aka_tom_w

I think the sugestion here was a request to give any scenario designer some additional tools (scripts or SOP's or hints like flags that may or may not be seen by the opponent) to guide the AI in solo games. This to my mind sounds like alot of fun because then two scenario designers could challege each other via the AI in their own scenarios. Picture this, one scenario designer challenges another scenario designer using identical (or roughly similiar) terrain and units to "program" (or just "hint" whatever..) the AI to defeat the other human player. Both designers swap files and play Solo against the AI programed by the other guy See who does better against the AI ! To me THAT sounds like fun! -tom w _tom_w Member Member # 1515 posted November 06, 2002 11:20 AM quote: Originally posted by TSword: Agree 100 % The scripting should not augment but rather complement the current AI. The bigger moves, coordination, assess terrain and the like are the problem of the AI. Here scripting could aid tremendously. Of course only games vs. AI would gain something. New type of battles would be possible, more historic accurate battles would be possible and most important a challenging Computer driven attack would be possible. A rather small investment for huge gains when compared to other requirements. Greets Daniel Thanks Dan! That's what I (we ) meant: "The scripting should not augment but rather complement the current AI." If some of these "complementary" tools were available in the editor the scenario designer could "hint" the AI in one direction or another perhaps, with scripts and SOP's and things like flags that are not in fact flags but short term battlefield goals or objectives, to help the AI along during the battle. Thanks -tom w [ December 08, 2002, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

there is a whole "other" thread about this if you want to read more: click here its just been bumped to the top From the first post of the old thread..... "Zarquon posted P.S. : it's been said before : what we really need is the possibility to add scripting to scenarios. It would not help QB gaming vs. the Artificial Incompetence, but imagine pre-made scenarios where the designer could mark different paths for an AI attacker, set movement modes (cautious, overwatch yes/no, sneak, rush...), designate reserves and their trigger conditions etc.). Even simple scripting options would vastly improve solo gaming. If anyone is interested, please open a new thread." Jörg OK that sounds good to me..... That would happen in the editor and not be "open source" code. I think this suggestion is (perhaps ) a workable way (in CMII) for scenario designers to get the most out of the AI by scripting some opening moves. Maybe SOP's could be added. I have heard alot about SOP's in Aiborne Assault (I have not played this game but other's here have raved about the SOP's in that game) maybe SOP's plus scripting in the editor could provide tools (in CMII) that would give scenario designers what they need to enhance the AI and the Single Player experience so it could be more fun and more challengeing?? Just a thought. -tom w" [ December 08, 2002, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

bump

is there a link or web site where I can see screen shots of this effect before I try to download and install the files? I am curious. I am using the standard/default steppe and grass that came with the game so I would like to know what is better? What is the BEST terrain mod to show elevation? thanks -tom w

This is particularily tricky on heavily wooded maps. Woods and trees don't show elevation differences with lighter and darker shades. Same goes for grain tiles (no elevation difference for lighter and darker shades, mostly grain fields are flat though) I avoid playing with snow on the ground for one BIG reason, I can't determine the elevation, the lighter and darker shades of snow make it VERY hard to determine. If it is a snowy map and I am playing against the AI and the scnenario looks like I might enjoy it, I open up the scenario in the map editor and I remove the snow and make it so I can see the the grass. Grass and Steppe seems to be easier to see elevation. From view 8 or 9 on a map of ALL steppe the light and dark shades actually look like a contour lines on a standard topo map. I have lobbied hard for contour lines on all maps since the CMBO Gold Demo, but the response has been, the contour lines are there (sort of) if you look at the shades of colour in in the grass/steppe/snow from a view 8 or 9. Use a terrain mod for the best effect, grass a steppe terrain mods with good contrast will show elevation with nicely shaded colours from darker to lighter. Lighter colours are higher and darker colours are lower. I agree with your point. GOOD tactics and planning should be based on accurate determination of elevation and LOS. Studying the playing field and checking LOS ALL over the map and determining anvenues of approach are critical to good tactical planning before your first move (and thereafter when all that goes to hell after first contact ) Anyways..... Heres to contour lines on Topo maps for CMII -tom w [ December 08, 2002, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Yes, but it's been a while since I contributed. Of course, I had to check out the reaction to the review!</font>

My guess is that Fancy pants WWII RTS game won't ever run on a MAC or OSX so I am REALLY hopeing Steve et al. get it together for the CMII rewrite (for combat mission on Mac OSX) so I don't have to by a freakin' windoze PC just to play the latest REALLY cool wargame with GREAT graphics! -tom w [ December 06, 2002, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

OK that is COOL I have never read a review where they say this: "The scale of the game — infantry in squads of around 10 men, individual tanks and artillery pieces — is that of Advanced Squad Leader, the war buff's favorite cardboard-based game. But while skill at the board game was mostly a matter of mastery of the voluminous rule book, Combat Mission players can leave the rules to the computer and concentrate on applying real-world tactics like covering fire and advancing in bounds. " its in the USA Today review -tom w [ December 06, 2002, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

So... no comment yet from any of the Official BFC voices??? :confused: :confused: ? They must know we are dieing of curiosity! -tom w

OK then....... Thats a good question :confused: ?? -tom w

Tero OK We agree "Again, AFAIK the Hunt command will not take into account Hull Down positions when it is being executed. Why the extra Seek Hull Down command if it did ? In Hunt, where you put the way point is where you end up unless you spot an enemy unit to engage. But this is sidetracking from the main issue and I know Steve does not take too kindly to this. Or soon we will be hearing about the moster burrito he ate last but night which retreated out the back before he could engage the beer in his immediate LOS. " I did not understand that you were requesting the the game engine provide more fidelity with regard to hull down status. (is that correct?) I understand your request and thank you for taking the time to reply to my questions. I do not dispute or disagree with your answers . -tom w [ December 05, 2002, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

This issue ought not to be all that inflammitory (I hope as I now comment). I understand Steve and Charles were VERY keen to get the armour penetration values and realistic concepts of tank fighting modeled MORE correctly in CMBO (and later CMBB) because they were personally dissappointed with how poor WWII armour combat was modeled in ASL. If I am mistaken, I am sure someone here will correct me or elaborate. I don't think you will be needing that fire retardant -tom w

I heard a rumour there was bootlicking involved in the process somewhere? he he -tom w

As a wargamer for almost 40 years (Tactics 2 RULES ) and a Physics major, I can't resist leaving my normal lurking mode and adding a comment. I remember from my readings years ago that the original German for what is commonly called The Uncertaincy Principle is better translated as The Principle of Indeterminacy. It is not that the particle is traveling an uncertain path, it is just not possible to accurately determine the position of the particle in space and time. It's applicability to CMBB could be stated in this way: No matter how many experiments are run to test the outcome of a specific combat encounter, the influence of the experimenters would always alter the results in some indeterminate way. Therefore conclusions about the actual behavior of the code cannot be accurately made. And don't even get me started on Chaos Theory </font>

Well, I certainly hope so. I have been waiting ages to command my French Silk Commandos against the forces of the evil Banana Splits </font>

I think there are more than a FEW of us curious about this one? :confused: -tom w

'Please state specifically what the problem is you claim CM has with hull down. It is not a bug, it is a feature. In CMBO it is virtually impossible for a non-turreted vehicle to obtain a hull down position due to the terrain tile size (when under human control). In CMBB there is the Seek Hull Down command which deals partly with that problem. AFAIK the terrain tile size in CMBO and CMBB are identical so I assume a turreted vehicle will still be more efficient in obtaining a Hull Down position compared to a non-turreted vehicle. " This example may seem a little too "Black and White" BUT for simplicity sake lets assume that a garden variety stone wall grants hull down status. (this is the same stone wall in CMBO and CMBB, and AFAIK it does grant hull down status for the AFV behind it) I mention this because hull down in CMBO and CMBB only covers the lower hull. So in the example above BOTH the low sillouette StuG and the High Sillouette Sherman are in fact hull down behind a stone wall. I do not understand this issue. IF you use hunt to the crest of a hill (and there is an enemy AFV on the other side to be hull down to) then BOTH the StuG and the Sherman will Hunt up to just behind the crest of the hill where they will both find themselves in Hull down positions EVEN if the StuG (lower) is a little closer to the crest of the rise. NO?? :confused: Whats the big deal here? Both end up hull down at some point when they hunt up the crest of a small hill do they not? Since only the lower hull is protected from hits in the hull down position does really matter that the low StuG gets closer to the crest of the Hill than the tall Sherman? So if I may Ask, because I am as stumped as Steve is here, could Tero please expand on and explain what he is trying to get at when he states: "AFAIK the terrain tile size in CMBO and CMBB are identical so I assume a turreted vehicle will still be more efficient in obtaining a Hull Down position compared to a non-turreted vehicle." Is not the StuG and the Sherman equally efficient in obtaining a Hull Down position when using the Hunt command towards the crest of a small rise or by using the Move or Fast command to a prime location immediately behind a stone wall? -tom w [ December 05, 2002, 07:27 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Sometimes playing on this forum is actually more fun than playing the game it is there to support/discuss Very entertaining Michael. I Sure Hope Redwolf is laughing now. I think he needs a good laugh! -tom w

I don't think so. Not the one named after Heisenberg, anyway. Let me make it clear that I am not a physicist, but the subject is something that I have had a layman's interest in and have tried to grasp. And to my humble understanding, what Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states in a nutshell is events on the atomic scale can not be observed without fundamentally altering them. Or to put it more colloquially, you can't know what the universe is like when you aren't in it. What any of this has to do with CM and the way it processes is not immediately clear to me. As I understand it, the uncertainty in CM derives from plain old everyday randomness, as you correctly likened it to a roll of the dice. HTH Michael</font>

I've been thinking this too. After playing Close Combat for years, and playing the "demo" of GI Combat, as well as other games, the way that the TaAI keeps the mistakes to a minimum -- while usually doing the "believable" thing -- is kind of amazing. Is there a link to any discussion of how the AI was programmed, or a "developer's journal" of how the game came together? Some developers keep one.</font>

I liked this post so much I thought I should comment Steve Says..... "Mikey, quote: In fact, I doubt that there is any code in the Tac-AI that intentionally causes a unit to perform an action that it knows will result in it's death. Steve will need to verify this, but I would be shocked if it would be programed to do that. Correct. The TacAI in theory is always trying to do the correct thing. However, depending on the situation, unit Experience, and luck... the TacAI might "accidentally" choose the worse course of action, which then leads to death. To illustrate, the AI might calculate that there are four courses of action open to it: 1. Stay put. 2. Retreat out of LOS after firing off one shot. 3. Retreat out of LOS and fire a shot on the move, if possible. 4. Retreat out of LOS *NOW* It will then figure out which of these options is best for the situation. It evaluates the given situation as best it can and ranks each on a Fuzzy scale of 0-10 (10 being the "best") 1. 2 2. 8 3. 5 4. 10 Now, the unit is a Regular which means it might be coded to have a 20% margin of "error". Toss in some randomness to some degree, and then the AI picks which is the choice it thinks it should take. The numbers indicate that the AI would choose #4 most of the time, #2 some of the time, #3 rarely, and #1 hardly ever. Basically, my simplified example would introduce a 20% chance of not picking the best pick, which is #4. If it indeed fails to pick this best choice, then it will try to pick the next best choice, #2. Again, it has a 20% chance of not picking it. If it fails again, then it tries to pick #3. Failing that, it picks #1, the absolute worst pick. A Conscript might have a 50% chance of error, a Vet only 15%, Elite only 3%, etc. Now, this is an extreme oversimplification of my understanding of how the TacAI works (I didn't code it, nor would I want to ), but I think you get the idea. The TacAI is built to assess the situation imperically, then judge the choices with various biases depending on the situation. Steve" END QUOTE Now that implies to me, that sort like a board game, you might be unlucky and get a bad "die roll" out of the TAC AI and the then the tank CREW and TC would screw up if the random chance determiner (they used to be dice) selected the least attractive option for the tank. e.g." 1. Stay put." in the example above. So it is my understanding a random chance modifier could model a bad choice by the TC sometimes. I think this is very obvious in the expample that Redwolf started this whole thing with. There were only a few specific options the tac AI might consider, they were something like this: 1. Stay put. 2. Retreat out of LOS after firing off one shot. 3. Retreat out of LOS and fire a shot on the move, if possible. 4. Retreat out of LOS *NOW* BUT you could never be sure, due to the Heisenberg Uncertianty Principle (Found it here in a Physic Forum like ours if you are interested: http://www.physicsforums.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1357 (I think there are some PhD weilding Hardcore Physics GROGS in that forum BUT only glanced at it ) which behavour the TAC AI would pick. this Uncertianty Principle (in CMBB) means that a behavour is not predicatable and it might seem like this may be one of the root causes of this issue raised by Redwolf. This Uncertianty Principle (in CMBB) means the game decides what course of action the TAC AI will take and it will not always make the best choice and it will NOT be predictable even under the same circumstances. (Thus causeing some frustration amongst some players it would seem ) BUT this is truly a thing of Beauty!!! some form of Computer Programing Award should be presented to Charles and Steve for the way the "fuzzy logic" what ever that is, makes the TAC AI so "life like" IMHO But thats just me being a complete fanboy with regard to the AI coding !! -tom w [ December 04, 2002, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

You want a Challenge??? Its JaegerMeister as the Russians! The AI for the Germans knows what to do to defeat you as the Russians every time. (Hint: use EFOW and Default Set-up [NOT computer chosen setup]) -tom w

They are/were alot braver in CMBO AND MG and HMG fire it not really scare them that much. NOW in CMBB MG's and HMG's really mean business. Some folks here who played CMBO became accustomed to infantry that were more like super heroes sometimes (not always but they were brave alright ) CMBB feels (If I can say that?? :confused: ) more realistic to me, I really don't know what more realistic in a WWII combat situation means so I will leave that to those who have actual combat experience and I'm happy to take their word for it. -tom w

Does that last paragraph mean that there will be a CM3 before CM II (the rewrite?)</font>

page 119 of the manual (oops Edit should be 119) -tom w [ December 04, 2002, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]