SuperSlug

Count me in.

Count me int

LOL I just saw the date on the original post. I guess I'm to late sigh... I'll just go back to the AKotM tourney and continue being pummled by TBlaster.

Count me in as well.

SuperSlug wins by a c***hair. Joeski put up one hell of a fight and really deserved the victory. ------------------ I'd rather die sleeping like my grandfather, than screaming like his passengers.

Joeski and I are down to the last turn. We will know the result tonight. ------------------ I'd rather die sleeping like my grandfather, than screaming like his passengers.

What you guys are taking about here is scripting. What CM2 or later... needs is the ability for players to script how the TAC AI handles how your troops behave. As a player you could create your own shoot and scoot command and implement it anytime you wanted to. That would leave BTS out of the picture and you would be responsible for getting your troops killed. The troops would keep there performance charateristics, i.e. speed, fire power, only there behavior would change. The best CM players would have the best implemeted scripts. This could then logically be extended to include the Strategic AI. I mentioned all of this in Tigers Stupid TAC AI thread. (Tigers not stupid he thinks the TAC AI is). ------------------ I'd rather die sleeping like my grandfather, than screaming like his passengers. [This message has been edited by SuperSlug (edited 01-26-2001).]

I played a game like that to. But that's not what I had in mind. The player would still control the tank between one minute turns so you would never program your tank to be a edge hugger etc... However you could tell it to priorities targets and give a target a "memory lifetime" of your choosing or maybe how it should react we it thinks it's out gunned etc... What I really, really would like is a chance to write my own Strategic AI scripting or algorithms. When chess programs first came out a child (or novice) could usually kick the computers ass. Now the best chess players in the world don't even play blitz chess against computers because they can't beat them. (I won't even mention Deep Blue and Kasparov) Wouldn't it be cool if the CM Strategic AI could be evolved (even somewhat) in this manner? How 'bout it BTS? Crack open those algorithms in the never engine rev. ------------------ I'd rather die sleeping like my grandfather, than screaming like his passengers. [This message has been edited by SuperSlug (edited 01-26-2001).]

First let me say this. From a programmers perspective I think the Tac AI does a pretty decent job for the task at hand. Believe me I have lost as many a distracted tank as the next guy. What would I LOVE TO SEE in a rewritten CM engine? The ability for players to modify the Tac AI as they see fit. Maybe this could be done with a plugin type module or better yet with some sort of scripting languague. Another possiblity is a GUI with some check boxes and slider bars. Obviously when playing with an opponent each players TAC AI would have to be "running" at the same time. Probably not that hard to do using threads. Players who are not programmer types could download other peoples Tac AI modules and use them. This could be extened to include the strategic AI as well. I think it also does a pretty damn good job as well, but could you imagine how great it would be if it could undergo rapid interations with many people tweaking it. This would open the door for tournaments between stategic AI's. Also people could play against different stategic/TAC AI's downloaded from the NET. "Man I downloaded SuperSlug's Stategic AI last night and it kicked my butt in three turns!!" Just some thoughts. ------------------ I'd rather die sleeping like my grandfather, than screaming like his passengers. [This message has been edited by SuperSlug (edited 01-26-2001).]

I posted this in another thread and it seems to have been hand-waved away by another forum member without, I believe, due discussion. So I'll post it again. BTS, if historically tank crews were a precious resource. To be protected and saved then this should be reflected in the game engine. Victory points for crew deaths should be inline with their historical value. If a player wishes to charge your machine guns with is valuable crews, to try and take an objective, (or whatever) and they are promptly shredded then he should pay the price. His oppenent would receive an appropriatly HIGH number of victory points for destroying this VALUABLE asset. Taking away a crews weapons is a poor solution at best. IMHO ------------------ I'd rather die sleeping like my grandfather, than screaming like his passengers.

I read most of this thread and I didn't see this mentioned so here goes. If crews were so valuable during the war why not represent this by giving them greater victory point values. More for saving them and more for killing them. If a player wants to crew rush you he can go ahead but he will pay the price dearly. And for god sakes rearm them!! Cheers,

Try running scan disk from DOS. Exit out of windows and run it from the DOS prompt. A long shot but I have seen this work.

I don't care one way or another. If my opponent is OK with this game then so am I. What satifaction would you get by cheating?

Count me in. ------------------ I'd rather die sleeping like my grandfather, than screaming like his passengers.