Is it possible to do a CPU vs CPU battle?

[womble]

Bravo @agusto. Apart from the mistaking me for Ken, that is...

[A Canadian Cat]

I don't know. I think you could  build a reality TV show around men fighting with bulldozers while blind folded.  I think it would be a hit.

[ChrisND]

heyhellowhatsnew,

 

You have not gotten any "hostile obnoxious" responses. In fact if anyone is starting to get hostile, it is you. People simply disagreeing with you is not hostility. It's a normal part of the process in communicating ideas with people.

 

I'm 31. I'm not your stereotypical old man afraid of change. I like the idea of spectating just as much as anyone else. The idea of doing an AI vs. AI battle is a not a new one, this possible feature has probably been known since CMBO. Here's the problem: these things take time, and thus money, to implement. We need to make sure that the time/money spent is going to be worth it: does it add enough value to enough players that it will be worth the time invested to us, and is it more valuable than the other things that we could working on? This is almost the first question asked of every task that could be done for Combat Mission. So far, a spectating feature has not passed that test. Maybe in the future it will, but right now it doesn't.

 

Chris

[poesel]

I, too, think that watching an AI vs AI fight wouldn't be that interesting. But what would be interesting (to me at least) is a WEGO extreme mode where you pitch your AI plans against each other.

 

Take a scenario, make an AI plan, send it to someone else, he adds the other side plan and then watch the show and see who wins. It's like WEGO but with only ONE order phase. I think that would be interesting for the programmer types around here.

Plus: whoever takes up that part of the hobby will be an AI wrestling god sooner or later and we all get some nasty scenarios from those.

[cool breeze]

I don't know. I think you could  build a reality TV show around men fighting with bulldozers while blind folded.  I think it would be a hit.

 

 

 

yeah I don't know where womble got this idea people might not want to watch blind men fight with bulldozers more than once.  Im not interested in watching the two AI plans battle it out but sign me up for the bulldozer fight spectator sport!  Is there somewhere where I can see this happen?  Once the smoke and dust from enough bulldozers destroying each other is blocking vision being blind could become an advantage...

 

Now combat mission as a spectators sport where people could spectate a real time head to head battle would be cool if the game blows up in popularity and Steve and Co.  are just rolling in cash looking at projects to spend it on.

 

Edit to add;

Just to go way off the deep end and maybe push some buttons, lol  ,  Once its got lots of players and a spectator system and a lot a online lobby; they can disable all the super sweet mod-ing features, make it free to play, and sell a bunch of silly skins.  Make billions of dollars.

 

Just kidding just kidding

Edited March 9, 2015 by cool breeze

[womble]

I, too, think that watching an AI vs AI fight wouldn't be that interesting. But what would be interesting (to me at least) is a WEGO extreme mode where you pitch your AI plans against each other.

 

Take a scenario, make an AI plan, send it to someone else, he adds the other side plan and then watch the show and see who wins. It's like WEGO but with only ONE order phase. I think that would be interesting for the programmer types around here.

It'd be interesting if there were more control. With the plan engine in its current state, it's a crapshoot.

Plus: whoever takes up that part of the hobby will be an AI wrestling god sooner or later and we all get some nasty scenarios from those.

Once the AI can be made good enough to attack itself, having the AIvAI mode would be good for testing even without the competition aspect.

[MikeyD]

Chris writes:

 

I'm 31

 

Geez, I remember being 31... just barely... back in 1986.

[John Kettler]

Having carefully reviewed the entire thread, I can assure you that the reception which first your idea, then you after you repeatedly stepped in it here, has been restrained, gentle and polite. I say this as a veteran of myriad thread wars, some so vicious people have been banned, going back to January 2000. Since you invoked your MS, I should tell you we have a number of people here who are disabled or have major health issues. Indeed, for some, the CM Forums are their major connection to the outer world, for they're home ridden or even bedridden. I'm not supposed to be stressed myself, for I'm recovering from a brain injury and am on disability, but in your case, I think it fair to assert the stress you're feeling is self-inflicted. You may not have intended it, but you have, in fact, riled the troops. And to your evidently great discomfiture, they're expressing it strongly, yet courteously. In a sense, you have tracked mud into our living room--and now are defending having done it! Unsurprisingly, it's not going over well.

 

We welcome players of all ages and genders and are under no delusions whatsoever that we need to get some (not spill some; that's later and it'll be from pixels) fresh blood in here if our hobby cum obsession/E-crack is to survive. You may also be interested to know we have people here who play many popular games over and above the CM series. Contrary to what you might believe, this is not the Place Where Innovative Game Thinking Goes to Die™, but is a dynamic opinionated community which, if it could have thought controlled, 3-D, fully interactive Holo Cube displays using projectors the size of a quarter but creating a sim battle space, say, 100 x 100 km; with everything in it, including visible planes, horses, cows and motorcycles, perfectly rendered and functioning exactly as the real ones do--would be on that in about a nanosecond, particularly if it could be done for what our current CM rigs cost. Yet, you're essentially portraying us as using these and being unwilling to go beyond them. Not even remotely true!

 

Simply put, we welcome innovation here that improves combat sim fidelity and our gaming experience. We want to be able to do in CM everything those same units and weapons did and do in the real world. We are not there yet, and even if the coding resources were there, the computational horsepower simply isn't. As it stands, CM can't even take advantage of the widely proliferated multiple core systems, which inherently limits what can be done, since the game can use but one processor core, of n available. 

 

You seem to expect us to jump in and enthusiastically support your idea, but you don't have the perspective we have. Some of us have CM backgrounds going back to, I believe, 1998. What was true then, and still is now, is that BFC is a tiny and very busy firm. A firm with a whole two programmers who would have to devote a great deal of time and effort (and a substantial chunk of BFC's very scarce funding) to give you what you want, presuming it's even doable, at the direct expense of other important things which need doing, such as a Module for CMRT, which has none, and a whole Battle of the Bulge game, not to mention modeling of weapon depression and elevation limits, which we've been trying to get since CMx1"s CMBO, and CMBS's tactically significant and very galling inability to model mast mounted sights and weapons. You've been a member for a bit over two years, so you have no idea how thrilled we were when BFC announced it was hiring a (trumpets blare) second programmer. Before that, it was just Charles "Brain in a jar" Moylan, BFC's co-founder along with Steve, who was doing all the coding for all the CM games.

 

Having ideas is great, as is suggesting them. but how you go about presenting them, stating your case and asking for what you want is going to, for good or ill, have tremendous impact on what sort of response you get here, whether from the members, BFC or both. 

 

IanL,

 

Sadly, you probably could sell that to the networks. Might trigger a bidding war. Meanwhile, the basic concept's been done already. With a lower carbon footprint, too.

 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited March 9, 2015 by John Kettler

[DaddyO]

You can do all your "old man wisdom" crap... honestly you'd still be playing with 8bit hexes.

 

This is too stressful, I have Mulitple Sclerosis and stress makes my symptoms worse so just **** it. This isn't worth my time. I just posted an idea and all I got was hostile obnoxious responses.

 

I'll let other people be the judge about "old man wisdom." You've offered your opinion, just like I have.

 

For what it's worth I had a debilitating heart attack in 2002 result in chronic heart failure that has left me disabled. I'm an example of what John Kettler mentioned, someone who during the week is primarily involved with others through internet communities like this one. With my limited energies it takes me one to two weeks just to play out a single player scenario depending on how long I'm able to keep going on my sessions of play. 

 

I'm really sorry that at your young age that you have to deal with MS. I'll offer you some free "old man" advice. Life is too short to take out your frustrations on other people. Life is too short to carry a chip on your shoulder. Be a community friend, and you will have community friends.

 

I have to agree with those who say if you re-read this thread as objectively as you can you will see that it is you that escalated your response when people didn't share your thinking on the subject or shared the community's prior experience. It is you who played the "old man" card, not the old men. 

 

I for one am happy to have you express your opinion not matter what so long as you are civil when others express theirs.

[JonS]

It’s always amusing when people play the ‘I’m younger than you, so you fuddy-duddys just listen to me and my idea which nobody has ever had before in the history of ideas!’ card. It’s almost as funny as the ‘I’m older than you, so you whippersnappers just settle back and listen to me and my perspective!’ card.

 

So, because this is my post, settle back now while I share a bit of perspective.

 

Way back in the day, when heyhellowhatsnew was still wearing short shorts and the intarwebs were being delivered over taut wet string at 2400 baud, there was a PC game by HPS called Panzer Campaigns : Normandy ’44. When first released it had a mode where the two AIs could be set one against the other. That feature had been built during alpha and beta testing to assist scenario designers and it was kinda sorta useful, although the longer the scenario ran, the less useful it was. And, of course, scenarios tended to be long to very long.

 

So, that was ok – a barely useful feature that a very few people did manage to get some limited utility out of. And it already existed, so they decided to include it as part of the public release. It couldn’t hurt, right?

 

Then one fine day some dude decided to run the longest scenario in CPU v CPU mode. Initially the game played fairly well and Dude was full of praise in his ongoing AAR. But predictably, and expectedly, after a fairly short period the AIs started floundering and the progression of the scenario became increasingly absurd. And the tone in the AARs became increasingly b!tchy and accusatory. Various people, including the developer, tried to explain that what Dude was seeing wasn’t unusual, and what he was trying to do really wasn’t what the mode was intended for. But still he pressed on, wasting more and more of his own time, and complaining with increasing bitterness about how the developer was ‘forcing’ him to waste his time with such a substandard implementation. People told him that it wasn’t going to magically change mid-game, and probably wouldn’t be patched anyway because the mode was barely useful, and making it more useful would take too much effort for basically no reward. But Dude wouldn’t listen, and pressed on becoming increasingly vitriolic and irrational in his blame of anyone and everyone for forcing him to waste his time. Eventually the developer got sick of it all, dropped the banhammer, and subsequently pulled the feature with the next patch release.

 

True story. I stumbled across it when I started doing some private modding and editing of Normandy ‘44 and thought that a CPU v CPU mode might be useful to me.

 

Fast forward to a time when heyhellowhatsnew gets to wear big boy pants. In CMx2 I regularly test scenarios in what is effectively CPU v CPU. I build the attacking AI, and then test it against an inert defence, by mashing the GO button as quickly as the Blue Bar™ will let me. This lets me see how the attack plan is synchronised in time and space, shows how the attacking AI copes with a basic defence, allows me to fine tune the defensive layout, and also suggests possible defensive AI movements. The point here is that while a full CPU v CPU might be somewhat useful than what I already do, I doubt that it’d be more useful enough to justify either the time spent on it, nor the likelihood of a Normandy ’44-style débâcle.

 

By the by, the way I recall ‘baked’ scenarios it was a CMx1 thing that had little to do with CPU v CPU. The way I remember it, a scenario could be ‘baked’ which meant that it could not be opened in the editor, which prevented unscrupulous players trying to gain an advantage by seeing exactly what was on the other side of the hill. This was really useful for tournies. You had to be careful, though, since once it was baked not even the original designer could get back in to the file. Maybe something like it will come back one day, but it – too – probably isn’t useful enough to bother with. I have no recollection of Mikey’s description of CMx2 baking, at all :confused:

 

Jon

[Apocal]

By the by, the way I recall ‘baked’ scenarios it was a CMx1 thing that had little to do with CPU v CPU. The way I remember it, a scenario could be ‘baked’ which meant that it could not be opened in the editor, which prevented unscrupulous players trying to gain an advantage by seeing exactly what was on the other side of the hill. This was really useful for tournies. You had to be careful, though, since once it was baked not even the original designer could get back in to the file. Maybe something like it will come back one day, but it – too – probably isn’t useful enough to bother with. I have no recollection of Mikey’s description of CMx2 baking, at all :confused:

 

Jon

 

 

It was in CMSF; you gave the AI side all the orders you would a player side during the setup phase and they'd run through them. I used it for a few tests of getting AI tanks to intelligently use bounding overwatch and it was pretty cool when things worked out. But it was sort of time-consuming and if the player acted in a different manner the whole effect fell apart. They removed it from CMBN and apparently very few people noticed. 

Edited March 10, 2015 by Apocal

[Stagler]

I'm 32 and I feel like the youngest one here where in regular gaming circles I am an old man. 

 

You can do all your "old man wisdom" crap, but honestly, this is about gaming and trying to educate people on new features that people actually like, because honestly you'd still be playing with 8bit hexes.

 

This is too stressful, I have Mulitple Sclerosis and stress makes my symptoms worse so just **** it. This isn't worth my time. I just posted an idea and all I got was hostile obnoxious responses.

 

My friend, welcome to battlefront forums. Where the past is always the future. Literally.

[Kieme(ITA)]

I have a list thick as a book of things I'd wish for CM series and this feature is no where to be found, even in the last pages.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Skwabie]

IIRC there is a smartphone RPG game that plays itself. One just sets the alarm clock and checks it periodically.

 

 

For CM, while there is little point for that kind of battle, "Wargamers are unwilling to pay for good AI." Steve's words.

 

 

-->runs and hides from CM mafia

[Thewood1]

Fuuny thing is I play most of my games completely the opposite way.  I play hot seat just to play them out.

[Jock Tamson]

I'm 32 and I feel like the youngest one here where in regular gaming circles I am an old man. 

 

You can do all your "old man wisdom" crap, but honestly, this is about gaming and trying to educate people on new features that people actually like, because honestly you'd still be playing with 8bit hexes.

 

This is too stressful, I have Mulitple Sclerosis and stress makes my symptoms worse so just **** it. This isn't worth my time. I just posted an idea and all I got was hostile obnoxious responses.

I wouldn't sweat it.  Some of the people that you are debating with don't even own the game.  So arguing that they don't want precious resources wasted on features that you want, when they haven't even bought it...

Edited March 10, 2015 by Jock Tamson

[Stagler]

It was funny when AI was brought up before, and peoples arguments against me that "artificial intelligence" does not exist - haha. I get the feeling that people dont play much outside of combat mission on here, it seems to be the gamers with the broadest breadth of experience with other games that are arguing for change.

[Apocal]

I get the feeling that people dont play much outside of combat mission on here, it seems to be the gamers with the broadest breadth of experience with other games that are arguing for change.

 

Niche products attract niche audiences dude. And I seriously doubt heyhellowhatsnew has much experience with other games if he thinks AI vs. AI spectating is a popular feature and uses the appeal of competitive DOTA tournaments to support that position.

[Thewood1]

Actually some other games do allow AI vs AI...

 

You can do it in Command, ARMA, and most modern flight sims.  It is also possible in Steel Beasts.

[Apocal]

Actually some other games do allow AI vs AI...

 

You can do it in Command, ARMA, and most modern flight sims.  It is also possible in Steel Beasts.

 

Yeah, but it isn't exactly the most popular feature. I think everyone does AI vs. AI in ArmA at least once to see an awesomely massive battle unfold around them, but after that?

[Thewood1]

I can't say as to its popularity, but I use it a lot as do several of my peers in ARMA.

[agusto]

It needs to be noted though that ArmA2 has a particularily autonomous AI. Some AI mods even allow the AI to operate completely autonomous.

[Jock Tamson]

Yeah, but it isn't exactly the most popular feature

Source?  Or do you mean just with you?

 

I remember spending many hours in Arma 2 setting up the AI to go head to head and then flitting round the battlefield watching "cool stuff" happen.

 

It might not be high up my wishlist in CM but I can absolutely see the appeal, because plenty cool stuff happens in CM too.

[Apocal]

Source?  Or do you mean just with you?

 

The number of non-AI compatible -- but still popular! -- addons found on fan sites like Armaholic; e.g. the multiplayer focused ACE mod vs. this one to add in functioning AI calls for fire. A comparison of AI-only videos, AARs, etc. posted compared to those featuring player intervention on one or both sides. More generally, around 1200 hours in ArmA2 and a lot of contact with the rest of the community.

 

What's your source for AI-only spectating being even, oh, I dunno, let's say five percent of the total of any wargame of the past ten years?

[womble]

It might not be high up my wishlist in CM but I can absolutely see the appeal, because plenty cool stuff happens in CM too.

 

Very little cool stuff happens in CM when the AI does things, though. Most, I'll stick my neck out and say "all", actually of the cool stuff happens because of what a player does. As and when the AI overcomes the challenges set by the environment, AIvAI might generate "cool stuff" to watch. So improving the AI should come first, with AIvAI spectator mode, a very distant last.