aka_tom_w

Hi Hoolman In the new game maybe it is possible to do a little bit of your #1 and #2 and to be honest I am counting on something no one has thought of yet.. #3 "The BFC Secret Weapon" that will fix this problem once and for all. I am of course hoping they will keep more than and few secrets from us until they release the game to be honest I am counting on BFC Secret Weapon #3 to be a large ( and currently unknown to us mear mortals) part of the solution to this issue. I hope -tom w [ February 01, 2005, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Very good point I hope they look hard at this very issue for CMx2 We want much greater fidelity with regard to hull down"ness". This part: " In CM, a hulldown target has an increased probability of being hit in the turret as compared to a hull up target. The end result is that CM AFVs with thinner turret armor than what's on the hull have an incentive to avoid hull down. There was no such incentive in SL. Hence, SL “felt” more right." IS BANG ON! They did the best they could on CMxx but the hull down abstraction was a notable comprise in realism that resulted in more (not less) shots that hit the turret (or UPPER hull, as ONLY the lower hull was truly hulldown) so hulldown was not always really as advantageous as it could or should have been. thanks for the reminder -tom a [ February 01, 2005, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hi Mark I hope you don't mind if I posted your thoughts about this to the 1:1 thread in the hopes that Steve would read it! "The other option could be to allow recce units to move to “turret down” which is similar to “hull down” except the turret is masked too. However, the commander can still stand in the turret (or on it) and observe the far side. This has the vehicle protected by the feature and the enemy only sees the commander’s binoculars (if anything)." GREAT POST! -tom w

This is NOT exactly a 1:1 issue BUT it sort of is So I would Like to mention it here: How about that for 1:1 The TC can Stand on top of the turret DOWN vehicle and peer over the crest standing on the top of the turret with the binocs. An interesting note from the other gamey recon thread... Thanks to Gibsonm would has REAL LIFE experience in these matters -tom w

Yeah That is what I was thinking.... "Ugly Duckling to Mother Goose... Over" (sorry I can't remember, which half famous warmovie featured the call sign Mother Goose, and who were they talking to? Was that Kelly's Heroes?) -tom w

Yes that works for me I like the use of the term Scouting it is FAR more applicable to what actually happens in the average scenario. AND if that scouting involves a JEEP it becomes "Gamey JEEP Scouting"! (Just to be clear) Thanks Scouting it is... Thats what happens in scenarios when we use jeeps and snipers to advance in front of the main body. -tom w

Good thinking Dorosh is right..... Gamey spotting is really ALL about the lack of realism with regard to Absolute (Borg) Spotting, so for sure if they find a way to deal with that aspect of the game then the gamey recon loophole will be largely reduced as well. Good Point -tom w

I don't know very much about how real Military Recon is supposed to work, ( I have an idea but not like some Grogs around here) BUT what I do know is that in CMxx the whole idea around recon was to use cheap expendable units that might die to find out what the other side had coming at you. Hence the "Gamey Jeep Recon" So the idea is then to send something FAST and Cheap deep into the enemy held territory. In CMBO a jeep would do the trick. THe crew would bail out and watch and tell the player ALL about what he could see. Now the lack of realism inflamed some grogs and some players would get down right HOSTILE and yell gamey obscenities at the offending "Gamey Jeep Recon" Evil Doer. So in the game the (being that it is a game and you play to win) the gamey player wants to exploit the game and the opportunity for cheap recon intel by finding the fastest Cheapest unit and sending it on a suicide run into the other guys back field. Without Fail some form of this tactic will attempt to be employed in CMx2. This is where the Company HQ with Radios have been used in a gamey fashion in the past. In the New Game if the Company HQ does not have Some VERY meaningfull roll to play they will be the first unit sent forward on a fast vehicle to be used in a gamey way for recon purposes. In short gamey recon in the game is ALL about using the fastest cheapest unit you have to send on a suicide mission to get as much recon intel as possible for as little cost or risk as possible. I am hopeing BFC is considering this because the minute the game is released ALL the gamey players will be looking for ways to exploit the game for cheap gamey recon purposes. ( i.e. What is Cheap fast and expendable and can give me recon intel for low cost and low risk????) Can someone tell me how in the New game "Real Life" recon should be conducted, (and how the game engine should allow it to be realisitic) without being labled gamey and just an excersice in exploiting gamey loopholes in the game code (i.e. the "Gamey Jeep Recon bailed crew sees all trick!"). Your comments? Thanks -tom w [ February 01, 2005, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

That idea was put VERY clearly and so succinctly it could form the basis of a whole new thread. If this idea/proposal akin to the Ironman Rules or Frankco True Combat rules? It sounds interesting but would it make the game MORE tedious to play? " roaming over unoccupied terrain would be minimized. " I think this is a big issue for sure I would like to see "roaming over unoccupied terrain" severly limited but I am REALLY not sure how best to do it in the scope of the game?? (Exactly what would the in game "mechanism" be??? I Don't think Ironman rules are the solution. IMHO) The Idea had merit, but to see the map ONLY from level 1 of each of your units would HAVE to be a FOW option because FOR SURE it would be VERY unpopular amongst the VAST majority of players and new players (NEW and GREEN to CMx2) would be VERY frustrated indeed because these Ironman rules would make the game VERY hard to navigate and play for the novice. Interesting idea none the less.. -tom w [ February 01, 2005, 07:50 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

GOOD QUESTION! -tom w

That sounds good. BUT the good part is that .... " inherently means some grog stuff and some eye candy wish list items WILL be happening." I think we know they are committed to 1:1 representation and whatever the entails to make it fun and enjoyable for everybody! as per: I guess they have figured this represents a new challenge and they plan to set up to the plate and deliver! That sounds good to me! -tom w [ January 31, 2005, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Danger Will Robinson!! This Thread is OVER 300 posts and needs Moderator Attention soon or they tell us something bad will happen? I think thin is post 308 to this tread Perhaps we can all move on and start a clean Thread with REAL news and less "noise" about this whole 1:1 representation thing thanks -tom w

Hi ck3 I think you find most folks here completely agree with you. -tom w

Now would the rest of you would just ... "Stop with the NEGATIVE waves!, That Bridge is gonna be there!" (and no wise cracking comments about what happened to that particular bridge either! After all they did get across that river didn't they!) I'm on board, I just want to pay a little extra for that Super Sized AI I was yacking about earlier! -tom w [ January 28, 2005, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Someone here will know for sure. How about this one: BattleGroup? "Group Released: 1986 Published By: Strategic Simulations, Inc. MobyScore: not yet rated Platform: Apple II Genre: Simulation, Strategy Perspective: Side-Scrolling, Top-Down Description: Battle Group is the sister game to the highly acclaimed Kampfgruppe but covers platoon level tactical combat on the Western Front from 1943-1945. This game includes practically all ground weapons used by Great Britain,US and Germany during this time frame. The game may be ended at any time but will automatically end after 30 turns. A game may be continued beyond its normal limits. At the end of the game victory points will be calculated to determine the margin of victory." from: http://apple2.mobygames.com/game/sheet/gameId,14798/ OR: http://www.callapple.org/apple2/magazines/aar/battfront.html "For those who have been bitten by the bug and find a fascination in recreating, and hopefully changing a little bit of history, wargaming becomes a passion. And the extent of this passion can be measured by the ads which in 1979 sold 'The $2,160 Wargame'. Of this fortunately, about S2,100 was for the Apple and the remainder for the program, Computer Bismark. Today Apples are far more predominant and the sophistication of the games has increased dramatically, as has the ease of playing. And Battlefront, the latest from Roger Keating and Ian Trout certainly is a very playable yet detailed wargame. Battlefront is a corps level simulation and with several features which make it relatively simple to learn and play. It consists of four World War II battles - Crete 20-26 May 1941, Stalingrad 17-23 December 1942, Saipan 15-30 June 1944 and Bastogne 18-26 December 1944, and the ability for the player to modify maps, terrain, strengths of units and support." -tom w

So.... Looks like whoever bet their 200 Quatloos on the Grognard can collect from Dorosh , who (while irritating) was more than correct. -tom w

That sounds Like GREAT news to me!! "First, having individuals regullarly "misbehave" graphically is not an option for us." dalem, it sounds like they have this covered! Very Good! lets move on..... -tom w [ January 28, 2005, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

OK Sorry about the "Skill Set" quote it won't happen again THANKS for the info on games and AI and agent-based AI I found this: "AI in Computer Games Find out more on 'smart' computer games that incorporate verious AI techniques and learn about new AI-based SDKs for game developers. Almost two years ago I published an article on AI in computer games industry, starting with the claim that "knowledge about Artificial Intelligence techniques tend to be somewhat limited within the game-programming community". Fortunately enough, the advances in both hardware and software technologies have contributed to the overall acceptance of AI-related technologies. To quote Steven Woodcock and his excellent two-part report on the state of game AI in Gamastura, game AI has finally "made it" in the minds of developers, producers, and management. It is recognized as an important part of the game design process. Good old fashioned AI, state-machines, rule-based AI, etc., have made their way to every game programmer's toolbox. "Nontraditional" AI techniques like Artificial Life are starting to be used to create realistic, lifelike behavior in games like q and Creatures. The main goal of every game developer has always been to fully leverage the increased computing power, in order to produce games that are different enough to be noticed on the market. So, let's explore various software development kits and similar tools available to AI developers - maybe you can try to create your new masterpiece in just few weeks? For an easy start, just relax and play with several extensible computer games that allow creating editable, rule-based strategies. Age of Kings is an excellent example of a strategy game that allows users to edit the rules that control their strategic opponents. Quake II, on the other hand, is a best known example of an action game that can be modified by writing various DLL extensions. CogniToy recently announced MindRover, a game that encompasses the depth of play found in strategy games with a new concept in player control. This 3D strategy/programming game requires that you equip the vehicle (hovercraft, wheeled or treaded) with various sensors, movement components and weapons and program its behavior in a graphical interface where you wire the components together and set their properties. It is an advanced descendant of various "games for programmers" like Crobots. The scenario for Jrobots is very simple: you'll have to develop the AI algorithms of your own robot using the Java language, then upload it in the arena and follow on-line its fights against other robots." here at aboutAI.net This course atnorth texas university teaches students how to program agent-based AI into video games: "CSCI 4410: Introduction to Artificial Intelligence Instructor: Paul Tarau, Associate Professor - see my home page for office hour information. Teaching Assistant: Vivek Dahiya Please post questions and answers on topics related to the course to the 4410 forum. Objectives: The course will provide a gentle, agent based introduction to Artificial Intelligence. We will focus on intuitive, often visual presentation of key AI programming techniques, logical modeling of agents and their interaction with the environment, inference methods, knowledge representation and natural language processing algorithms, as well as applications of AI to virtual reality and simulation of social behaviors through multi-agent systems." I wish I knew A GREAT deal more about artificial inteligence, it is a very interesting subject area. thanks -tom w

GREAT post Noiseman those are great drawings and some really GOOD questions about some interesting issue around the actually inner workings of 1:1 representation. I think you are most correct when you state. "Personally, I think a little abstraction is a good thing, so I won't have a meltdown when one member of a field kitchen unit appears to be (graphically) on the 'wrong' side of a wall." Should it really be any other way? There will have to be a certain level of abstraction if the men are not controled on a 1:1 basis .... so basically "DEAL WITH IT!" (or something like that!) -tom w

Thanks Jim There has been plenty of ranting and raving in this thread, and to be honest I half expected it. (thanks to all the contributors) One issue or "challenge" that has never really been mentioned here is that it is Charles (presumably alone) who must code up TWO games in the next 12 (ish) months! Why two games, well if they still plan to release the Mac version and the PC version simulatneously then that sounds like two sets of game code to me. Some here might say its no big deal because it is the same code. I don't know about that, but as far as I can tell there are NO other game developers that have the history of simlutaneous Mac and PC game releases that BFC has. (So it can't be all that simple or easy) BFC is so far 3 out of 3! So what am I saying? Charles has to invent TWO new levels of Artificial Inteligence (Soldier AI and Unit AI) and make the graphics engine run on both MAC and PC, AND code the rest of the game for simultaneous release. NO other game developer does it this way. (Most, if not all, just simply say screw the Mac users and they can wait 6-8 months for a crappy "port" over to OS X by some third party port-over company.) I KNOW BFC and Charles can do this, I just think it is starting to look REALLY optimistic that it will be ready (both Mac and PC with 5 functional Levels of AI) for release on or before Dec 31 2005. So what is my point? If they do nothing and Charles does it ALL it will take longer... Oh Well.... I guess thats why their motto is "When its ready, and NOT before!" From what Steve tells us, this looks like a VERY ambitious project to be sure! I truly hope the project comes together smoothly and they don't run into any really big obstacles, snags, or problems on the way. -tom w [ January 27, 2005, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

thanks these are interesting!!! Good shots of crew (1:1) exiting a burning Sherman see them all here: War time command screen shots -tom w

That sounds GREAT! Thanks for the Update Steve! (I am sure that will keep you folks busy for the next 12 months!) -tom w

OK Maybe I meant.... "Throw Money at it." (And charge more for the game, claiming premium AI features) AND yes that is a VERY difficult claim to justify! So yeah Dorosh is Right, it won't work and it was a really lousy idea. -tom w Let me guess: you're a manager, right? </font>

Thanks for being so positive Jim! I was hoping I might see a few posts like your in response. AND If "I've been saving for two years to buy CMAK and couldn't possibly afford premium prices" Then guess what? ... May I suggest you can't afford the kind of hardware you are going to need to play this game on so go back to CMx1..... I figure this game has been about 2 years in the making, so if it is the only game you are buying and in the past you bought 1 game per year then in Winter 2006 when it is released you can afford to pay twice as much because you did not buy any new games for the past two years. (Or something like that.) -tom w

I know that Steve tells us: "As you all know, there are two universal rules that we must pay attention to: 1. Time is Money 2. Time is Limited Then there is that Death and Taxes thingy too, but that doesn't come into play here Steve" So factoring in that, PLUS Steve said he did not know how Charles would do it all, I sort of spewed forth a whacky idea of how to make more money to afford help in the AI dept. But I guess I don't know jack about that so I will just crawl back into my hole. (Ha! You should be so lucky ) -tom w