is 0%.

Really? I feel sorry for them then. The AI is no substitute for a human opponent. Guys, join a gaming club and find other players who will actually finish their games.

I have no idea if this is true or not since I and all of my opponents play WeGo PBEM exclusively (disregarding the occasional solo vs AI game). So, based on that, yes this is probably true, since I have no contact at all with RT players, other than this forum.

I defer to you, Steve, since I have no idea how many play RT, because I do not, and thus only have contact with those who play WeGo.

That makes perfect sense, IMO.

[poesel]

Hmm, looks like I'm one of these 0% who plays only against humans...

I've played the AI in the very beginning to learn the game and once one campaign after that because so many people here were so enthusiastic about it. Its not that the AI is so bad - I miss the feeling that there is another human on the other end.

For me Wego PBEM is THE point of playing the game. Together with Dropbox and H2HH this is an absolute seamless and easy experience. IMHO many people would like to play CM this way. But the hurdles to get there are quite huge and shoo away many potential players.

For BFC its not economical to create a lobby system or the like. But they could push multiplayer a bit more with, for instance, a link from within the game to the forum (or a special sticky post) or something to make handling the 'PBEM files' a bit more accessible or something else.

Multiplayer is all the rage nowadays and the way PBEM works here is especially interesting for the (probably) older than average demographic that plays CM. Games that can be played asynchronously when I have the time (after work and after the kids are in bed) are hard to find. In fact the only ones that come into my mind now are those on my phone. IMHO great market potential.

Hmm, now I wrote much more than I wanted. Do what you want - as long as Wego PBEM is in I'm fine!

[Broadsword56]

+1 to Poesel71. Exactly the way I play, too, and for the same reasons.

AI is no slouch, but once I'd played real oppos on realistic maps there was no turning back.

[sburke]

+1 to Poesel71. Exactly the way I play, too, and for the same reasons.

AI is no slouch, but once I'd played real oppos on realistic maps there was no turning back.

yeah and then you had to go infect me with that bug.

Part of why I enjoy playing against humans is the uncertainty. I know they will react to my movements. I know the AI will react to my units, but not my overall battle plan. It will not reinforce based on what I do.

That being said I am learning a LOT about what the designers have to go though. I have been given the opportunity to help Beta test CMFI (no I do not yet know the secret handshake, but I have learned the sign for "hey biatch, more coffee- stat" and have learned to appreciate a few things.

1. we are all beta testers, we just might not think of it that way. All of our responses are listened to by these guys and appreciated. Problem is we do not give enough feedback to scenarios. I am not talking a rating system, that would not be particularly helpful. They need more info. Not simply is it hard, easy, stupid, interesting etc, but how did it feel? Do you feel drawn in, did you feel you had options, did the scenario generate the kind of tactical/emotional situation that the designer was going for etc Did you feel there was enough time (and don't keep asking for no time limits, they would if they could, but the AI HAS to have a time frame.) What did you think of the briefing, the tactical maps, the map itself etc etc

2. They are getting really really good. Twice I have had situations where I would have sworn BF had included triggers when the AI counterattacked and gave me a bloody nose forcing me to have to reorient my plans. Once it completely stuffed me causing a tactical defeat. (that was a particularly hard battle for me to rate. I had screwed up and my pixeltruppen paid for it. When I ceasefired the amount of casualties I had at the confrontation point was depressing)

All this portends well for the future for those who play only against the AI and those who don't because we feel that loss of the unexpected from non human play. While I am sure it will never replace HTH play for me, after all I have new friends and wider plans like campaigns, still it gives me more options now when my opponents take vacation, which they may be able to do without me whining.

Last item. I know Broadsword really well and I understand the map comment, but I do not want it mis interpreted. The designers are doing really good historical/semi historical and fictional maps. The new tools will hopefully make that easier as they have time limits they are working against and changes in the game while they are testing scenarios that affect their maps. I have to say these folks really impress me at what they create especially given the chaotic conditions they create in.

I think folks will be really impressed with what they find in CMFI. I know I have been and it isn't a theater I have a high interest level in. I am also learning to appreciate the work already done in CM CW and CMBN base scenarios/campaign especially now that I have a better understanding of the process these guys have to go through. JonS and I have played 2 scenarios HTH of the Shadow of the Hill series and the maps are extremely well done and have a major impact on the flow of the battle as well as being artistically compelling. vKleist and I are now fighting in CW The Mace and both of us were really floored when we opened the scenario and of course there is one of my all time favorites from the base game, Bois de Baugin.

For the beta/design team it is hard, really hard. Creating a map/scenario/campaign in the finished product is far easier than doing so while the product is still under development. That isn't meant as a caveat. The maps stand on their own quality period. I think for Broadsword and I there was some unfortunate feeling generated specifically from the QB maps. Honestly we really hated them. I think that however is an issue of the past.

The future of this series is really really bright. Yeah I know folks say this probably about everything in the current generation, but for me THIS is the golden era for wargaming.

[Battlefront.com]

Dang, I meant to add that another problem for qualifying what you guys are all about is you don't necessarily play the same way the first time you play vs. 1+ years later. Some people change quite a bit over time, others don't change much. Some (gasp) only play for a few months and then move onto something else. I know, hard to believe, but I'm sure it's true. No matter how skewed CM's customer bell curve might be towards "play it for years", I'm sure it's still a bell curve and that means there's the other side.

Anyway, the point is that many people who eventually wind up being multiplayer exclusively probably, at one point, started out playing solo. Maybe not the game they're currently playing, but perhaps an earlier one. Even if it was just to learn the basics. If the game isn't engaging for those folks solo... I suppose it's possible some might not feel it worth the bother to play multiplayer. Obviously jaded CM fans know better

Steve

[Sergei]

Anyway, the point is that many people who eventually wind up being multiplayer exclusively probably, at one point, started out playing solo.

This is true about so many things.

[sburke]

This is true about so many things.

rotflmao so much in one little sentence - touche!!!

[Battlefront.com]

Don't encourage him. He's Finnish.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Yeah, but for a Finn, he's almost alright. Almost. Well...sort of. Sometimes. Like maybe once a decade. Or two.

Michael

[slysniper]

This is an interesting thing for us. With CMx1 the threshold for using the Editor was low. It wasn't a very friendly editor, but because the game's terrain and parameters were relatively simplistic a lot of people found they could make things with it. With CMx2 the nature of the game itself is more complex when it comes to making scenarios. Therefore, the bar is significantly higher in terms of who feels they are capable of using it.

The way I think of it is the difference between making 2D textures from scratch and just modding someone else's work. There's a huge, huge difference in how many people out there are capable, or willing, to make 2D textures from scratch compared to modding existing work. Many more are out there modding. And speaking about the gaming industry as a whole... I feel the majority of Mods are uninspired, uninteresting, or outright crap. Which is exactly as it should be since the lower the bar, the lower the skill/passion requirements.

CMx1 to CMx2 is much the same way. The bar has gone up, the number of people making scenarios has necessarily gone down. There is no way around this and we don't see that being a problem. The reason is the people who do make scenarios for CMx2 are really good at it, turning out excellent scenarios and campaigns. As many have commented here, that really was never the case with CMx1. Quality vs. Quantity situation.

That being said, we realize that CMx2 Editor has some procedural PITA aspects that are difficult to deal with. Which is why we made several major Editor improvements to Version 2.0. Testers making stuff for Italy are really happy with the changes. More are planned for the future.

Steve

well,

thanks for this reply and all the others. Personally I wish I had the time to get into the designer features more, so with improvements I can hope it equal time I want to invest

I agree with you that it is solving the problem of quility also. As the level goes up, only those with the skills are willing to put it out there.

Of course, I had no problem with taking someone elses work in CMX1 and modifying it to a level that I felt was needed. But I could only use it for myself and did not want to share it back out because it was not my creation. I recall once making a few suggestions to one designer, he was offended, removed his scenarios from the share site and acted so unexpected to me. All I was doing was trying to sugest what might make his work better. Oh well., it takes all types.

Anyway, I have no fear there will always be new work at there as long as the tools are provided, I would like to be part of that myself, but retirement might need to come before I see that these days.

[A Canadian Cat]

I have a tendency when driving through the country side, or hiking it for that matter, to constantly be looking at terrain for good defensive positions and offensive avenues of attack relative to some piece of terrain, or the road itself.

I do a similar thing: looking at each field and getting a sense of where the natural depressions and rises are and how you would go about getting across. I have noticed that very few fields are billiard tables and that no two are exactly the same.

[A Canadian Cat]

Good point! In ASL, the player has the option to react, whereas in CMx1 and even moreso x2, they may not. <snip>

There is definitely an "unforgiving minute" feeling in WeGo. I think mid-scenario savable TCP/IP WeGo is a must.

<snip>

That is a definite bonus of WeGO, one I often forget about in during gameplay. I usually wind up anxious to see what happens next.

This touches on one of the things that I love about this game - you are in the roll of battalion commander down to the squad leader as you give your orders but you never control an individual. That means that when the action starts you have to trust that your men will do their best to do what you asked. This is the way I think of it: the platoon commander gave the orders to coordinate the assault across the street. The NCOs took that order and ordered their teams to lay down suppressing fire and stagger their break into the open and cross the street.

During that order phase you played the role of the platoon commander and his three squad leaders to set up that assault, but once the action starts you are just the company commander in the next block hearing the shooting and the radio reports about what is happening. That for me is one of the best parts of this game. Yes, as a gamer sitting in our chairs we could envision that rifle man doing a better job or running across the street or be braver and hold his ground or what ever. Forget it I don't want to take that level of control. I want to be the Platoon commander that has to deal with the fact that his guys, on this day, are freaked out and are not going to run out into the open. I want to figure out another way to get my platoon across the street.

I never played ASL until after playing CMAK and CMBB (nostalgia game night for a couple of my friends - guess what we agreed we liked CM better). And I did play a scenario translated form ASL to CMBB and it sucked. The map was very flat and boring. It was like playing on a billiard table. That experience plus games on some of the poorer maps have shown me that the quality of the map is really really important for a good game experience.

I came from a miniature war gaming background and the big trouble was always spotting. If you think that ambushes are hard in CM they are nearly impossible in miniature gaming without an umpire and extra over head to manage who spots whom. Later I played Assault (another hex game based on modern era) but the same problem of spotting exists there too. Similarly with ASL. None of the solutions were very satisfying - someone or both always knew too much.

I for one am very pleased that you guys looked at the task and decided not to just let the computer manage the rules overhead of ASL but instead looked at the problem with fresh eyes and let the computer manage what you thought it should manage.

When I started playing CMAK and BB the spotting was sooo much better. Even the "Borg" spotting behavior was light years ahead of any other spotting solution I had worked with.

[A Canadian Cat]

People who play WEGO think they're playing the game in the most realistic manner while others playing in Real Time think they're getting the more realistic experience. I play RT because I KNOW I'm getting the most enjoyable experience for me. Perhaps it's not to your taste but it's the best for ME! Really, who cares as long as you're enjoying yourself.

LOL that is pretty much says it all. My RT play is limited but I have tried it. Here is my take on the difference:

RT does put a more realistic time pressure on commanders. The trouble is that since we have to play the role of Battalion commander, company commanders, platoon commanders and NCOs the time pressure is actually more then it should be. I have only played RT at the platoon level for infantry or the company level for armor and there are too many roes to play even then.

WEGO elevates some of the time pressure but since you have so many roles to play you need that time.

I like playing RT for small battles and only against the AI. My real problem is I cannot count on even a solid hour to play. I get bibs and bobs here an there so the only way for me to play is via PBEM which means WEGO for me.

[A Canadian Cat]

This is an interesting thing for us. With CMx1 the threshold for using the Editor was low. It wasn't a very friendly editor, but because the game's terrain and parameters were relatively simplistic a lot of people found they could make things with it. With CMx2 the nature of the game itself is more complex when it comes to making scenarios. Therefore, the bar is significantly higher in terms of who feels they are capable of using it.

<snip>

CMx1 to CMx2 is much the same way. The bar has gone up, the number of people making scenarios has necessarily gone down. There is no way around this and we don't see that being a problem. The reason is the people who do make scenarios for CMx2 are really good at it, turning out excellent scenarios and campaigns. As many have commented here, that really was never the case with CMx1. Quality vs. Quantity situation.

Yep, I agree. I tried but just could not get over that bar. I had all these grand plans to create scenarios - even had several ideas and tried to execute two of them. But *I* just could not get past the PITA aspects of the editor and gave up. No low quality scenarios from me:)

That being said, we realize that CMx2 Editor has some procedural PITA aspects that are difficult to deal with. Which is why we made several major Editor improvements to Version 2.0. Testers making stuff for Italy are really happy with the changes. More are planned for the future.

And those changes have me jazzed up again to try it. This time I am going to start small and see where it takes me. With the biggest road block I faced removed (no map overlay to help create realistic contours) I am ready to try again. We will see if I can get over the bar this time:-)

[A Canadian Cat]

LOL I estimate mine as follows

Pre CMBN - 100% solo vs AI (CMSF)

Post CMBN- 80% PBEM, 20% solo VS AI (when I'm waiting on turns).

I have always been more like 95% PBEM and 5% vs the AI (I have too many games on the go and therefore I have very few moments where I am waiting for turns )

[A Canadian Cat]

Yes. Definitely. The evidence of this is already seen in Version 2.0 since we put in a few improvements already, specifically more AI Groups and Copying AI Plans. We actually had a precursor to "Triggers" coded and in the game for Version 2.0, but had to yank it because we found it couldn't work without being tied into other things we hadn't planned on touching this time around. Not wasted time, though, since that work is necessary for Triggers when we get to them more comprehensively./QUOTE]

I really appreciate that work you put into the editor (and I have not even tried it yet). I am excited to see what your "precursor to 'Triggers'" will look like. Very cool to catch a glimpse of what you are up to. Thanks for sharing

Can what you are coding be used to create an AI that will react to how the human's attack plays out?

[slysniper]

Yep, I agree. I tried but just could not get over that bar. I had all these grand plans to create scenarios - even had several ideas and tried to execute two of them. But *I* just could not get past the PITA aspects of the editor and gave up. No low quality scenarios from me:)

And those changes have me jazzed up again to try it. This time I am going to start small and see where it takes me. With the biggest road block I faced removed (no map overlay to help create realistic contours) I am ready to try again. We will see if I can get over the bar this time:-)

I feel the same way, I did manage to create two scenarios with the new tools. But I have tweeked the defence and offence of the AI so much on one, I cannot come close to saying how many hours I hav invested in it, but enough to know that I just dont have the time to do AI programing to the level I want.

[Broadsword56]

Well, if you're concerned about the investment of time to code AI behavior, then be careful what you wish for! Triggers are wonderful but they're like a language -- when you're fluent, you can express ideas and describe all kinds of complex actions. But if you're just learning the language or haven't used it much, it can be a painful experience of coding, testing, coding again, etc., until you learn the tricks to make it work. I'm only speaking from my limited experience coding triggers for a TOW2 Africa scenario -- which turned out great, but convinced me I never want to repeat the experience.

[Rocky Balboa]

Agree +1. The addition of triggers to the AI toolbox could potentially give scenario designers the ability to create a "Smarter" AI experience but there is a price that goes along with that.

The price to be paid is probably fewer scenarios / QB's and shorter campaigns will be shipped with the base game and Modules ...

[Battlefront.com]

Can what you are coding be used to create an AI that will react to how the human's attack plays out?

The primary purpose of Triggers is to allow the designer the ability to have specific AI actions dependent on circumstantial factors (friendly and/or enemy). Triggers, on their own, doesn't directly change how the AI behaves at the operational level. For example, you can have the left pincer of an attack wait until the right pincer gets into place before advancing. Easily done. But you can't also instruct the left pincer to withdraw and come to the aid of the right pincer if it gets crushed. It's an either or type thing.

What we need to do is combine Triggers with Alternate Plans. And that means a lot more coding and...

Well, if you're concerned about the investment of time to code AI behavior, then be careful what you wish for! Triggers are wonderful but they're like a language -- when you're fluent, you can express ideas and describe all kinds of complex actions.

"with great power comes great responsibilities". While Triggers and Alternate Plans offers vastly more control over how the AI forces behave, it also means a lot more work to get the AI to understand the designer's intentions. This raises the bar, again, on really good scenario making. However...

The price to be paid is probably fewer scenarios / QB's and shorter campaigns will be shipped with the base game and Modules ...

I dont think so. The guys that we have working on stuff spend a LOT of time trying to overcome the lack of tools. This time is probably greater than what would be required with the right tools in place. In other words, if a designer currently puts 5 hours into AI for a scenario he might still only put 5 hours into it BUT get a far superior product in the end.

For people not well versed in the options I think it will be a little better now. The new tools will make it easier to get basic, simplistic AI that can actually put up a challenge. It might not be any better than what the really talented guys can do right now, but that's just it. Currently it takes a lot of time and talent to get the AI to do something consistently well. The new tools should help lower the bar for basic level AI and that should mean (coupled with other Editor improvements) an overall lower bar for making scenarios.

Steve