[The Death of Computer Gaming As We Know It?]

I will bet my $1 bill here that within

6 months, we will start to see many

CM clones on the market. Both traditional

turn-based and real-time based game makers

are looking very hard at the success of CM

and wonder what they have to do to catch

up with the new standard set by CM.

[TacAI system (was AI cheat in CM) (long)]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:

It's still the best wargame around. Until CM2.

I assume, many of the problems will have to wait until that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jarmo, I completely agree on this. Although

I have posted many negative things on CM,

I personally emailed a thank you letter

to BTS to thank and congradulate them on

this piece of art

[TacAI system (was AI cheat in CM) (long)]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Preacher:

Question: What result do you expect when 4 PzIVs stumble into an ambush by 4 Sherman 76s? Similarly, what result do you expect when a Tiger drives in between 2 ambushing Shermans at close range? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good question! Then what result do you expect

when a stuart stumble into an ambush

by 1 Tiger at close range?

However, why can Stuart choose to back-off

and retreat while Tiger has to be doomed.

BTW, I am using the example where the first

shoot from these ambushing units missed.

During the time of reloading, I think

Tiger should have plenty of time to decide

its course.

In terms of PzIVHs and Shermans shoot out,

if you tries it, you see they exchange rounds

2 to three times. Again, plenty of time to

decide to back off.

[This message has been edited by tank_41 (edited 07-26-2000).]

[TacAI system (was AI cheat in CM) (long)]

I decide to start a new topic on this, because as you read on, you

will see that I am bringing up a new topic although it is related

to my original post "AI cheat in CM".

First, let me say that after numerous testing, I have to change my

mind and agree with most people here that computer does not cheat

in TacAI. So, sorry for all the confusions I created.

However, the testing does reveal many drawbacks in CM's TacAI system

and these drawbacks are part of the reasons that led me initially

think computer is cheating, which I will explain in the end of this

post

Before I go on, I want to say one thing: Please dont flame. These

are merely some suggestions that could potentially make CM better.

Now, into the topic (BTW, I am gonna talk about tank only as

I dont test infantry that much)

I think that the TacAI system depends too much on the static part of

unit, and fails to bring in the dynamic flavor of the battlefield.

Here is what I mean by static part, for example, a stuart vs Tiger,

or a Sherman 75 vs Panther, or a PzIH vs a Pershin, etc. In all these

examples, the decision is pretty much clear most of the time (unless of course, your stuart catchs a Tiger

in its rear).

However, when dealing with dynamic of the battlefield, the TacAI system

needs lots of improvement. Here are three typical scenarios:

1 Shouldn't strong units (whiling facing weaker opponenets) also

consider retreating in some case?

On one of my experiments, I have 2 Shermans 75 ambusing along a road

side (with 1 on each side) 100m away from the road. I put an Elite

Tiger close enough, but outside of the LOS of the shermans at the

beginning of the turn. This setting makes sure that Tiger moves

into ambush point unprepared.

I tried this setting 5 times both from human and computer, and

never seen Tiger back off after get ambushed. It turns the turret

and trying to pick off the Shermans but the attack from both

left and right side side are just too much for it.

Someone may argue that TacAI may not have enough time to react, but

in this case, sherman's first shoots are either missing or bouncing off,

and should give Tiger pretty of time to react.

What I am trying to say here is that yes, Tiger is much stronger unit

than Shermans. But at the close range, with attack from both side,

and with a much slower turret, shouldn't Tiger consider to back off

first?

2 Shouldn't equal units also consider retreating sometimes?

I tried the setting I described yesterday, that is, having four PzIVHs

moving along the road, and 4 Sherman 76s ambusing from left side (about

250M away).

This setting is different than the previous one because you have eqaul

amount of tanks in both side with similar performance (PzIVH is slightly

better), and ambusing is from one side only.

In this case, all computer and human controlled units would turn to

their left and engage the Shermans. The result, 90% of the time,

all PzIVHs are wipped out. Sherman's loss is usally 1 or 2, and sometimes

none.

I tried this setting with PzIV on the ambushing side, and had the

similar result, ie, Shermans would turn turrets to enagage and get wiped out.

My point here is: Yes, PzIVH should not be afraid of Sherman. But after

the first and second PzIVHs were sent into flame, shouldn't the rest two

decide maybe retreating is the only alternative at the moment?

3 I haven't tried this but I have seen it before, and some other people

also posted this: Shoudn't a gun damaged unit take a more precautious

decision on the battlefield?

A Panther with its gun damaged is vulunrable to even a Stuart. But when was

the last time you see this Panther firing a smoke and retreat?

So, I think the TacAI system in CM is somehow pre-calculated like A retreat

when facing B, and not vice-versa, etc. I hope it could be improved to

a more dynamic one and make better judgement.

Finally, I think the reason I initially though computer was cheating is simple:

while playing Germans, with this pre-calculated TacAI, you would hardly see

any retreat movement from German Panzers. Even a PZIVH is not afraid of

the enemy (on a static sense) most of the time (The only exception is perhapes

Pershing?), why would a Tiger, Panther, and KingTiger? But from my part,

I have seen many situations where I think my tanks should take a more

evasive move (sort of like those "weaker" Ameicans tanks), but instead

they take a stand and fight course. So, that gives me a wrong impression.

[This message has been edited by tank_41 (edited 07-26-2000).]

[AI cheat in CM]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn:

"1

So, when you say "they faced 4 Shermans" that simply isn't telling us enough. Were those Shermans Sherman 75s OR were they Sherman Jumbos. I suggest you try this same test with two US forces. One force will be Sherman 75s ( the AI Pz IVs will stand and fight).

You simply aren't conducting the tests properly IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are Shreman 75s.

OK, I am willing to try it again, and this

time I will set up a scenario myself like

this:

I will put 4 PzVHs on a road with Victory

Point right in front of them about 1Km

away. I am going to put bocage along both

road sides so that PzVHs have no other way

but going straight forward.

I will put a hill 300 M away to the left side

of the road and park 4 sherman 75s on the

reverse side of the hill at the start

of the turn and put a vitory flag just

right on the other side of the hill

so that Shermans would move to the

top of the hill and happens to

see the PvIH collumn down the hill on

the road.

The idea of this set up is that, prior to

the start of a turn, whoever controlls

PvIHs has NO IDEA ABOUT the presence of

the Sherman 75s, and I would assume

the natural movement order AT THE START

of the turn can be nothing but a hunt

or move order. Let's assume it's hunt

mode. This way, we can test how TacAI

reacts given the SAME EXACT ORDER

at the beginning of a turn.

I will try both side for at least 10 times

and issue a report later.

Any suggestions or comments about this

experiment?

[This message has been edited by tank_41 (edited 07-25-2000).]

[This message has been edited by tank_41 (edited 07-25-2000).]

[AI cheat in CM]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackhorse:

Guys,

Play the game against an experienced human via email, and you'll see the exact same behaviors...

It's pretty cheesy to blame your inexperience on the AI's cheating.

Just because you may not know "how" to give orders in the best way yet does NOT mean the program cheats.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blackhorse:

I may be new to this thread, but I have

been playing wargames for almost 10 years.

I have played almost all WWII related

computer games: WIR, COS, TOAW, TacOps, etc

you name it.

I may not be that familiar with CM's

sophiticated system in detail, but I

am not that stupid to just issue a

fast ordering movement to my Tiger

into the smoke and charging onto the

VB. When I played CC on the internet,

I beat my human opponents 8 of 10 times.

Now, after reading some other posts

yesterday and I went back and did

some further experiments and I found

that:

1 While playing like Americans, my tank

does start to back off or fire smoke

for about 50% of the time. So, it does

seem that TacAI takes into consideration

of weak vs strong tank issue.

However, the tactical movement of my

Allied tanks is still far less intelligent

than that of computer controlled ones.

I have seen many many times that a

computer controlled shermans to fire a

smoke, disppear off LOS, AND REAPPEAR,

fire a shot, and then disappear again.

Yet, I rarely see this kind of sophicated

movement by my tanks unless I specifically

order them to do so.

2 I also played German with some PzIVH.

In this case, the firing smoke and retreat

type of movement is even less likely to

occur. In one specific scenario, a PzIVH

platoon (4 of them) were caught by

3 to 4 shermans from the left side from

about 400m away, all my PzIVH were in

hunt mode and unbuttoned.

I tired this setting 10 times, and only

three times I saw 2 PzIVHs retreat back

off from the LOS, all other time, they

were trying to turn its turret and

engage the enemy. Of all the engagement

that occured, 70% of the time PzVHs

lost the battle. I think the computer

controlled PzIVHs under same situation

might have back off much more often.

I really suggest you guys to really go

ahead and set up some situation like

what I described above and try for

yourself.

[AI cheat in CM]

ALERT! SPOIL INSIDE!

I dont buy this experience level much.

Here is a perfect example in VBT scenario

and I urge everyone here to try it:

In about the 2nd or 3rd turn into this

scenario, you should be able to move

Wittman, argulably one of the best tank

commanders in WWII, into the outskirt

of the town. Most likely, enemy tanks

have laid down the smoke and hide

outside of your LOS.

Do this experiement, order your Wittman

move directly through the smoke so that

it faces numbers of enemy tanks all of

the sudden, I am willing to bet my

money here (as I tried many time myself)

that Wittman would never back off into

the smoke to avoid exchanging fire with

3 to 5 tanks at the same time. The end result

is mostly likely a dead Tiger on the road

On the other hand, about into the 10th turn

into the scenario, German would get 3 Tigers

and a PzIVH, and Brits getting a bunch of

Shermans plus a few deadly FireFlies.

If you park you Tigers right under the

victory flag, they will go on and exchange

fires with Shermans and FireFlies. Note now

that computer-controlled FireFlies would lay

smoke, hide, and reappear back to shoot

at your Tigers.

At this very scenario, the tactical reaction

from one of the best tank commanders at the

time (Wittman) can not even match up

against a few panic brits 3rd rated crews.

[This message has been edited by tank_41 (edited 07-24-2000).]

[AI cheat in CM]

"A lot depends on the quality of your crew.

What was this particular tank crew's

quality?"

Like I said, it is not just one incidence.

But since I play German most of the time,

I assume they are mostly regular to

elite tank crews.

I haven't play Americans that much. Could

it be possible that the TacAI for German

panzers is less flexible than that

for Americans?

[AI cheat in CM]

KillMore and others:

I know my infantry troops often seek covers

under heavy fire (controlled obviously by

TacAI, which is great), but....

I seldomly see my tank doing this. 99%

of the time, my tank would turn over its

turret and react to the threat by firing

back (we assume the first shoot by enemy

missed), and it hardly ever thinks that

perhaps retreat is a better alternative.

[AI cheat in CM]

I know there is a TacAI in the system, but

how come my tank never back off from the

threat?

Does computer-controlled AI have a more

sophisticated TacAI than human player's?

Also, the situation I described does not

just show up in the street fighting. I have

seen enemy tanks, for countless times,

disappearing from my LOS and hiding

into houses, trees, hills, etc while

fired upon, but never seen my tanks

taking the similar action.

Somehow, I just feel the TacAI in my side

is so much dumber than computer's.

[AI cheat in CM]

After playing 15 or so scenarios in CM, I

now come to the conclusion that the computer

AI does cheat and the cheating gives computer

AI an unfair advantage over human players.

We all know that CM breaks the ground in

terms of mixing up the real-time and turn

based style of playing. Each turn represents

a mere 60 seconds real time. You issue

the command before the turn and you can watch

the action via various movie play back

options.

Sounds great! But I found that the computer

AI does not just issue the command at the

beginning of each turn, but also modify

the movement, fire order, etc for each

unit based on what happened during the turn.

Here is a typical example to demonstrate this

I was in a street fight, and put one of my

Tigers in a T section street, with its gun

pointing at the intersection, hoping to

ambush any enemy tanks passing by.

Now, a sherman controlled by AI did show

up, offering my Tiger a great side kill opp.

However, the first shoot by the Tiger missed.

To my amazement, the sherman immediately

backed off and disappeared from my LOS.

Has anyone followed me so far? The point is

that the computer AI realized that, during

the play of the turn, it was attacked from

the side, and issued the order to back

off to a safe play (out of my LOS). This

has to be a inter-turn decision as the AI

has no way of knowing the presence of my

Tiger prior to the start of the turn, when

it makes the movement plot.

Dont tell me that AI is smart enough to

enter a move order immediately followed

by a reverse order just to scout

the area. I have played this situation many

times and I can see AI doing this only

at the intersection where it got ambushed.

On the other hand, if the Sherman were in

my side, and I ordered it to enter an

ambushed area, the best it would ever do is

to turn it turret and hope to have a chance

to fire back, but never back off.

tank

[We need better command control for firing unit]

ACTOR, I ordered my copy the next day I

played demo.

This is a dream coming true. If they can

further improve the 3D graphics, I can even

make a "saving priavte ryan II" out

of this and break the weekends box office

[An easy solution to AI targeting issue]

Hi

As suggested by some of you, I went back and

id a search on this AI targeting issue (ie,

a tank may choose to target some infantry

1000m awasy while there is a known yet

out of sight tank 300m ahead). I want

to suggest a very simple scheme to fix

this problem. And as you can see, this is

a solution already being used by many other

wargames while dealing with opp fire.

Why dont we set a range option three type of

targets: Hard, Soft, and AT. For example,

I can tell my tank commander to look for

Hard target in the range upto 2km, and

AT target in the range upto 120m, and

soft target in the range upto 50m.

Now say you are on defense, you normally

would have your infantry in front, digging

nto the defensive positions, and 1 or 2 tanks

falling behind as support. In this case, as a

commander, once you know the direction from

which the enemy's tank group might come, it is almost always the right decision to tell

your tank crews to forget about enemy

nfantry and only search for Hard target (your

nfantry in the front line could take care of

enemy infantry).

We should have a global option for all unit

and the ability to fine tune on each

individaul basis.

If this is too much of work for every type

of unit to have such an option, we need it

at least for the tanks.

2 On offensive:

Here your

[We need better command control for firing unit]

Sorry if this topic has been addressed in the

past.

I recently started to play the demo version

and the game is awesome!

however, I do find one thing very annoying:

It seems to me that I can't not order my tank

crews to stop engaging enemy infantry with

its main gun. Consider this scenario:

A German panther was seen 500m away. To

engage it head on seemed like a sucide. I

decided to frank it with my Sherman while

sending some other infantry to draw panther

's attention to other direction.

Everything worked just as I planned. However,

just as my sherman got close to Panther's

frank, it discoverd a very German soliders.

At this time, the soliders were in LOS of my

Sherman, while Panther was not (although

it was about to as my sherman was driving

towards it). At this critical point, my

sherman turned its turret into the German

infantry, away from Panther's direction,

and shot HE round. In the meantime, the

sherman kept driving towards Panther's frank

And you can guess the rest, by the time

Panther lied in my LOS, the sherman turrent

still pointed to those infantry, and at

a 180 degree away from the Panther. Because

both tanks sae each other, they started to

turn the turret towards each other.

But, Panther only needed to turn 90 degree

to engage my sherman, while my sherman

had to turn 180 degree. Naturally, Panther

got the first shot and my sherman was

toasted.

A brilliant tactics ended up with nothing

just because my Sherman tried to engage

infantry right before the critical point.

This brings up my question: Is there any

way that I can force my tank crew to

never engage infantry with its main-gun?

If yes, how do I do it? If not, this is

a MUST-HAVE in the next patch.