Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Battlefront.com

      Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips   12/27/2016

      Hi all! Now that Upgrade 4 is out and about in large quantities we have now discovered a few SNAFUs that happen out in the scary, real world that is home computing.  Fortunately the rate of problems is extremely small and so far most are easily worked around.  We've identified a few issues that have similar causes which we have clear instructions for work arounds here they are: 1.  CMRT Windows customers need to re-license their original key.  This is a result of improvements to the licensing system which CMBN, CMBS, and CMFB are already using.  To do this launch CMRT with the Upgrade and the first time enter your Engine 4 key.  Exit and then use the "Activate New Products" shortcut in your CMRT folder, then enter your Engine 3 license key.  That should do the trick. 2.  CMRT and CMBN MacOS customers have a similar situation as #2, however the "Activate New Products" is inside the Documents folder in their respective CM folders.  For CMBN you have to go through the process described above for each of your license keys.  There is no special order to follow. 3.  For CMBS and CMFB customers, you need to use the Activate New Products shortcut and enter your Upgrade 4 key.  If you launch the game and see a screen that says "LICENSE FAILURE: Base Game 4.0 is required." that is an indication you haven't yet gone through that procedure.  Provided you had a properly functioning copy before installing the Upgrade, that should be all you need to do.  If in the future you have to install from scratch on a new system you'll need to do the same procedure for both your original license key and your Upgrade 4.0 key. 4.  There's always a weird one and here it is.  A few Windows users are not getting "Activate New Products" shortcuts created during installation.  Apparently anti-virus software is preventing the installer from doing its job.  This might not be a problem right now, but it will prove to be an issue at some point in the future.  The solution is to create your own shortcut using the following steps: Disable your anti-virus software before you do anything. Go to your Desktop, right click on the Desktop itself, select NEW->SHORTCUT, use BROWSE to locate the CM EXE that you are trying to fix. The location is then written out. After it type in a single space and then paste this:

      -showui

      Click NEXT and give your new Shortcut a name (doesn't matter what). Confirm that and you're done. Double click on the new Shortcut and you should be prompted to license whatever it is you need to license. At this time we have not identified any issues that have not been worked around.  Let's hope it stays that way Steve
    • Battlefront.com

      Forum Reorganization   10/12/2017

      We've reorganized our Combat Mission Forums to reflect the fact that most of you are now running Engine 4 and that means you're all using the same basic code.  Because of that, there's no good reason to have the discussion about Combat Mission spread out over 5 separate sets of Forums.  There is now one General Discussion area with Tech Support and Scenario/Mod Tips sub forums.  The Family specific Tech Support Forums have been moved to a new CM2 Archives area and frozen in place. You might also notice we dropped the "x" from distinguishing between the first generation of CM games and the second.  The "x" was reluctantly adopted back in 2005 or so because at the time we had the original three CM games on European store shelves entitled CM1, CM2, and CM3 (CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK).  We didn't want to cause confusion so we added the "x".  Time has moved on and we have to, so the "x" is now gone from our public vocabulary as it has been from our private vocabulary for quite a while already.  Side note, Charles *NEVER* used the "x" so now we're all speaking the same language as him.  Which is important since he is the one programming them
Sign in to follow this  
Brit

Version 1.01.15821

Recommended Posts

Rich,

You need to let this go. Brit has supported EOS way longer than he should have given the amount of money he has been making. He has a new job and probably a new life away from EOS now. Sorry that you aren't happy with the game, but get over it. The AI is as good as it is going to be. If you don't like the game, quit playing it.

Brit may continue to support the game, but not like he has been in the past. Find another place to complain. We're all tired of it.

What are you so tired????

NOBODY forces you to read this thread. You don't like it? Don't read it.

But don't tell me what to do.

I PAID for the game. If Brit and BFC refund my $35, I'll disappear from this forum. In the meantime it's my money and I want some answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone paid for a game and also recalls a promise made by the dev that was not kept, he has the right to complain about it so at least BF hears him. BF is responsible and needs to make it right. I would give the person a refund, if I was BF. Heck, I've seen people bitching to devs about demos they are playing and didn't even pay for.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for "forgiveness." In my experience, when you forgive someone, it takes the anger and bad feelings off of your own shoulders. And you actually start feel better than the guy you forgave! Then the guy you forgave starts to think on it, and he comes around.

And the other people who have posted nasty comments here will move on. The person who "forgave" totally becomes the victor.

I have done some things it wouldn't be right to post about. And I have been forgiven of them. What an awesome feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few days ago I wrote a ticket and asked for a refund, even a BFC credit. It was turned down.

I really have nothing against Brit. I'm sorry the game didn't sell better. I posted in other forums promoting it so I did my part. I don't blame him for getting a full time job. There are things I'd like to see in the game like a terrain editor that will never happen. That's life.

What I don't understand is his unwillingness to work on the AI in his spare time and leave on a positive note. Instead he's saying screw you I'm leaving. Frankly that doesn't sound like him but maybe I don't know him all that well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, he was amazing with the patches. I never saw anything like it. And you and a couple of others gave him plenty of suggestions! So a small core group spent the time to make the game better and better. While most of us, including me, just sat on the sidelines.

Maybe he was/is going through some real bad times. You just don't know what people may be going through personally. I'm hoping and thinking we'll see more from him. I'm not counting this game out yet, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I stop by the thread probably every other day now. To answer a few questions and clear up the confusion:

(1) Rich asked for ten games that use a cheating AI. Actually, it would be much more difficult to find ten games without a cheating AI. I know of only two strategy games that claim to use a non-information-cheating AI (and I say "non-information cheating" specifically because even if an AI doesn't get special knowledge they are typically given varieties of combat or production bonuses that human players don't have). The two games that claim not to information-cheat are Galactic Civilizations series and Empire. I've heard people complain that they've caught the Galactic Civ game doing information cheats - the AI was targeting spaceships deep in the human player's territory that they shouldn't have known about, and the AI gets lots of production and maintenance bonuses. As pointed out earlier, Grigsby's games cheats. I also posted videos about AI cheats in the Civilization series. I don't know about information cheats, but I know Masters of Orion 2 AI had lots of cheats: "in some games the AI players get 4 times as much production and other insane advantages." (says one of the MOO2 developers). The harder levels of Starcraft would get bonus resources. Actually, it's safe to assume that all strategy games cheat unless they explicitly say otherwise (and even then, you have to parse out exactly what they said).

See lots of examples of cheating AI here:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheComputerIsACheatingBastard

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=287115

Personally, I don't believe that the "other games don't cheat" argument is something that can be taken seriously. The only reason it's brought up or believed is because it's hoped that it can be used as a lever to get a non-information cheating AI created. In other words, making EOS seem like an aberration in a sea of non-cheating AIs is a better way to get things done than saying that EOS is just one of many cheating AIs.

(2) As for the claim that I wasn't upfront with customers about the cheating AI and it borders on fraud: since most games do cheat (but most people don't realize it until they catch the AI doing something he shouldn't know about), and since I've always been upfront answering that question on the forums, I don't see how the "fraud" claim holds any weight. Certainly, if I was lying about it on the forums, you could say that, but I never even tried to evade the question about the AI.

(3) I'm sure that I've said in the past that I wanted to make a non-cheating AI. I'm confident that I said that because I still believe it would be a good thing to make a non-cheating AI. However, I don't believe I ever promised to make a non-cheating AI. Some people are accusing me of making promises about this, and I don't think I promised anything.

(4) People are complaining that I asked in a poll what I should work on and the AI was voted up highest. So, what happened? Well, I did work on the AI. I cleaned up a whole bunch of AI problems immediately after that poll came though. The reason you see a drop in the number of bug fixes right after the poll is because I was so busy working on the AI that all the other bug fixes took a dip. It might've looked like I wasn't working on anything, but it was difficult to enumerate all the AI fixes I had done so many of them weren't broken out individually. After that, I got behind on a bunch of other fixes, like crashes, and so I started fixing the backlog of bugs that accumulated while I was fixing issues with the AI.

How long will it take to make the ultimate AI that players are clamoring for? I don't know. A long time. After one of the players suggested (via email) a way to access and change the AI, and I've considered moving the AI out into a separate dll. (It already runs in it's own process.) At that point, I could open-source it. I don't know how much work I can put into it. I can imagine a variety of scenarios: I could work on the AI or not work on the AI. Other interested people could work on the AI or not work on the AI. The reality is that I've earned far less than minimum wage for my 5.5 years of work. As a result, I'm deeply buried in debt, my credit cards are maxed out, and I owe lots of money to people. Heck, I'm so strapped that I've procrastinated on getting new brakes put on my car for the past six months despite dire warnings from my car mechanic. Working on the AI would be a volunteer, non-paying effort for me. At best, it would be an academic thing - i.e. a chance to play around with some other approaches to AI. I'm also working more than 40 hours a week at a new job. Despite what was said earlier in the thread, I don't believe that making a non-cheating AI is a "moral obligation". Rather, it's something that some players really want to have added to the game. From my side, I'm looking at hundreds or thousands of extra hours on a project that was a financial disaster for me and won't return any significant reward for that additional time investment. So, you might imagine why I'm not going promise anything. I know that won't make some of the people on this thread happy, but committing myself to something that could take over a thousand hours of work for no pay when I'm already broke won't make me happy. So, I guess this is the part where you flame the bankrupt guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brit,...if you are saying you will do what you can,...but cant make any promises,....I will accept that with no problem at all. Mking the AI open source would be good, but I have absolutely no abilites to do anything aside from changing values in text files so it doesnt do me any good unless someone else does the work. But it would definately be better than nothing.

I really hope things get better for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brit, you have succeeded in making a fun game. Maybe not perfect, as nothing is perfect, but certainly good enough for most and worth a purchase. Thank you for that. It's a shame sales didn't reward your efforts. At this point you have nothing to apologize for. Best of luck in your new job and hopefully you will continue to provide some modest improvements to EOS when you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brit, this is my last post on this subject. I'm glad you finally posted to let us know what's going on. If you would have done this days ago it would have saved a lot of hassle. Communication is very important and goes a long way toward resolving conflicts.

1. Re Galactic Civilizations, I play that game off and on. It has a number of different levels. There's one where there are no bonuses. Go one way and the player gets some, go the other way and the AI gets some. I wouldn't be surprised if the AI has other cheats on higher levels. But it's player choice. If I discovered the AI was all-seeing on all levels I would quit playing all together.

2. When discussing cheating AIs in this thread we're concerned specifically about the all-seeing AI, not no cheating whatsoever. In some games that might not matter but in one like EoS it is very important. I've never heard of a wargame that has an all-seeing AI. You mentioned Civ had it, but only for a while, it was fixed. Maybe there are some but I never heard of them and I've been playing for 30 years. So there can't be very many.

3. I still believe that if Empire Enhanced could do a decent job with its main AI and not cheat, so could similar games.

4. In EoS with the all-seeing AI, I'm not as concerned with the strategic play as with the tactical and how well the AI reacts to situations. Perhaps you could give some sort of an idea how the AI would react to a couple of specifics. Your answers would be very helpful.

4a. Suppose I spot a battleship with a search plane. I send a sub, which is a couple turns away, after it. Would the BB recognize the threat and send destroyers if it has them handy, or have the BB flee if it doesn't? Or would the BB not react very much?

4b. If an AI controls an island and I send an invasion force from the other side, would the AI react by sending a bunch of land units to intercept?

5. This thread has been an eye opener for me. Simply posting my opinion, which goes against the mainstream, left me open to personal attacks by infantile posters.

6. I can understand your financial situation. I was in business all my life until I retired a few years ago. It doesn't always go the way you want and it can be difficult to get going again. Fortunately you have a skill where you can get a good job even in the current economy.

7. I'd really appreciated it if you would take a few minutes to answer #4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread has been an eye opener for me. Simply posting my opinion, which goes against the mainstream, left me open to personal attacks by infantile posters.

Rich, for the record, it was never about your personal opinion. Regarding FOW, I agree with you that ideally the AI should play by the FOW rules and not be all-seeing. We would all love to have that in every game we play. Wouldn't that be nice?

The problem was with your outrageous and incorrect assertions about things. Any rational response to you by me and others pointing out facts contrary to your assertions was met with hostile responses and personal insults by you, to everyone including the game designer. There is no excuse for your behavior here, none. End of story. Time to move on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rich, for the record, it was never about your personal opinion. Regarding FOW, I agree with you that ideally the AI should play by the FOW rules and not be all-seeing. We would all love to have that in every game we play. Wouldn't that be nice?

The problem was with your outrageous and incorrect assertions about things. Any rational response to you by me and others pointing out facts contrary to your assertions was met with hostile responses and personal insults by you, to everyone including the game designer. There is no excuse for your behavior here, none. End of story. Time to move on...

And for the record. Any personal attack I made was in response to one. From the beginning of my inquiries in this thread I was attacked as being petty, the game was fine, Brit made lots of updates and I'm being ungrateful for even asking. When I responded in kind then you, and one or two others, started upgrading your personal attacks.

My assertions were never outrageous or incorrect and I challenge you to prove they were. There weren't rational responses to my assertions. Several times there were outrageous responses and I challenged them. Nobody ever responded just as I don't really expect you to respond to my challenge about your outrageous assertions in the post above.

Your posts have been, for the most part, personal attacks and opinion that you wanted accepted as fact. You didn't challenge my statements with fact, just more bs. There is absolutely no excuse for your behavior in this thread. It has been disgraceful.

Your post above is an example. I made no attack against you personally. Yet you used a general statement where I did not mention you to make one against me. When you stop with the personal attacks against me, you can be assured I will do the same against you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My assertions were never outrageous or incorrect and I challenge you to prove they were.

Just one, then we're done. You asserted without basis that continued AI development to implement full FOW in EOS was trivial. Knowing better, I stated that it would involve hundreds or thousands of hours of additional effort to accomplish what you wanted. Lots of time to recode the program, debug any issues that arose, playtest to verify AI performance was actually enhanced by the changes and not made worse, make necessary adjustments, etc. You disagreed. Brit finally responded to your call out and told you pretty much exactly what I had told you. I stated facts based on personal experience actually programming code and managing software development projects; you respond that it's all BS based on zero knowledge of what you're talking about. Are we missing something here?

You know, wise man says, "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." But you still have a death grip on your shovel and you're still at it. Too funny. Go for it, keep digging if you want. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just one, then we're done. You asserted without basis that continued AI development to implement full FOW in EOS was trivial.

A while back in another thread we were talking about what it would take to implement full FOW in the game. Brit stated a few things that would need to be coded and then he could simply implement it. Couldn't find that post but it mostly had to do with the units being able to search. It's just another capability that the AI needs to be given. It's something pretty standard that you find in a lot of games.

Here's what I said in another thread about the AI and what I'd like to see:

"AI. Basic expand, attack, etc plus don't do stupid stuff. Each unit does what it's supposed to do. Fix the see all ai. Nothing fancy is necessary for the basic game."

The AI already does most of that. The only thing it needs is to search. A general search capability could be programmed. How much searching particular unit types do can be in the ruleset. That's it. Not a big deal.

Brit, in his post, said:

"How long will it take to make the ultimate AI that players are clamoring for? I don't know. A long time."

"I'm looking at hundreds or thousands of extra hours"

Nobody is looking for "the ultimate AI" at all. Brit is referring to something different from what we have been "clamoring" for.

So, in fact, Brit did NOT validate what you have been saying. Except in your dreams. Nice try though.

Empire Enhanced doesn't have "the ultimate AI" that's for sure. But it's good enough and it doesn't cheat. You don't have to worry that if you're sneaking your sub toward a battleship that it's seen and the BB will simply sail the other way. That's what ruins a game like this. It completely eliminates tactical play. You can't invade the enemy's island without him knowing it and overwhelming you.

I'll say one more time, If EDEE can do it then EOS can too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brit brought up Galactic Civilizations so I did a search on their forum. FOW was asked when GC2 was in development. Here's the answer.

"The AI still has to deal with the fog of war. That was the case in GalCiv 1 and it will be more so the case in GalCiv 2. Whether the AI will know the locations of yellow stars or not is of some discussion still."

So Brit was wrong. He also said a lot of games cheat. We're not talking about that. We're discussing FOW specifically.

NOBODY has brought up 10 wargames where it can be proven they don't have FOW. Everybody just says most games cheat in one way or another. I don't know of a single other wargame that doesn't have FOW. Maybe there are a few somewhere but they are in a very small minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brit brought up Galactic Civilizations so I did a search on their forum. FOW was asked when GC2 was in development. Here's the answer.

"The AI still has to deal with the fog of war. That was the case in GalCiv 1 and it will be more so the case in GalCiv 2. Whether the AI will know the locations of yellow stars or not is of some discussion still."

So Brit was wrong. He also said a lot of games cheat. We're not talking about that. We're discussing FOW specifically.

NOBODY has brought up 10 wargames where it can be proven they don't have FOW. Everybody just says most games cheat in one way or another. I don't know of a single other wargame that doesn't have FOW. Maybe there are a few somewhere but they are in a very small minority.

Ok, well, I guess I need to keep posting here until this diatribe fizzles.

Rich, the fact is that even if Brit rewrote the AI using FOW, you would not be happy with it. Given our current technology, it is almost impossible to develop an AI that can compete with a human because the developers can not allocate enough resources to solve the problem. In order to make the game playable, shortcuts need to be taken to keep the timeframe small enough to keep you interested. So, asking for the impossible is a little unrealistic.

How do I know this, I have studied AI for many years as a Computer Scientist and I can tell you this is not an easy problem to solve. Humans have a tremendous number of senses and parallel brain functions that current computers are not able to compete with. Just because Big Blue can beat a human at chess, doesn't mean that Brit can create an AI for a complex wargame. Chess is much easier to program an AI for than EOS, I guarantee that.

Brit should not spend any more of his valuable time on this game other than to fix those bugs he has time for. The AI is not a bug, it is an architecture and design issue and it works as designed.

As for open sourcing the AI, well, I'm a developer and I would consider looking at and enhancing the code if Brit decides to publish it. However, I won't make any promises to make it any better. I have my time constraints as well, but I would be willing to look at it and maybe get together with others to see if we can improve it.

Rich, no one disagrees with your issues about the AI, we just disagree with you beating up Brit about it and your argumentative nature on the boards.

Let's see what Brit has to say about open sourcing the AI and maybe we can help improve it. By the way, the AI in any computer game is one of the most complex pieces of the game.

Cheers to Brit for giving us this game and for supporting it so well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich, the fact is that even if Brit rewrote the AI using FOW, you would not be happy with it.

This is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say.

Have you not been paying attention?

Sorry to be snippy but I've covered this ad infinitum. I'm getting sick and tired of you folks answering my posts obviously without reading them.

I've said over and over that Empire Enhanced has a good AI and it doesn't cheat. I'm satisfied with it. It is a similar game to EoS. Just what is the problem with you people?

Again, sorry. But please read what I say before posting wrong conclusions about me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say.

Have you not been paying attention?

Sorry to be snippy but I've covered this ad infinitum. I'm getting sick and tired of you folks answering my posts obviously without reading them.

I've said over and over that Empire Enhanced has a good AI and it doesn't cheat. I'm satisfied with it. It is a similar game to EoS. Just what is the problem with you people?

Again, sorry. But please read what I say before posting wrong conclusions about me.

Point noted. Sorry to keep this thread going and I rest my case. The AI is a very difficult thing to improve or Brit would have already enhanced it. I believe the game will remain as it is unless Brit releases the code and others find the time to improve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Point noted. Sorry to keep this thread going and I rest my case. The AI is a very difficult thing to improve or Brit would have already enhanced it. I believe the game will remain as it is unless Brit releases the code and others find the time to improve it.

I agree with a couple of points.

The AI is a very difficult thing to improve. However, nobody is suggesting Brit spend any time improving it. It seems pretty good as is. It's the all-seeing AI that needs to be removed. And units will need to actually search. That's about it. And I don't see it as real time consuming to change.

I agree the game will remain as is. It's a shame. It makes the game unplayable to a lot of people. Just like there are many people who won't buy a game with DRM, there are FAR more who won't buy a wargame with an all-seeing AI. It is truly a game breaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AI is a very difficult thing to improve. However, nobody is suggesting Brit spend any time improving it. It seems pretty good as is. It's the all-seeing AI that needs to be removed.

You still don't seem to understand that these are connected. You can't simply "remove" the AIs ability to see information it's not supposed to.

This AI simply cannot function without this so called "all-seeing".

I explained this in detail in case you missed it:

Sadly, if AI is made without the concept of fog of war in mind, it is often extremely difficult to fix.

In doing so, the AI must now calculate possible strategies instead of simple reactionary measures. The difference between the two is staggering.

One is artificial intelligence and must make real strategical decisions with the future in mind, the other is merely calculation of battle outcomes to form a superior result.

If you apply a band-aid fix to an AI that doesn't understand fog of war, it will completely annihilate its ability to fight properly. You will roll in with countless things the AI could not "see" or "predict" and it will lose every single time. If you give the CPU player knowledge of the players forces but not locations, it will match you but not strategically; it will constantly lose conflicts because it could not predict what your forces could be. Should it assume that your force is always the strongest where ever it goes, it will simply be vulnerable to surgical strikes and flanks before it can compensate. In any case, it will horribly exploitable unless done properly or is given cheats.

TLDR: AI basically needs to be recreated from scratch to work with fog of war. It's not something the developer can just do in 5 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You still don't seem to understand that these are connected. You can't simply "remove" the AIs ability to see information it's not supposed to.

This AI simply cannot function without this so called "all-seeing".

I explained this in detail in case you missed it:

TLDR: AI basically needs to be recreated from scratch to work with fog of war. It's not something the developer can just do in 5 minutes.

Actually you don't seem to get it. Brit explained a couple months ago what needed to be done. I don't remember the entire post but I recall it was mainly getting the units able to search. I already posted this. It would take some effort but it wasn't a huge deal and Brit indicated he wanted to do it.

You need to read posts before making incorrect statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually you don't seem to get it. Brit explained a couple months ago what needed to be done. I don't remember the entire post but I recall it was mainly getting the units able to search. I already posted this. It would take some effort but it wasn't a huge deal and Brit indicated he wanted to do it.

You need to read posts before making incorrect statements.

If YOU don't remember the post, how am I supposed to be able to?

I'm pretty sure I don't need to read the entire forum to understand the implications of fixing the AI.

A game-play situation so you understand what goes wrong when you do this:

Let's say you have ten tanks in a stack, the AI scouts these incoming tanks with a fighter.

Knowing that your tanks will horribly crush everything it has in the region, it sends a squadron of bombers to neutralize them.

You know all about the AI's woes and predict the bombers or scouted them earlier, and deploy sufficient fighters.

Now lets say the AI knows you have fighter technology, and sends an escort of fighters because it knows you have the capability, and that losing its bombers or not destroying the tank squadron will cause it to lose the war.

But, oh, damn? what's this? You send a wave of bombers at the same time over to his now undefended city knowing that hes going to send his fighters to your tank squadron every time.

Repeat this until you win the game. Which AI is the most fun now?

You can continue to exploit this time and time again, because the AI is not thinking forward into the future, or thinking about all possible strategies, or memorizing your strategies. It's these things that make fog of war AI such a difficult task versus reactive AI.

With the all-seeing AI, it can counter all of this far more effectively, is atleast five times or more easier to write, relies on less other cheats and it's also much harder to exploit.

I have a background in programming, and have touched on fog of war AI myself; I don't need to cite random references. If Brit said he could implement something like this easily, It's likely his tune changed once he saw what was involved in doing it.

If you think I still don't get it, why don't you actually explain what I don't get. Because I'm doing you a favor, explaining this, so that you can understand, no matter what Brit said, this is a serious undertaking when done properly; he may not have understood it at the time. I don't see why you thought his word was iron law.

Adding "scouts" into the existing AI won't change anything, it'll just give you the illusion of the AI using fog of war.. like every other game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Name me 10 wargames that have an all-seeing AI.

Why do I have to continue repeating myself? I guess it's because you people don't pay attention to what's already written.

Other games including Empire Deluxe do just fine with the AI using FOW. So can EoS. What part of this don't you understand?

I can't think of a single wargame that's currently available that uses the all-seeing AI. How about CMSF? SC2? TacOps? Those are three that I play sometimes and they do NOT use an all-seeing AI. I could go on with other companies. Everybody else does it but you people keep saying it's too much for poor Brit. He can't do it. Do you people think poor Brit is incapable of including in his game what everybody else does? Do you think he's so stupid he just can't do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't think of a single wargame that's currently available that uses the all-seeing AI. How about CMSF? SC2? TacOps? Those are three that I play sometimes and they do NOT use an all-seeing AI. I could go on with other companies. Everybody else does it but you people keep saying it's too much for poor Brit. He can't do it. Do you people think poor Brit is incapable of including in his game what everybody else does? Do you think he's so stupid he just can't do it?

You're welcome to write out a line of wargames that have working fog of war and those that don't. Don't expect me to do your homework for you, it's not me that wants the unreasonable :)

CMSF: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/combatmissionshockforce/review.html

Gamespot even go out of their way to mention just how broken the AI is. I don't even see how "fog of war" is used here, it just looks like line of sight and tactical, which should not be confused with strategical intelligence.

SC2: You can also adjust the difficulty of the game, which essentially gives bonuses (positive or negative) to the AI (just cheats). The AI in the game is slightly disappointing, mainly because it’s not aggressive enough and seems to only respond to a pre-determined script or the human player’s actions.

Empire Deluxe:

Your own words from a yahoo discussion.

"After a while Empire Deluxe Enhanced Edition will fall on the pile of

failed game sequels where it rightly belongs." - guess you can't put much stock in that AI either?

http://www.gameskb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/pc-games-strategy/2670/Empire-Enhanced-is-Doomed

PS. I did not play the games in question, it's obvious I don't need to now.

Most amazing thing about my ten minutes of searching about empires and AI?

Rich12545 is featured on each page, complaining about AI for each one, ontop of being banned from forums taking it too far.

You are however, welcome to continue mentioning games which actually have all-seeing AI (ironically abysmal AI also)..

So far I'm still waiting for a single one with useful AI that doesn't cheat.

As for Brit doing the AI in question..

Could he do it? Sure. I believe just about anyone can program something complex so long as they have the time and commitment.

does he have the money to do it? no.

does he have the time to do it? no.

does he have the motivation to do it? no.

does he have moral obligation to do it? no.

For the record, I've read what you have written, there's no meaning in continuing to bark up that tree. By all means, continue... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but you are just pathetic. You're introducing stuff that is totally immaterial.

Shock Force started poorly. It is now a super game.

My quote was from a long time ago. If you had bothered to read this thread you would know it is obsolete and why.

SC2 has FOW. I have no problem with cheats that are user controlled.

Since you did not play the games in question you really don't know but show your ignorance by posting about them anyway.

I can't mention games that have an all-seeing AI. Other than EoS I don't know of any.

Here are some games that I play.

From BFC

Combat Mission

Strategic Command 2

TacOps

From Shrapnel Games

ProSim Series

From Matrix Games

Battlefront Academy

Harpoon

Battleground

Campaign Series

Advanced Tactics

Operational Art of War

From Killer Bee

Empire Enhanced

Perfect General

All are from indie devs or small groups. All use Fog of War. ALL these devs were able to implement FOW into their games. And all the AIs are good enough. They all could do it. But Brit couldn't. He should have done it from the beginning. He never should have made the game without FOW. Or, since he did, he should have let us know so we could decide if we wanted to buy it that way. FOW is so important it should have known from the beginning.

Since you brought up what I previously wrote about EDEE you either didn't read it or were incapable of understanding what was written or are dishonest and brought it up anyway.

We all know Brit isn't going to do it. That's beside the point. The reason you people keep posting is you resent I complain about it. So you make excuses for poor Brit. It's too much for him. Blah blah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, guys, thanks for the support. I'd like to close down the back-and-forth, so we'll consider this thread done. I won't actually close the thread, but know that any replies trigger more replies as people try to defend themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×