aka_tom_w

Dear: Gunny bunny [x] Clueless Newbie [x] Lamer [_] Flamer [_] Pervert [_] Geek [x] Spammer [_] Racist [x] Jackass [x] Troller [_] Fundamentalist [_] Satanist [_] "Expert" [_] Wannabe [x] Dumbass [x] Waste of Skin/Gray matter/Blood [_] Other:Waster of Time You Are Receiving This Response Because: [_] You imported another debate into this post [_] You obviously don't know anything about the topic at hand [_] You posted a 'Top 10' post. [_] You posted a 'Relgion' post [_] You started a long, stupid thread [_] You continued spreading a long, stupid thread [_] Your post is absurdly off topic for where you posted it [_] Your lack of understanding of the fundamentals is disgusting [_] You posted a 'Lord of the Rings' post [_] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message [_] You posted low-IQ flamebait [_] You posted a blatantly obvious troll [_] You followed up to a blatantly obvious troll [_] You said "X rules, Y sucks" and gave no support for your lame statement [_] You make no sense [_] You made a post yet failed to say anything [_] Your sig/alias/avatar is dreadful [_] Your post contained nothing but psycho-babble. [_] You are claiming that you know more than Newton, Ohm, Pavlov, etc. [_] Your awful markup made the post unreadable [_] You made a baseless assertion [_] You posted SCREAMING in RANDOM CAPS (OR IN ALL CAPS) for NO APPARENT REASON [_] YoU tYpEd SoMeThInG lAmE lIkE tHiS [_] You say your 'L33t liek Jeffk.', Or your spelling is so bad that no one can read it. [x] You didn't do anything specific, but appear to be so generally worthless that you are being flamed anyway [_] Your complete lack of any and all grammar makes your post physically painful to read [x] You spammed me with worthless e-mail that listed a worthless web site that does not work [x] Your worthless spam e-mail wasted my time [x] What the Hell! replying to you now is wasting my time! To Repent, You Must: [x] Refrain from posting until you have a vague idea what you're doing (No Just refrain from posting!) [_] Stop masturbating for a week [_] Read every group you posted to for a week [_] Give up your AOL account [x] Bust up your modem with a hammer and eat it [_] Tell your Mommy to up your medication [x] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor (monitor must be plugged in) [_] Actually post something relevant [_] Read and memorize the FAQ [_] Print your home phone number in your ads [x] Be the guest of honor in alt.flame for a month In Closing, I'd Like to Say: [x] Bite Me! [_] Get a clue [_] Get a life [_] Go away [_] Grow up [_] Never post again [_] You need to seek psychiatric help [_] Yer momma's so fat/stupid/ugly that etc... [x] Take your gibberish somewhere else (permenantly this time!) [_] Go back to school and actually learn something [_] Learn how to post or get off the site [_] I don't like you [x] All of the above [ December 04, 2002, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I'm in complete agreement. I hate the change made to how the camera works. It was much easier keeping one finger on the shift key for when I wanted to scroll laterally across the screen. One more example of something that never should've been toyed with.</font>

I'm in complete agreement. I hate the change made to how the camera works. It was much easier keeping one finger on the shift key for when I wanted to scroll laterally across the screen. One more example of something that never should've been toyed with.</font>

I think one of the problems with Redwolf is evident in the quotes above.. Why does the Tac-AI "always" have to wait for the 1st shot. Time and time again, Redwolf makes these broad claims. It's almost like he lives in a black and white world where somethihg should always happen, or should never happen. But CM is awash in grey. It's been pretty well established IMHO, that the ISU isn't going to fare well on average in his scenario file, but in CM, there are 4 different observed results. Retreat with no fire, fire then retreat, fire while retreating, and stand and fight. And with the random factors, you as a player really don't know quite what's going to happen. Now redwolf and BFC can debate what the "optimal" tactic would be all day long, but if I had to choose between Redwolfs set-in-stone programed response vs. the Tac-Ai variable response, I'll choose the Tac-AI every time.</font>

Ok Just hold on Steve Redwolf posted this this morning... "Redwolf Member Member # 3665 posted December 03, 2002 10:56 AM May I kindly suggest we wait until I answer Steve's detailed question when I go home? This spinning out of control serves no purpose. " So he is interested in replying and we can read his thoughts this evening -tom w [ December 03, 2002, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

oh what the hell Bump -tom w

oh what the hell Bump -tom w

Now, where were we...... Lets review Redwolf Member Member # 3665 posted December 03, 2002 10:56 AM May I kindly suggest we wait until I answer Steve's detailed question when I go home? This spinning out of control serves no purpose. And yes, shoot and scoot is not the correct command to use here. In the sitiation we have here a stop at contact is required, and the seek-hulldown command does that, the shoot-and-scoot will continue to the ordered point, and -as documented- it will wait for a few seconds at that point. This is no good here. The only good use of the ISU, if you choose to take on the Pz IV is getting into LOS in hulldown, stop, get a shot off and then retreat. This works perfectly fine with the "seek hulldown" command, except that the retreat happens, in 30% of the cases in my test scenario, before the shot. Andreas, can you elaborate on why you think it is a good idea to have an optional automatic retreat in seek hulldown, but not in shoot-and-shoot? Is this really in the game? Why should seek-hulldown have code in it to override player's orders with a retreat and shoot-and-shoot not? [ December 03, 2002, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ] IP: Logged Licensed Fool Junior Member Member # 11273 posted December 03, 2002 11:04 AM For my part,I apologised in a post way back for sounding disrespectful,and I also said I'd taken on board Steve's excellent explanation of A.I. routines and would be testing his and other peoples suggestions re the backing off aspect,and that I was already drifting from Redwolf towards Steve on this. This seems a logical course of action for me,but if I'd have dug in and refused to bend or see another guys point of view,I'd fully deserve to be called a fool! -------------------- "A British anti-tank unit blew up my Tiger in Normandy and killed my crew but I was treated well after capture" (Waffen-SS tanker in letter to L.Fool) IP: Logged Andreas Member Member # 1091 posted December 03, 2002 11:11 AM quote: Originally posted by redwolf: Andreas, can you elaborate on why you think it is a good idea to have an optional automatic retreat in seek hulldown, but not in shoot-and-shoot? Is this really in the game? Why should seek-hulldown have code in it to override player's orders with a retreat and shoot-and-shoot not? It is my understanding there is no specific code in it. I'll elaborate tonight or tomorrow on my thinking about this (it may well be flawed). -------------------- Is it a joke? IS2 was DESIGNED to fight Tigers! - Cpt. Kloss Of course what I write is worthless... - Cpt Kloss QED Der Kessel - Say 'Git stoofed' to crappy scenarios German artillery observation practice, photos from AG North - at Der Kessel IP: Logged Vanir Ausf B Member Member # 5261 posted December 03, 2002 11:38 AM quote: Originally posted by redwolf: And yes, shoot and scoot is not the correct command to use here. In the sitiation we have here a stop at contact is required, and the seek-hulldown command does that, the shoot-and-scoot will continue to the ordered point, and -as documented- it will wait for a few seconds at that point. This is no good here. The only good use of the ISU, if you choose to take on the Pz IV is getting into LOS in hulldown, stop, get a shot off and then retreat. This works perfectly fine with the "seek hulldown" command, except that the retreat happens, in 30% of the cases in my test scenario, before the shot. I completely disagree. You say "The only good use of the ISU, if you choose to take on the Pz IV is getting into LOS in hulldown, stop, get a shot off and then retreat", which is exactly what the Shoot & Scoot command does. This situation is what Shoot & Scoot was made for. If it's not appropriate here, it's not appropriate anywhere. You also ignore the fact that if you use Seek Hulldown the ISU-122 is more likely to stand and shoot it out to the death than retreat after one shot, which has been demonstrated to result in a dead ISU more often than a dead Mk IV. It would be nice if the first move in a Shoot & Scoot order was Hunt instead of Fast, but even as-is it gives the ISU it's best chance of beating the Mk IV. I would use it without hesitation. -------------------- ye gods, Slapdragon, have you gone nuts? You can't possibly expect me to read all that. -Lars In my defense I spent so long typing my post the rational debate started without me. -ScouseJedi DUDES!!! -Grog Dorosh

you might be interested in this thread: What's in the next v1.02 patch: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=003760 -tom w

That Game looks GREAT!!! Like holy cow that looks GOOD Can CMII look that good??? I sure hope so Does anyone play WWII RTS? is it any good? :confused: -tom w

this is the new home of the Monster Tank Retreating thread -tom

just a bump for fun -tom w

maybe we need a new thread now isn't 300 posts the safe limit? :confused: how about this, new home here: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=004128 -tom w

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted December 02, 2002 12:29 PM Folks, I will try and sum up what is going on within the game. 1. The TacAI's Prime Directive is to prevent harm from coming to the vehicle under its command. However, the TacAI fully understands that it is in command of a war machine which in a setting that is not risk free. Therefore, the TacAI often errs on the side of slugging it out instead of buggering off if the risk is more or less marginally equal between killing something and dying in the process of attempting such a kill. The TacAI is also modified heavily by Experience and random "luck". Sometimes a crappy unit will do something "brave", other times a really good unit will do something "cowardly". But in all cases the TacAI is making a logically based assessment of the situation without the bais of what the player expects of it. 2. The TacAI is less concerned with what damage it can cause vs. a particular target than it is what kind of damage can be done against it by that target. For example, a Nashorn can eliminate practically any vehicle on the map. But at 200m even small arms can take it out of action. Should the TacAI ignore this fact and just drive around the map wherever the player dictates, thinking "I'm king of the world baby!"? No. It is more concerned with its own survival, as it rightly should be. Otherwise the player probably wouldn't have any AFVs left after the first turn of enemy contact. 3. It is the player's "responsibility" to understand and respect the TacAI's behavior. You don't need to agree with it, any more than a battlefield commander would, but understand that it is far more informed than the player is. A good player, however, understands this and LEARNS from the TacAI instead of fighting it. A good player needs no more feedback from the game beside what is already provided. 4. The TacAI's primary directive is at least initially overridable by the Human player. This means the Human can put a vehicle into a near suicidal position without the TacAI having a say about it. This is mostly becaue the TacAI lacks situational awareness and therefore is ignorant of potential threats the Human is exposing it to until they actually materialize. Even if we could program in some sort of situational awareness, we wouldn't because that would pretty much remove the player from the game. In short, the player is allowed to screw things up to a large degree. However, once the TacAI is presented with a direct "what do I do now?" situation, it will ignore the player's intentions (actually, it most often doesn't even know what they are to begin with) and follow its Prime DIrective. If the Prime Directive decides that a shoot out has a decent chance of a positive outcome, it stays and shoots. If the TacAI instead decides that the situation is unfavorable, then it scoots. 5. The chance of actually causing damage to another vehicle has a lot to do with RoF. If at X range it takes roughly Y shots to score a hit, and I shoot 3 times as fast as my opponant, who is more likely to score a hit first? Simple math shows that I am. The other tank is better off not engaging at all in that specific situation. Instead it should seek an alternative means of causing me harm. The TacAI gives the player that chance by retreating instead of being brewed up on the spot. 6. If there is criticism to be made about the TacAI's decisions, it isn't that they are wrong (or buggy as Redwolf would claim), but that they are too correct. It could be that the TacAI is too smart compared to a real life crew in the same situation. However, this is something that we can argue about forever. Perhaps more randomness needs to be injected, but I can promise you all that if we did this we would see far more threads complaining about "the stupid AI didn't back up" than we have seen of "the stupid AI backed up". But this is a whole 'nother discussion to have and I don't want to get it confused with this one. Well... that is about all I can think of to say at this point. I guess I could comb through this thread and point out (for the 100th time) why Redwolf's example is functioning correctly, but since he is pretty much the only one that needs to be convinced of this... I'll pass. He hasn't listened so far. Steve

" I am EXTREMELY IMPRESSED with the AI's behavior. Green troops are far more likely to be hesitant in the face of fire, while my few examples of Crack and Elite, punched a hole right through vicious AT and T34 defence and it looked damn impressive too (losing only 1 tank). I've never seen a game where the difference between Green and Crack troops was so readily seen." I agree completely! -tom w

"This is quite a judgment call that must be made very quickly. It is understandable that the TC might not always make a decision that is to the player's liking. It is also quite understandable that the TC would even make the outright wrong decision on occasion. " AND most importantly this shows us VARIATION in the range of responses a REAL TC might make in that situation AND in the tests we have seen there is variation and there is randomness. THIS makes the game and the response of the tank unpredicatable and variable and introduces the aspect of luck! I think this great! Compare this to a board game, ok that's not really fair the SL and ASL board games are now Light Years behind CMBO and CMBB. The thing that is NOT broken about this ISU retreating issue is that there is variation in the AI behaviour. This variation and randomness must not be compromised by some folks here who may be expecting the introduction of the totally correct ALWAYS predictable paradigm in the model that suggests in this situation the ISU should never retreat. Sometimes it makes what some here consider the correct move and sometimes it makes what some here consider the least favourable choice, to withdraw, (or stay and duel it out depending on what side of the fence you are sitting on ). The apect of luck and variation and randomness has been handcrafted (the computer code thanks to Charles) into the game in such an entertaining way that we should really be celebrating it (the TAC AI and the luck element) and not dissecting it as though we were small children plucking the wings off a fly or peeling an onion layer by layer to see whats inside. IMHO Its been a LONG thread, almost like a battle or fire fight in someplaces, but the best of it has been entertaining and perhaps we should all go back to enjoying the game. I am sure this issue will be tweaked at all in v1.02 unless Steve makes good on his threat to make that self preservation "Prime Directive" even more effective in all tanks thus meaning even more Tac AI retreats from questionable or unknown enemy threats. Given the tone of this thread I would not be surprised to see v1.02 introduce an even healthier self preservation mode "Prime Directive" in TAC AI tank retreating behaviour. But we'll see -tom w [ December 02, 2002, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

'nother one

from another old thread like this one: the NEW CMII engine possible new features like: * NO more Borg Spotting (so Relative Spotting works in the game and every units spots the enemy units idepentantly I think everyone agrees this is the BIG ONE !) * LOS & LOF blocked by LIVE AFV's (i.e. infantry have "some" cover behind live and dead vehicles that are not burning) * Same as above, vehicles and other units CANNOT shoot through other live or dead vehicles that are not burning * Full movie replay * Roster (for those would think they need it) * Multi-turreted vehicles like the Allied Grant and Lee * Amphibious units * Dynamic lighting effects (two fold: i. As visual effect and more important ii. Integration into fire- and detection algorithms * change PBEM format to only require two e-mails per turn * Realistic modelling of visibility at night * collision detection for all projectiles, even those that would hit *smaller terrain tiles ( 10 x 10 m or better ) * Multi-Multi Player with co-operative team play. * Programable SOP's for all units: (e.g. "Wouldn't it be great if an order could be given to the commander of company "A" to "take that hill" or "move to that position and set up a defense" and watch as the orders are dissiminated down throught he ranks and the varios platoons begin to try and carry out your orders. Yes, much as it happens with "Airborn Assult".) "with a little help from my friends" -tom w [ December 02, 2002, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

more bump

Yes Turn bases on for sure Shift B Turn the unit size up to bigger if you like Shift C And this one helps in the first few turns Shift G Warning labels ON this helps when you are viewing the battle at level 4 or 5 and you hear gun fire and have no idea what is going on or who is getting hit. Shift T turns the trees OFF so you can see through them, that is also handy. Shift W to turn off the fog, if it is so thick it is annoying. How's that?? Shift C Shift B Shift G are the bigs ones use them and things will start to make more sense. (hopefully) -tom w [ December 02, 2002, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

THANKS Steve! I think that is a GREAT post and it should be enshrined in history with its very own thread. What would be a good title for the thread of which this would be the very first post. "Steve's TAC AI FAQ Thread" "How the TAC AI Works" "What Makes an AFV In CMBB Retreat" Anyone else think that post deserves its very own thread? -tom w

For me this thread boils down to these two critical posts: "I think the bottom line, my friend, is fairly simple. The TacAI knows more about tank warfare than you. You should let them (it) do their (its) job." Finally: Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted December 01, 2002 11:55 PM The_Capt, quote: "TacAI in this case is not a bug..it isn't even an accident. It is a design feature and a selling point because it will try to increase your chances if winning even when you try your best to lose." Steve says Very well put. However, I don't think Redwolf will like hearing (yet again) that his perceptions are wrong and his tactics are less than optimal." -tom w [ December 02, 2002, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

do the posts in this thread really need to get so personal? there seems to be more than a little bitterness and personal sniping in here. I think that is unfortunate because I have enjoyed following this issue because is SO interesting to see how the Tac AI behaves. If ROF is a big factor then that should explain some of the TAC AI behaviour. Instead of looking for bugs in this issue we should be congradulating Charles and Steve for designing and codeing such a ground breaking AI. We are talking about Artificial Inteligence here and for a $45 game this looks to be like Damn GOOD AI to me! If the AI has a self preservation model that takes into account the range to target and ROF and a whole bunch of other variables, then Why aren't we celebrating that break through?? OK, So some folks here are questioning the Tac AI self preservation model. Thats OK. Lets thank Steve for responding and looking into the issue. (Thanks Steve !) Maybe I am just requesting the return to a little civility in the posts, so we can focus on the issues here and not the personalities? how about this, before you post, just take a few deep breaths -tom w [ December 02, 2002, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Good night folks this one is over -tom w