aka_tom_w

Don't worry about it it would have been very easy to miss because there were lots of bones and they really sort of all got mixed up in the big bone pile (and noise ) in a few different threads. -tom w

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted March 01, 2005 11:45 PM Juardis, quote: The question that BTS has yet to answer though, is there increased attention to the AI part of the game or is there really nothing more that can be done in that area? Steve Says: Oh, there is certainly more to be done in this area. Always is. I have mentioned some of them recently, but here are a couple: 1. Relative Spotting - makes the player less certain about what is going on, hinders his ability to be Borg/God, and in general causes him to be more in the dark (various options make this more or less true, player choice). Since higher level planning is the hardest AI behavior to program, reducing the player's ability to plan so well (i.e. know more than he should) automatically levels the playing field a bit more in favor of the AI. 2. More detailed C&C simulation - similar to above, the increased challenges that come with more realistic C&C mean that the Human player will find it more difficult to react to the AI in a Borg/God like way. This is also made more/less difficult through player choices, but since the players that are asking for a better challenge should be playing the game at its most challenging level, it is assumed they will be using such features (and if they don't, they have no grounds for complaints). 3. Scenario Editor Tools - there are a variety of things we can offer the Scenario Designers to coax better, more scenario specific behavior out of he AI. Currently there is no direct way to do this in CMx1, though there are certainly "dos and don'ts" the really experienced Scenario Designers have discovered through trial and error. And lots of other stuff too, but I don't want to get into those things yet. So... yes, the AI in CMx2 should be a lot more challenging than the AI in CMx1. Will it actually turn out that way? We won't know until it is programmed, but we'd be pretty bummed if it didn't. Steve [ March 02, 2005, 07:11 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I believe Steve has said morale is planned to be (if I am not mistaken) on a 1:1 basis and the individual soldiers can panic and rout and leave the squad on their own. I think that is what I read somewhere anyway. -tom w

You are not lost there are some things Steve has not commented on at all and to the best of my recollection of all the "bones" and hints I have read there has been neither confirmation or denial about anything with regard to terrain fog of war as you have mentioned. I hope it is in or AT LEAST an option. The only good thing to report is they have (to the best of my knowledge) NOT said it is OUT or impossible to implement in the game. hope the helps -tom w

More options (sorry Vadr) If CMx2 is released without a PBEM option, would you: A) - Buy it - Not buy it C) -Buy it but miss PBEM dearly and prick a Steve voodoo doll daily. ! D) - Buy/Not Buy call based MOSTLY on the Demo and would only miss PBEM a little if it were not available. Just two more options As you know WE ALL like more options. -tom w [ March 01, 2005, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

OK Please do everything possible to even the playing field for the AI I sense that you are not at all interested in discussing this BUT if the FOW options could be set differently for each player, maybe the AI could benefit from the least Realistic FOW setting and maybe provide more of a challenge for the player. I am not sure how and I guessing it might be difficult or even impossible to do, but it would be great to know the AI might somehow be a little more challenging or competent with the Relative Spotting and all the other new features combined in CMx2 (maybe? ) -tom w

Maybe if you ask nicely they might cut you a deal? When there is money to be made maybe EVERYBODY can be happy? Now which time period and which theatre are we talking about here anyway ? -tom w

Um that would be Fionn that Irish guy? I wasn't trying to be critical... I was just trying to be help Who could forget Fionn he got banned once AND then later let back on there was no anger or ill will in this post sorry I forgot the smiley.. really -tom w [ March 01, 2005, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

A

"The real issue is that not everyone will like the proposals I am making. But they don't have to play that way. But they don't want to feel like less of a CM citizen by not having the amplifiers set to Eleven." OK, that, for the unintiated here, was a Spinal Tap quote he he he -tom w

I think this just about covers it... these are GREAT idea's Its just that some of us would like to know if 1. Relative Playback (Unit Based) would mean the player COULD in fact view the playback movie from the perspective of ANY unit and it would ONLY show that units Relative Spotting intel info to the player? Thanks -tom w

Um I must be confused :confused: ?? Is this the Admistrator post that is alleged to be some form of trolling? I thought it was a clear and direct rebuke, (at least it was addressed to a specific person) perhaps I am mistake...? -tom w

NOW that's what I want to hear!! He's just teasing us again ! It is does boost my confidence to know that they MUST have a few tricks up their sleeve that they will INDEED save for the demo. I would like to urge Steve et. al. to please NOT give away all the secrets and new features so that the first time we get to play the demo we are SURPRISED! In fact what I really want is to play the Demo (sometime next year ) AND with this in mind " we have more and better things for the über Grog player that I can't go into now" be completely surprised and BLOWN AWAY by new stuff in the demo that WORKS great and has not previously been tossed out as a bone for the insatiable masses here! Please -tom w

If the side bet is Wartgamer is Lewis.... I am pretty sure Wartgamer is NOT Lewis/Username but there is maybe one way to find out.... -tom w

OK! I like that one I HOPE this nugget REGISTERS with Steve.... Speed up the playback!! YES yes yes..... !!!!! There should be a "speed watching" setting to let us see the playback a double time or 4 times as fast! Please make this one work. Some folks might like Slow motion replay but I would really like to see at the very least a double speed play back so that a one minute turn could take 30 sec or EVEN 4 times and it would take just 15 seconds!! NOW that would be a GREAT and welcomed feature for all players with VERY little free time to play! That is the BEST I idea I have read so far this week on this forum! -tom w

this is VERY interesting Lets look at #1. Relative Playback (Unit Based) This one would appear to be the MOST realistic play back FOW option. (yes?) does it mean as the God like player I REALLY need to see the play back from every unit. Heck NO! I think All i might need is an Arty spotter on a hill with a good vantage somewhere, and a maybe 2 or three other KEY observers in critical places and I "should" be set! Why do I say this, as it is now I am guessing I don't look at the play back movie more that 2-3 times in CMx1 so 3 -4 GOOD perspectives of the battlefield "should" do it for me. THEN in the orders phase everytime I click on a unit to give it orders I WILL see what it sees. AT first I REALLY feared the need or suspect "desire" to want to use 1. Relative Playback (Unit Based) FOW but I absolutely DREADED the thought that I would NEED to see WHAT the movie would show me from the perspective of EVERYONE of my friendly units. BUT like Steve said "Look at the reality" of the situation, the player will not want to or need to see the play back movie over and over again FROM every units perspective, as many of them might in fact look ALMOST identical or at the very least be very repetitive. I am now feeling pretty GOOD about these FOW play back options! Cheers to Steve I think this is going to be ONE GREAT game despite all Arm Chair General/Wargame Designer blathering and posturing and noise (what have you ) THANKS STEVE!!! Keep up the Good Work! -tom w

YES to this! This man know his target audience. Now we all know kids and teenagers and Single folks and even folks that are married without kids have more time!!! But for the average Married with Children wargame fanatic here (and I am one of them) 2-3 hours to play time every other day is a VERY VERY realistic estimate. AND with THAT in mind I hope some game design decisions will let me (if I choose the appropriate FOW OPTIONS) play one FULL game againt the AI in 3-4 hours (1 or 2 hours worth of lost of sleep once or twice a week will be an acceptable cost for playing CMx2 I suspect! !!) Thanks! -tom w

um OK But I still hoping Steve has some ideas for this one: " In a game that does model Comapies/battalions; How can you not interject this level of command into the game?" But so far we have not had much of a chance to fully understand all of his thoughts and ideas on this issue. -tom w

Realism is a REALLY hard thing to define when the GAME (at least as it origins were in CMx1 ) was/is all about the player a playing ALL the roles of ALL the units? So, REALISM is really hard then to say we need more of, if the game is clearly NOT going to be a "command" game where you only get to play the role of the highest HQ. So maybe the challenge is to make the game fun while still letting the player play ALL the roles of all the units AND introduce Relative Spotting and some new C&C model and then let the player figure out which FOW realism options they want to play under... (sorry I too am not really sure what my point was there... Sorry I think I was just rambling....) -tom w

Well you are right about this point: "'Attacking' this ability to jump around, do LOS checks, inspect terrain, etc is probably like attacking Social Security. Its politically incorrect. " I think the goal is admirable but the suggestion maybe too structured and too mechanistic. I think ALMOST all idea's are good idea's if they are OPTIONS and if some portion of the game playing audience would enjoy that style of play. BUT I am not so sure there would be very many folks interested in playing the game this structured way where your order of play and order issuing is sequenced AND determined step by step by the game in this very linear way...... BUT I will admit it is perhaps one way to try to "maybe" solve some of the "Player is God" problems. (the other question of course on the minds of some players is WHY is the Player is God "problem" really a problem, it is JUST a game and I LIKE to play ALL the roles of ALL the units? JUST being the devil's advocate here.) I am open minded to the idea that the game needs and actually will have some radical changes in it from CMBO but I am not sure what you are suggesting would be my favourite game play style FOW option. (BUT that is JUST me!) I am Keen to hear more from Steve because I know he too has been thinking about these same issues and problems for at least the past few YEARS. -tom w [ March 01, 2005, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

THERE! he said it PBEM is in, Full speed ahead and damn the torpedo's (file size will be a player resolveable problem, NOT a game design limitation.!!) Can someone please tell me why this thread is not locked now? Its over there is nothing more to see here! Please move on to a more productive thread. -tom w

OK I am trying but sorry this is still hard to follow if you were writting an essay, perhaps your professor might say this to help you: Tell me what you are going to tell me (introduction) Tell me Tell me again and in summation: Tell me that you have told me. (And don't forget your bibliography ) Halberdiers, would you be kind enough to try to tell us what effect or impact your concept or idea is trying to achieve in the game and in general terms (perhaps with examples) explain it slowly and carefully for even the thickest amongst us to try and grasp in a few paragraphs of prose without the choppy points and bullets? I think there is a really interesting idea and concept in there but I truly sorry that I still don't really get how it will impact the game or the player or how it will make the game more fun or more realistic :confused: Sorry BUT really I am trying -tom w

I hope Steve willl think about this a reconsider: "player frustration and consternation thing - that is important, but you're acheiving it by reducing FOW." This should be an option and for PRACTICE against the AI it should prove quite a challenge for most players I am guessing. I think JonS has a GREAT point here: "Actually, FWIW, I view the 'ton of info in one go' as a pro, simply from the efficiency POV. I also see that much of it will be conflicting as a pro also. It means that the player will have to assess the info he's being presented to sort out the conflicts, then make decisions based on sub-optimal info. It also means that the opposing player can usefully engage in feints, spoofs, and deceptions. Without spook markers, that becomes impractical. Also, thinking Real World for a sec, this aggregation of info is exactly the sort of information that commanders are presented with. I do, however, acknowledge that the mass of info, and the need to assess it, will be off-putting to some players." (THAT'S why it is optional!) The game should have a FOW option that would let the player CHOOSE to overwhelm himself with multiple conflicting spotting reports so that "the player will have to assess the info he's being presented to sort out the conflicts, then make decisions based on sub-optimal info. It also means that the opposing player can usefully engage in feints, spoofs, and deceptions. " This does have an UP SIDE or a pro if the player chooses to play this way against the AI or another less skilled opponent, given that (and I know this is radical and may be impossible) the opponent or the AI may be playing under a MORE forgiving or LESS realistic Fog of War spotting or playback option. Please... -tom w

OK This looks good Steve, can you tell us a little bit more about #2 HQ Based Relative Playback? Sorry I am still not clear. Does that mean the totality of ALL cumulative HQ spotting info is revealed to the player in the Relative play back, OR JUST spotting info for one selected HQ unit and the player would have to watch the play back over and over again from the spotting perspective of EACH friendly HQ unit to try to get the cumulative effects of all the independent Relative spotting intel from each unique HQ? Sorry I don't understand the proposal.... But I think it looks like a realistic compromise.... Does anyone else here "get" what Steve is proposing for #2 HQ Based Relative Playback ???? Thanks -tom w