aka_tom_w

I'm JUST saying Charle is JUST one guy and this looks like a REALLY big job. Given enough time (they still have 12 months or more if they want I guess) I am sure Charles can get the job done! Heck I think it was he and Matt that single handedly invented the revolutionary Death Clock for tanks in CMBB, so for sure they are more than a few VERY clever minds at work over there. I am just saying: "Throw Money at it." Where I work, that's usually how really stubborn problems get solved. -tom w Maybe it is just semantics, but does that not imply that at present there is no AI available?! </font>

Well... At least I did not open with "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance AND the CMx2 AI" OK so what is this noise all about this time....????? The last time the Eagles toured it was the "Hell Freezes Over Tour" ... they got back together because they saw a profit potential and the figured they could get away with chargeing $100 per ticket (this was 10 years ago!). (/93? /94?) So what is the point here.... The Eagles felt their target audience could afford a premium (Way OUT of line a the time) ticket price. Mostly their fans were older and indeed COULD afford the $100 ticket price and IIRC the tour was a huge success. (I guess they Made a HUGE amount of money from ticket sales!) NOW about the CMx2 AI This may not be popular suggestion but the target market here might pay a premium price for GOOD Unit and COMPETENT Soldier AI. The Artificial inteligence in CMx2 needs to work much better than in CMx1 and this will likey cost more. (For sure, it will take up a great deal more of Charles' time and energey.) Steve says: "The 1:1 representation requires more levels of AI. In CMx1 we had Tac, Op, and Strat to handle individual units, groups of untis, and the overall plan. In CMx2 we need to have things a bit more separated. It is, mostly, a top down type system... StratAI - decides what the missions are, who is going to carry them out, and other such parameters. OpAI - determines what a formation of units should be doing in order to fulfill its mission. TacAI - governs each individual unit's behavior as directed from above. This is where a tank decides it needs to move over to a specific position in order to get a good flank shot on an enemy tank, or a squad knows that it should not walk into the middle of a large volume of enemy fire. UnitAI - what the individual soldiers within a unit should be doing in relation to each other. For example, a HMG has one guy firing, another loading, and a couple of guys providing covering fire. SoldierAI - in charge of the graphical representation a soldier should be using at that given time in that given situation. For example, assaulting under fire when armed with a rifle requires animations and actions a, b, and c. I'm not sure how Charles is going to program all of this stuff from an organizational standpoint, so the above is purely theory at the moment. In one way or another, however, all of the above needs to happen for the game to function correctly." So.... I think they have always been loath to bring in extra programer help for their games, but why not hire (for a 1 year contract) a gaming AI wizard? Is there such a thing? I don't know? How much would this skill set cost? I have no idea But the suggestion is to offer CMx2 at premium price (maybe even double what they have in mind) so that BFC could afford a "hired gun" for the AI component of the game?? I am not a marketing whizzard and I have NO idea how to manage a profitable software gaming company, so this is probably just another whacky hairbrain scheme :confused: . But I am guessing the hard core target market here would pay the premium price for the BEST AI available. (I know I would !) I am not suggesting we need the AI to be good or even great as an opponent, I am just suggesting the that Unit AI and the Soldier AI (for your own units) needs to bordering on state of the art to make this thing fly right and maybe BFC should consider a "hired Gun" AI wiz maybe fresh out of college. (I work with college students and grad students everyday, and everyday I am blown away by how fast they learn and what they can accomplish if they are challenged and highly motivated! I would say some of them are very motivated to design and develop projects and complete assignments that will wildly impress potential employers, however the students I work with DON'T know anything about Artificial Inteligence (sadly), they are web designers and graphic designers) Just a thought... -tom w [ January 27, 2005, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

It is "THE NEXT BIG THING" CMBO CMBB and CMAK were all based on the CMxx game engine. (now almost 5-6 years old) The new CMx2 game engine is being developed and designed now. It is the Next Game they will make. -tom w

Yes indeed it assumes you have air superiority No doubt about it. and that was my whole point As soon as you start to talk about the Cold War going Hot, doesn't it really JUST boil down to an air superiority duel??? Nothing happens on the ground until one side has air superiority and then the war on the ground is pretty much over? (lose air superiority and ALL your armour is just target practice for the other side's fighters and helicopters, as per the highway of death exiting Kuwait City in Gulf War I ) So how will BFC model the local air superiority battle which IMO is REALLY what the Cold War gone Hot is all about ? But I could be wrong? :confused: -tom w

Well, by that logic, where is the financial incentive for them to do anything? After all, it'd be far easier to just redo CMBO with the CMAK engne. </font>

Gpig has been busy again Gpig Writes: A few things are going to change for the player/commander. For example, in the CMAK Demo, one of the battles (the one in North Africa) has a U.S. Rifle company defending (without "trenches," just foxholes). One of the platoons by default, sets up in the walled compound of the Mosque. Each walled off area is 80m. (The one with the two houses is more than that, I think.) But the platoon located there (under Lt. Burgess' 10 man HQ squad) starts the game with two squads OUT of command range. One squad is in C&C. And it is Sgt. Deitrich's 12 man squad. There is also a Bazooka team FAR left. And there is a 37mm AT gun just to the right. I doodled up what that set-up might look like (limiting myself to CMAK knowledge) with 1:1 representation. It left me with a few thoughts. My theory is that with the new game and 1:1 representation, a few things are going to change for the player/commander. 1. Your forces are going to look WAY STRONGER, numerically speaking. You know what I mean? One glance at your defensive position with all it's scores of men, and the player may feel more confident than before. I mean, you might say to yourself "HOW is the enemy going to get through all these men?" A reinforced company could be 150 little sprites on the battlefield. That's plenty! 2. You are going to "feel" more for your little troopers. As it stands now, your little robot men do not generate much compassion on the part of the player. But when you can see each little dude snuff it . . . it's going to be hard to watch. 3. Defensive arrangements and offensive groupings are going to end up being more spread out in the new game. I was just trying to imagine an attacking platoon (40 or so little men) running up a hill. They are going to be a mighty tempting target for the enemy if they are close together. The attacker may feel like spending more time (and thus more spacing) for moving squads into position, you know what I mean? If the route to the objective looks like a mosh pit, you may want to re think your squad/platoon movement. As a single HE round landing amongst all those little fella's is going to HURT! Same with on the defence. If your platoon HQ is too close to your 2nd squad and you realize you've got 20 men within 30m of each other, you may reconsider. I think it'll be a GREAT improvement. What do you think? Comments and Artwork by Gpig

Steve, if this happen and the game two gets a co-op, do you plan to backport it back to the game one ? Martin </font>

OK But What about ALL the hype about the NATO Chopper delivered anti tank missiles that were "supposed to" level the numerical playing field for armour? The Warsaw pack nummerical tank advatage was supposed to have been stopped cold by anti tank missiles from NATO attack choppers, PRESUMING air superiority... no? -tom w

They never liked "operations" so they have are working on something "better" and they are refering to them in their hints/bones as "Story based Campaigns" BUT exactly what that means is anyone's guess but Steve promises us that they will be better and far more warmly welcomed by players than the old operation concept. OK? Sit back Relax Don't worry Steve et. al. say they will take care of Campaigns for us Be Happy -tom w

I would like to have my game on my hard disk by Christmas Break 2005 (11 Months from now) BUT even that might be optimistic. Moon has said he wanted a Dec 31 2005 deadline to ship the game but that was QUITE a while ago. So as always around here it will ship when its READY and not before, because they don't seem to follow any HARD deadlines. BUT I would still like to play it over the Christmas Break 11 Months from now (its nice to dream) -tom w

Ok that sounds great if they do it like that.... Maybe it will work like this: Right now in CMx1 we see 3 little pixel soldiers pretending to be a whole squad of somewhere between 8-12 abstracted soldier units. BUT in the new game CMx2 we will see 8-12 little pixel soldiers abstrated to be one squad unit. If you want to control it further and micromanage it maybe (who knows) you can break it into two fire teams so you can control twice as many mini squads? (teams). BUT those little pixel soldiers we still be controled by the player as a UNIT. I guess then the REAL question is will each pixel soldier draw its own LOS and LOF to and from the target. AND off the top of my head my guess it that each soldier will NOT do this, so that means for the purpose of determining combat results and incoming damage and firepower it would seem that the whole 8-12 man unit will be deemed to be IN THE SAME COVER (being that the cover state maybe determined at one central point for the whole Squad with the same LOS state for the whole squad) irrespective of the visual model of "the apparent cover state" of some guys here and some guys there? OR I could be ALL wrong .... What do you think? -tom w

Have you tried this: Robaxacet this stuff is good but it makes you sleepy http://www.backrelief.com/english/robaxacet/ My experience with a folks from the sport injury management clinic indicated they wanted me to ice it down on a daily basis LOTS of Ice NO heat and Robaxacet and Robaxacet Platinum with ibuprophen will do you good and make the pain go away, it is available without prescribtion in Canada. -tom w

How's this?.... (found in this thread on page 3!) It's really difficult to tell what type 1:1 representation Battlefront is up too , and I wonder how far gone the development is . Does anything that, for instance , Michael Dorosh say here influence the final product. Steve , how about a comment ? //Salkin </font>

Once again.... (Sorry I have not read very much about this) Wasn't that whole battle/engagment supposed to have been decided by NATO helicopters and air superiority? I thought that whole thing was not at all a real tank battle but instead an air superiority duel to see which side's helicopters had the air cover, protection and time to eliminate all the other side's tanks? (NATO choppers were supposed to take out the numerically superior (by A LOT) Warsaw Pact tanks?) (I though both sides anti tank missiles both air to ground and ground to ground would make that whole idea of a big tank battle into mostly a missile range duel) So the REAL question here is will the NEW CMx2 engine let the player launch air to ground anti-tank missiles from fighter aircraft and helicopters? If not, then there is not really any potential (IMO) for anything approaching modern land combat warfare in the new game engine.... (the "Police Action" in Korea not being "modern" in this use of the the term modern) (AND my guess is they have ALREADY thought of this ) discuss and or debate.. If not.. Why not... -tom w AND yes, I am very much looking forward to Kip's forthcoming, informative and summative reply to these questions.... (I hope) [ January 25, 2005, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I know Kip just can't wait to reply to this thread BUT I think he has a few technical challenges to overcome with this computer at home first. Hopefully he will be back online soon. -tom w

As historically accurate and fascinating as Tero's Treatise on Russian Military organizational strengths and weaknesses in WWII was, (as posted below), I sure do hope the first location of CMx2 is NOT the Eastern Front! Please.... anything but the Eastern Front... (sorry to complain like a North American... BUT nobody speaks English on the Eastern Front and because of that I felt like I missing something in CMBB IMO, but that is JUST me) Great post by Tero though! Thanks -tom w

Well.... I guess its always good to have really high expectations, so that way you will have something tangible to measure your disappointment and dissatisfaction against when your expectations are not met Why oh, Why is this such a big deal? Right now in CMx1 we see 3 little pixel soldiers pretending to be a whole squad of somewhere between 8-12 abstracted soldier units. BUT in the new game CMx2 we will see 8-12 little pixel soldiers abstrated to be one squad unit. If you want to control it further and micromanage it maybe (who knows) you can break it into two fire teams so you can control twice as many mini squads? (teams). BUT those little pixel soldiers we still be controled by the player as a UNIT. I guess then the REAL question is will each pixel soldier draw its own LOS and LOF to and from the target. AND off the top of my head my guess it that each soldier will NOT do this, so that means for the purpose of determining combat results and incoming damage and firepower it would seem that the whole 8-12 man unit will be deemed to be IN THE SAME COVER (being that the cover state maybe determined at one central point for the whole Squad with the same LOS state for the whole squad) irrespective of the visual model of "the apparent cover state" of some guys here and some guys there? OR I could be ALL wrong .... But.... Gpig's eye candy sketches sure are fun to look at! -tom w [ January 25, 2005, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hi Michael. I am just a little curious, what makes you suggest these images "belong" in the General Forum? "I'm not sure I understand the point of them, really." The point was that someone who can draw things that they can think of and kind of visualize is rendering some "ideas" about about how all the men/soldiers might look in the next game when they are all displayed in 1:1 represenation and not abstracted into little 3 men "clumps". (hence the two men bailing out of the tank). So Gpig asked me to post them to the 1:1 thread. If the good folks at BFC feel they need to move the whole thread to the GF then I guess that's their call :confused: -tom w

Once again this is just some FAN art from a guy that likes to draw stuff like this its ALL by Gpig who does not work for BFC (not yet anyway) he sent these to me for posting here: "I was just wondering about bailing out crews. Will they be 1:1 rep'd as well? (They should.) There should be some cool animations for THAT! Also, as far as animation goes. Do you think the tracks of the tanks and their bogie wheels will undulate/react with the terrain?" Gpig . . . . . . . . . . . thats it for today... Thanks to Gpig for the FAN art! -tom w [ January 24, 2005, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

A Bone to chew on... Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 20, 2005 11:38 PM There was a two part problem with CMx1's coding in terms of firing through units. One was the issue with hardware at the time we coded the game. LOS/LOF (they are basically the same thing) is very costly. Shortcuts greatly reduced the bottlenecks with a few trade offs. The second problem was simply a coding misjudgement in how units were coded. I say misjudgements because with a few years of hindsight there was a better way that things could have been coded irrespective of the first issue. Unfortunately, it was stuff that couldn't be changed without a major part of the code being rewritten (knock on effects of code changes are a bitch!). So we recognized, before CMBO was even released, that next time we'd do things differently. Steve

I have asked once already: aka_tom_w Member Member # 1515 posted January 20, 2005 12:23 PM I am not sure if the is the right place to ask this given the 1:1 representation theme/title here... BUT Does anyone know if there has been any mention of shooting and getting LOS Straight through Vehicles and bunkers like in CMx1? In the past (CMxx) infantry units could get NO cover or anything behind a tank because you could shoot and target and get LOS right through it. (its true no need to question this) Same for AFV's for instance a BIG tank could never cover a smaller tank by being up front because you could get LOS and target right through AFV's UNLESS they are burned out and smoking then the smoke was known to block the LOS. (BUT provide NO cover) Anyone know anything about this question in CMx2? -tom w

UM Yeah But (and no I have not read very much about this) Wasn't that whole battle/engagment supposed to have been decided by NATO helicopters and air superiority? I thought that whole thing was not at all real tank battle but an air superiority duel to see which side's helicopters had the air cover, protection and time to eliminate all the other side's tanks? (I though both sides anti tank missiles both air to ground and ground to ground would make that whole idea of a big tank battle into mostly a missile range duel) :confused: discuss and or debate.. If not.. Why not... -tom w

Thanks that was an interesting thread. It would seem there seems to some disagreement as to how individual soldier control was modeled in CC. I have never played CC so I have no experience. Steve seems quite certain that exactly where the player places the location of each individual soldier does not or should not make any difference to incomeing fire because the squad unit is only in one spot to determine the calculation of incoming fire, so the guy you have on the wrong side of the wall is in the same kind of abstracted cover as the rests of the squad on the "good" side of the wall. :confused: ? Does anyone else here have any other experience with 1:1 modeling and control in CC? I am curious about this issue. -tom w

BUMMER! I sure would like to catch a glimpse of the LONG version! RATS is right ! :mad: bah! maybe there will be MORE tomorrow its always good to have hope! -tom w [ January 24, 2005, 03:45 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Um OK.... But we sure would like to hear more about this part.... "we had better offset it with something rather brilliant in order to compensate and keep the general level of realism high." You KNOW we will all be looking forward to news about the "brilliant" part of the new ways to compensate. thanks -tom w