SuperSlug

Geez Frenchy if what you are doing to me is losing then I'd hate to see you winning!!

I did I did!! I'm not convinced that this level of detail needs to be exposed, is all. I'm not going to go into writing a bunch of pseudo code to prove my point. I just think maybe BTS could take a step back (up?) and see if maybe they could write some wrappers that don't expose the hard won data yet still provide an API. <small>[ November 05, 2002, 01:38 PM: Message edited by:

Some more useful input... I thank you for that. :mad: I guess I'm not supposed to feed the Trolls... oh well. Anyway back to the topic at hand. To make things absolutely clear. This thread is to discuss opening of the stategic AI API. Not the TAC AI. I'm not so foolish to think that if would be a trivial exercise. I first raised this topic before CMBB but let it die because I realised they were dealing with a pile of legacy code that probably was not ameanable to this sort of thing. However, if they are doing an engine rewrite I was hoping that they my do so with an eye towards an external interface. SuperSlug

Hmmm I'm having are hard time understanding how historical accuracy is being served by the Stategic AI in it's current form? Remeber I'm not talking about the TAC AI here.

Its not that obvious to me. Much of this could be hidden with a properly implemented API. SuperSlug

Uh, are we playing the same game? Let the AI play attacker. Pathetic at best. I won't even talk about meeting engagements. It does OK on defense where it doesn't have to do much besides fire. Don't get me wrong CMXX is the best computer game I have ever played. (And I have played an awful lot!!) I just think allowing the stategic AI to be improved would make the game that much more remarkable. SuperSlug

From a previous thread on this subject. This is the very reason the AI needs an API. These things take time and many iterations to improve both of which BTS I'm sure have few to spare. But hey, if they say they won't do it (or even investigate doing it) then I guess I will give up and go back to reading CMBB sneak/exhaustion complaints.

Uh, where did you get this? Are they talking about the engine rewrite or CMBB? Some context if you please. Quite frankly I'd rather see a decent AI then multi-multi player. PBEM games take long enough as it is, I can't imagine send the file to two or more additional people. SuperSlug

Oh, and why doesn't my name appear in the topic starter column? Please fix or do somefink!!

So I've been playing CMBO and CMBB for a couple or three years now. I PBEM exclusively because I found that playing against the stategic AI leaves something to be desired. Now I don't fault the programmer. I'm a programmer myself and writing a good AI is bloody, bloody difficult thing. So here is my one big wish for the engine rewrite. Open up an API so other programmer types can have a go at impoving the Stategic AI. When chess playing computers first came on the scene they were pretty losey players. Over time they improved, partly because of the speed of computers and partly because of improved algorithms. Now they have reached the point where they are pretty much unbeatable. Now I don't expect anybody to write an AI engine for CMXX that will reach that level but they might be able to improve it over the existing AI. I think it would be realy neat if we could download AI mods along with tank or building mods. I would be nice to play on defense against the AI knowing that you just might get your ass kicked!! I think it might also be interesting to have an AI tournament. The other thing it might do is free up some developement cycles for the poor overworked BattleFront software developement team. (Charles) Anywho, I just thought I'd put in my two cents in for what I'd like too see in the engine rewrite. I'm sure it will get poo-pooed but hey if you don't ask... SuperSlug

Ok so limit the scripting to designed scenarios. To give the AI a little extra smarts or to have AI controled troops react in a historical manner etc... Personnaly I don't much care about scripting. I like the way the game works now. But I'm sick of hearing requests for new command options. It was just a suggestion to solve the problem. However, I would still like to see the Strat AI API opened up so that other developers,like myself could write our own AI as a plugin. This of course would be in the CM3 engine rewrite time frame. Just some wishful thinking I doubt something like that is even of the BTS radar screen. Cheers,

Programming isn't like editing .bmp files? I would have never guessed. I didn't ask them to open up the STATEGIC AIs API in CM2. I asked them to consider opening it up when they re-write the engine. CM3? One of the reasons CM is a success is that it can be modified, all be in a limited way. Giving the buyer the ability to improve the product makes the product that much more appealing to wider audience. They should give the idea due consideration when they plan their rewrite. It would probably end up making the game engine more robust, moduler and end up being easier to test and maintain in the long run. BTW I speak from 12 years of hard core C and C++ developement. Cheers,

I really wish BTS would consider opening up the AI API in the next version of the engine, so that other developers could have a go at making the AI a worthy oppoenent. Wouldn't it be nice to try out differnent AI plugins? Maybe even have an AI tournament? "Man I downloaded SuperSlug's AI last night and it kicked my ass in five turns!!" How 'bout it BTS?

Yes I was referring to the Strat AI. Sorry for the confusion. I think that the rules governing troop movement and spotting could probably be distilled down quite a bit without giving away intellectual property. A unit is a stateful object. Has it been spotted? What does it see? Is it in cover? etc etc. Just these few items would give you lots of input into how the unit should behave. The very fact that BTS has been able to come up with a fairly good AI indicates that it is quite do-able. If the Strat AI is not opened up through and API or something, it will continue to evolve very slowly and even the novice player will have no trouble winning against it for the forseable future.

You are missing the point. Scripts are portable/downloadable. A website has a list of detailed orders. You download the ones you think you might like to use and put them in a folder. At game time. One of the menu options for your troops/vehicles orders is [select detailed order]. You pick this and then are given a list of the detailed order scripts you have. Pick the one you want and voila!!! Of course you could write you own or tweek the existing scripts. At turn time the engine executes the script you chose. So no longer will the BTS developers be nagged for more order types. You can create your own. Cheers, [This message has been edited by SuperSlug (edited 03-16-2001).] [This message has been edited by SuperSlug (edited 03-16-2001).]

I'd like to see the AI implemented as a plug-in of some type. So another developer could implement his own improved version. This has been done in the chess world for years now. I don't see why you couldn't extend it to CM. Wouldn't it be neat to see a CM AI tournament? As for more detailed orders. The best way to implement something like this is to give the player a scripting language so he could write his own generic order routines. At game time you would just select one of the existing CM orders or one of your scripts. So to get you zook team to hide then fire twice and then deevee. (HIDE) (ENEMY AFV DISTANCE <= 150) (R = FIRE ATW) (IF R = 0) {R = FIRE ATW) (/IF) (WITHDRAW = 100) (/HIDE) You get the idea... [This message has been edited by SuperSlug (edited 03-16-2001).]

You run around your backyard in three feet of snow to verify if the rate at which your CM troops become exhausted while running in virtual snow is correct. It is

I'll check tonight to see if it was a 76 or not. Thanks guys.

I've seen this occur twice now. Axis troops misidentifying a Sherman Jumbo as a Tank Destroyer? I had a Stug bounce THREE shells off this magical tank destroyer before I realized something was amiss. Now don't get me wrong. I'm sure that it was quite common for tanks to be misidentified on the battle field, but I think it's a bit silly that a Jumbo would be mistakenly identified as an open topped vehicle with a completely different silhouette. Having it identified as one of it's less well armored brethren or maybe just as Sherman? would be more realistic. Or maybe I just have me head up my ass. BTW both times this occurred it was a clear day. Let the flames begin...

Hey Mensch!! How about sending a turn once and awhile. I'm starting to wonder if I scared you away.

CM is chess. Except the pieces, the board, and the rules change every time you play.

Keep Dreaming Mensch. It's healthy to have an active fantasy life. ------------------ I'd rather die sleeping like my grandfather, than screaming like his passengers. [This message has been edited by SuperSlug (edited 03-09-2001).]

Count me in.

What's that? you'll have to speak up. My ears are ringing from all the bloody arty the TBlaster has dropped on my head. Of course I got the side of the map with no cover to boot. We on turn 13 in our game. I think he has this one. I'm having a hard time scoring any points because he has a lot tied up in arty and I can't get to the spotters. Oh well. There will always be another tourney. TexasToast and I are on turn 9. Looks pretty even so far. I've managed to take out a few AFV's. He's got my Hezter. I currently hold the objective. [This message has been edited by SuperSlug (edited 03-05-2001).]

Oops wrong button. Nothing to see here. Move along now.