Pericles Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being terrible and 10 being perfect, what is your opinion of the quality of the AI in the Combat Mission series (engine x2)? My opinion after many hours logged with CMBN and CMBS: 7/10 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 A lot depends on the orders given by the scenario designer. A strong scenario can be an amazing AI experience. Judging only the TacAI, I'd give it an 8 (but with flashes of 6 through 9). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pericles Posted January 29, 2017 Author Share Posted January 29, 2017 That's a fair assessment of the AI issues. I recently played a night mission in CMBN for the first time and the spotting limitations really screwed up the AI behavior. I had two enemy armored vehicles drive right past entire tank-supported platoons that had been in place firing at the enemy for most of the mission. That enemy vehicles simply drove past them and into a field of no consequence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 6 hours ago, Holman said: A lot depends on the orders given by the scenario designer. A strong scenario can be an amazing AI experience. Judging only the TacAI, I'd give it an 8 (but with flashes of 6 through 9). I'd say that is about right. Maybe I'd give it an 8.5. I've seen it do things that seemed almost miraculous, and when it does something stupid, it usually the kind of lapse that a real human on a battlefield might be apt to make. Some pathfinding issues need more work though, as the AI under certain frequently encountered circumstances will behave in ways that are not only stupid, but far-out stupid. One that comes to mind right away is avoiding an obstacle by moving onto terrain where it will get immediately cut down. A human soldier in that situation would, I believe, either seek a more secure route, or simply not move at all. But I realize that this can involve subtle elements that are not easy to code for. Still, one hopes that some day soon a breakthrough will occur. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Jack Ripper Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 On 1/29/2017 at 3:40 PM, Holman said: A lot depends on the orders given by the scenario designer. A strong scenario can be an amazing AI experience. This. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 What they said.....If you leave all the AI units in Group A1 and don't write any scripts, they really ain't too bright at all (not too bad on the defence, but that's about it). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 On 30/01/2017 at 3:38 AM, Michael Emrys said: Some pathfinding issues need more work though, as the AI under certain frequently encountered circumstances will behave in ways that are not only stupid, but far-out stupid. One that comes to mind right away is avoiding an obstacle by moving onto terrain where it will get immediately cut down. A human soldier in that situation would, I believe, either seek a more secure route, or simply not move at all. But I realize that this can involve subtle elements that are not easy to code for. Still, one hopes that some day soon a breakthrough will occur. A lot of that is down to the mode the units are moving in, the AI seems reasonably sane when applying a 'Cautuious, Advance' order, but give it an 'Active, Maximum Assault' and it goes a bit benny-mental. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.