tank_41
-
Posts
14 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by tank_41
-
-
<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
-
<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).]
-
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).]
-
<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).]
-
<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.
-
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).]
-
"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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
The Death of Computer Gaming As We Know It?
in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)
Posted
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.