Dr. Brian

According to the purist definition of "gamey" it is gamey. Because the way you used it was not the way it was used historically, dropping a line and having the squad run to the REAR past the defense is no better than the dreaded scouting jeeps or crew rush/scouts. However, I being the "gamey" player that I am, SALUTE you for your excellent use of your units. I wish I would have thought of that! Great thinking!!!

By the way. Steve hasn't been around here, as he said only for a short time. Does that mean our questions are going to go into the internet abyss? :confused:

Will molatovs be represented, and more importantly, will the Molotov Projector, a 3 man crewed weapon, be included?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stefan Fredriksson: Is not "PO" a better term than "AI". PO meaning Programmed Opponent. Think I saw it mentioned like that first time in The Operational Art of War. The reason being - Artificial Intelligence is not yet where we can call it "intelligent". So far computers and stuff are still programmed by humans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are so right on the money!!!! The term "AI" is so over used, it has lost its pure form and definition. I agree wholeheartedly. Too bad publishers don't tout their games that way. Maybe they think they'll lose sales if they say programmed opponent, as "artificial intelligence" sounds more complex!

There is a lot of experience here and knowledge about expert systems, probability theory, game theory, heuristic reasoning, rule-based systems, etc. I wonder what would become of CM, if some of us could get together and create a rule-based expert system for every aspect. I'm sure it would be awe-inspiring. [ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: Dr. Brian ]

The term "fuzzy logic" is a potential approach to program an expert system. Possibility theory (or "fuzzy logic") was developed by Zadeh (1978) due to the difficulties he had with using probability theory's representation of inexact or vague information. It is based on his theory of fuzzy sets. Possibility theory expresses vague terms such as "very likely" or "probably" with precision and accuracy. If these terms were coded with probability, their imprecision or "fuzziness" would be lost, i.e., either the event occurred or it did not. The advantage of possibility theory then is that events may be represented with shades of gray since human knowledge of facts is rarely precise. The disadvantages include the difficulty of interpreting fuzzy qualifiers and the necessity of fuzzy theories altogether. From what I can tell, CM does not have an AI (as defined in academia or research circles). It's just a structured algorithm. There may be elements of an "expert system" coded in CM, but until BTS shares some proprietary information, we'll not know for sure if there is any heuristic reasoning. [ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: Dr. Brian ]

Some great comments pro and a few con … but there has been no response from BTS, so this looks like a dead issue as far as implementing (in CM2 at least).

The game is so far from release though. I think this article could have waited to about a month or two before release.

Wouldn't it make sense at this time, to separate all the CM1 topics from the CM2 topics, by creating an separate and distinct area for each. For example, the discussion of the IS-152 does not have much influence in Beyond Overlord. Thoughts?

Cool, thanks for the response. So, when did a "tech support forum" show up?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: Disagree entirely. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I expected that, but the player is omniscient, and I don't think you can actually think oterwise. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: If we reify it and give more control to the player, where's the problem in that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The probelm is that, then it wouldn't be ... heaven forbid, "realisitc????" Which by the way, is fine by me ... I prefer total control, like chess. I'm a "gamey" player. [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Dr. Brian ]

The ideas are good, and probably more accurate. HOWEVER, by doing so, you will GREATLY increase the effectiveness of arty, to the point of ludicrous. Why? The player is all knowing, and with the type of control and changes being proposed, would take away from the uncertainty, however incorrectly modelled, our sim counterpart would have. Remember, we have a total view, and control over a lot. I'd say keep it as it is, with maybe very minor minor changes for tweaking only. It works well within the system. Why screw it up? My 0.02 zlotey.

Still, having never used this feature... can I use it from the middle of an exisitng PBEM game, or do I have to start afresh? Thanks in advance!

Thanks!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fishu: One word: katyusha <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Two more words…. Lotsof it.

Bart's is good. For me ...Close or apart? It actually depends on the mission. I try to keep them as far apart as possible, in order to accomplish the mission. However, at all times, they are mutually supporting each other. And within that platoon, each squad is mutually supporting the other. This also extends up to companys in the larger scenarios. Nothing worse than allowing the enema to isolate a platoon, and systematically eliminate, while the rest of the company looks on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warmaker: Quite true. With the omnipotent 88, just blast any God-forsaken creature/unit unfortunate enough to meet the wrong end of the barrel. For short visibility like this, armor shouldn't be running around taking point. Infantry should find, fix the target. Bring the KT to send the enemy to their maker afterwards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And what about if the KT is on defense? You'll quickly find yourself surounded, i assume? Thoughts? [ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: Dr. Brian ]

What about using a KT in a scenario where the max visability is limited by Fog (say 80m) or night. The long range ideas spoken above, don't apply anymore.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumbo: Even if this has been talked about, there should be nothing wrong about talking some more. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. This is a good issue to talk about. A lot of people haven't seen it before, as well, like me. [ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: Dr. Brian ]

I agree too... but, I'm dissappointed in general about how MGs are handled in CM to begin with. MGs can supress an area, lets say a platoon spread out advancing over an open plain. Curently, the MGs basically targets one squad, and the other 2 move forward without being supressed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom: Sorry Dr. Brain, my previous insults were inexcusible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Major Tim, I see your point, or more appropriately, as you call it, your "lack of respect." No sense trying to discuss further.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: What was it again? I thought I read somewhere that only about 9,000 returned from the Gulags (or whatever you want to call them) from the approximately 200,000 men captured from the shattered remnants of the German 6th army. Is that approximately right? Regards Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What are the numbers again for any Red Army soldiers captured by the Germans? Did most get exectuted? I know the Germans treated the West much better than the east.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom: Dr. Brain (please no messing with handles outside the Peng threads, it is a sign of lack of respect, unless it was a typo) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Major Tim, First, my typing skills are the same as yours, so I'm suffering from the same typos as you. If however, the mulitple (and successive) times you "messed with my handle" are indeed typos and as you say, not a "lack of respect" I will ensure I proof read extra for you. Anyway, Germany was not "backward" late war. We clearly have two different interpretations of "backward." You've already defined it, and attempted to define it for me. If we discuss this point, we first have to define backward. However, I will define it for myself, to help see if it clears up anything. Backward to me are the "minor" powers. Players on a world stage above their game. Poland, Denmark, Norway, Be-Ne-Lux, Yougoslavia, etc. Now, what points in your post, are addressing this? Germany is not "backward" to me, so that's why I'm not seeing your point. Can you go further? Thanks. [ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: Dr. Brian ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom: Let me address a few things here with my meagre knowledge. Dr. Brain. In regards to your classification of 'backwards', in regards to military implementation (does this mean depolyment, tactics, equipment, etc?), then you could classify the Russian Army until 1943, the US Army until 1943, the British/Commonwealth Armies until 1943, etc. ALL as 'backwards'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Major Tim, What's your point?

Thanks Chris!