markshot

It's the German setup from CMBB. CMBB/CMAK were better than CMBO. Features and mechanics were added. In particular, the later 2 games were more balanced between offense and defense. I like CMBB a little bit better. CMAK introduced kicked up dust. This was very noticeable. The player knew what it meant, but not the AI. However, it was turned on and off with smoke effects. Smoke is real necessary and there was no good answer for CMAK SP. There were even features which never found their way back into the game: ORDER DELAYS: The more waypoints, the longer before a unit moves out. The delay varied based on the number of waypoints and experience. PATHS: You click any path visible on the map, and then edit it. JAM: The swapping out of hot HMG-42 barrels.

I think we can agree that BFC has made its signature realism both in software agent modeling and graphics/sound. Be that the case, I think the modeling CQB is far more difficult than death from shelling and small arms fire. I play modded RTW1, MTW2, STW2, and mainly these day RTW2. Modded STW2 and RTW2 look absolutely beautiful. But if you get down to 3rd. person eye level, the animations at a group level are terrible. And technically, this should not be melee, but formation engagements. Trench fighting is melee. Modern troops had neither mail or plate armor, nor swords, spears, falx, war axes, etc... As the CM games are about HE, kinetic kills, and small arms. I would rather see BFC spend 10,000 hours in improving that than getting melee to look better than Total War. (back on topic)

I only played a single PBEM, but won. Before there was an Internet, there was a national (USA) Falcon 3 Ladder on CompuServe. Matches were done via direct phone 9600 modem connections. I started writing notes which I began to circulate just to friends which became a book of 100 pages. It was about 6 months that I went to top slot of the ladder and made my book a free public download. I was accused of cheating (cheats I was unaware even existed). I was accused of stealing the techniques of others and publishing. That ladder was one of the worst experiences of my life. I pretty much gave up playing with humans. There are too much ego in what is just a hobby. I always play SP. I know human challengers are the best, but I resigned from that ladder, and am never going back again.

I just want to say my memories were in HD!

Chess proves such a framework is feasible. Also, it easier to tune ratings than lines of code. Both will alter behavior, but assigning values is are easier once you have a framework and can be done by a non-programmer. Given the nature of combat, you don't need 10 level deep look ahead; maybe 5 minutes. The CM board does not need to match action squares. So CM evaluation square just needs to have a cover rating based tree or structure coverage. Let the TACAI find the actually cover to use on the square. Which makes more sense? To have 20 people trying to work out blind plans for scenario writing or have 1 person code a move evaluation engine and have 2 or 3 people working on rating values for different positions until they get it tuned just right. You can even leave those table values open to modders. So, if you want a CM with aggressive armor, you can tweak the values to make it so. I have no data, but I suspect the majority of customers are SP. I think improved AI will translate into sales. Too many games have been released with superb graphics and million features, but brain dead computer opposition.

I do have a software background, but just informally in AI. Let say we have 2 forms of narrow AI and general AI. Narrow AI solves very domain specific problem, and does not transfer; like chess engines. General AI is like Google's neural net which is blowing through problems. General AI is not possible for lack of expertise, funds, computing power ... ultimately if it becomes available to games it will need a training system/database, and be sold as a packaged module to companies. But for CM narrow AI is possible in 2 forms: * Rule based where specific behaviors are coded for based on your forces, enemy response, objectives and terrain options. This rapidly gets hard due to the many, many cases. * A chess engine approach. Chess engines have the open, middle, and end game. Open is just a statistical DB of the 6 move games results over 500 years of recorded game. Moves are picked by percentage. End game is an absolute lookup table of next move for a limited number of remaining pieces. It is done by tables which go down to checkmate. The result of the tables are simply perfect chess. Middle game is done by looking ahead and scoring all possible board positions, and then picking the high scorer giving 10 moves into the future and what it is the best next move. (There are many heuristics done to make this more efficient.) --- How do you write a middle engine for CM? You divide every CM map into a equal number of sectors rated on terrain for a small number of force types. You only partially lift the FOW for the AI. Just enough that the engine may make assumption about enemy forces and their locations. You then run various minutes into future different positions of forces moving with estimates of kills. A chess board rates position on the basis of 1/100 of pawn being lost. Here the rating might be a number representing the ratio of purchase points remaining. You look into all force movement maybe 5 minutes ahead. You then pick the movement plans that lead to the objective which have the best ratio. You tweak the rating by making tanks ahead of infantry have a lower potential rating than infantry ahead of tanks. This is how chess engines do it so that bishops and knights which have the same point value may generate different board ratings based: 2 bishops remaining (cover the board), knights in an early game or pawn wall are more powerful than bishops, late game bishops shine with open space ... you tweak the scores and those tweaks give behavior based play without the engine understanding behavior and plans. --- That is my prognosis for a CM which put ups a good fight without plans. For the would be CM content creator ... You make fast map creation possible by getting base maps from other sources. The forces editor is fine as it stands. Player picks setup zone and objectives. (Battlefield engine does the rest) --- I am not blowing smoke. We have plenty of fine examples of open source chess engines of they this are coded that they can easily beat the best human players and can hit standardized ratings 20% better than the best human. After 20 years, of coding such narrow AI, Google's Neural net blew away the best engine in 2 days just by playing games against itself to learn --- neural net. But what powers the traditional middle game is no PhD stuff anymore ... any decent programmer can follow the approach. It just needs to be adapted for CM. CLICK ON GO.

Scenario and content modelers are the creme of any games customer crop. No, I don't think it is too much to ask that they understand the three basic concepts of programming: * Linear flow * Branching * Looping I would not be surprised if this much programming is covered in elementary school these days. Obviously, with the right predicates and group behaviors some very sophisticated scenario behavior could be achieved. --- Of course, I would still argue that time would be better invested in a smart game engine, than smart individual scenarios. It is not so hard to quantify basic rules of battlefield plans. If you have an initial map maker that can start with a topo map from Google Earth, and just needs some painting of vegetation and built up areas. If you have a force editor. If you have an objective editor. Then, you have something simple enough for the average joe to make scenarios, and those scenarios can then be analyzed and animated by your tactical engine. So, the way to create lots of content creators is keep it really very, very basic. Make the tools smart, and let the people just read a 5 page tutorial on how to make a scenario.

It seems that all plans are strictly linear: * You can control when an order executes by trigger. * You can control when an order executes by time. But there are no branching or case orders. And, of course, if one had branching or case orders, then one would likely include random factor as being one of the conditions. So for example, IF ARMOR(AREA(5)) THEN EXECUTE ORDER 10 ELSE EXECUTE ORDER 20 ENDIF Just curious. Thanks. PS: I now see how you can have units on the map without the chain of command required. You simply put them in reinforcement group that never actually shows up. The explains why Bn is missing from of the scenarios.

I have spent quite a bit of time looking at the scenario editor and QB maps. NOTE: I am not criticizing MarkEzra who has produced an amazing wealth of interesting maps. But it should be noted the that the plans/objectives for QBs as best as I can tell, basically specify a map axis of attack or a general location to defend. So, there is a setup zone and then Order #1 which is "go that way" with fairly identical generic hostile parameters. (attacker) So, there is a setup zone and lay in an ambush for 1,000M. (defender) --- I could see using existing maps, picking units, and throwing a few plans together and playing defense. Yes, you would have some advanced knowledge, but your challenge would be to defeat superior forces with what you have which are coming your way by a number of routes. --- I looks like BFCs scenario editor is quite sophisticated. One wonders just how many features are really in use as the games were born in simpler times. --- The main scenario editors I was familiar with were Steel Beast and Sub Command/Dangerous Waters. (just the random spawning capability of some adversary in a particular area created all types possibilities) One of the main problems I found with sophisticate scenarios is victory conditions that don't actually fire as they were not properly debugged. The fancier an editor gets, the greater potential for mishaps. I have always argue for better game AI over better scripting. Better game AI graces every scenario where as better scripting is only makes a difference when a scenario designer used it.

Thank you Kevin for all the great info. Ever since CMx1, I look at the multitude of QB options, and think COOL. But I have no idea which choices will create a thriller fight and which will be a total dud. Actually, psych studies have shown that too many choices immobilize people. For example, give employees 3 funds to invest their retirement savings in, and they join the program. Give them 14 funds, and most people simply don't join as they are overwhelmed with the options.

In terms of arty, for your short life on the CM battlefield, you must just accept that it arrive as a act of G*d. Why do 12 men dash across a field, but one takes a round and die? Combat cannot be calculate only estimated in a statistical sense. Arty follows the Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty: * If you know absolutely where, then you cannot know when. * If you know absolutely when, the you cannot know where.

I hate it when 1/3 of my remaining rounds get used for spotting, and they they still don't manage to get a single round of 10 on action square requested.

Basically, how to get the most rewarding experience out of setting a QB engagement for human vs AI? Thanks.

Just a joke.

When you are on the receiving end, you have the satisfaction of getting pasted by trained professionals as opposed to some geek who played CM as a kid.

Thanks. I am happy to find some do need to replay missions (experienced players). I was worried that maybe I (age) was the main factor which accounted for my improved CMx1 victory rate than CMx2. You may think that it a stupid concern, but I assure it is not. About 3 years ago, I joined one of the World's biggest Chess sites and studied and practiced hard. I was playing 30 minute games which I thought was a fair pace. I found that I consistently lost on time. It seems that the average age of the community was 20 years younger than me. Now, I could see the impact of my age. They had skilled challenge tests graded on correctness and time. I always scored lower because of more time spent than the average. I later took a class in neuro science and cognition. We are at our neurological prime in our 20s. After that both longitudinal and cross section studies show that executive function (managing projects), problem solving, and new memory formation diminishes. So, it is quite possible to get too old to play CM and win. But now I know it is not just me, but the core game itself. I feel less deficient. Thank you.

So, are QBs more worth the time in CMx2?

You can still have fire and a vague contact on unmoved, but you know if it was an HMG. If it was my command, it would have market it on at map.

MikeyD, I do love the CM movies. In fact, one of my biggest criticism of Graviteam is great graphics without replay. A waste of a a GPU. I like watching the movies for being there. I also like watching the movies because they are part of a story or picture of the elephant. Watching movies from different spots on the map convey information. --- I don't think you got my type of player. I want a good fight. I am perfectly happy to lose the fight or get a minor win. But I don't want to lose by being tricked. I want to lose because I advanced without clearing my flank or posting a rear guard. And the enemy came up from behind me. Another example of a fair loss is letting my platoons all get bunched up, and then the enemy calls down arty on a TRP which was intended for exactly that purpose. --- So, I want an intellectual challenge. Not a riddle. I want to put all the pieces I have been taught about movement, recon, fire support, combined arms ... together and test my problem solving skills. I want a chance to win. I don't mind missions where objectives cannot be taken if they are constructed such that they permit victory conditions that can be achieved. Maybe like simply a recon in force ... touch points along the enemy's main line meaning that you determined his strength and withdraw without excessive loses. That's fine. --- I hope I am being clear. --- As you are a beta, I have a question about QB maps. In CMx1, they were dynamically generated, but in CMx2 they are selected from a large library. Do all of them come with basic attack plans for the AI such that the AI can make a credible attack or are CMx2 QB AI attacks the gravitational force movement of uncoordinated elements towards some objective which they were in CMx1? Thanks.

You don't always hold sight of something, but may not be able call in mortar fire when you do. There is no way to really mark it for later attention. I create spotting screen shots using trees and rocks so that I can strike a target that is not longer showing itself. (especially many non-AFV defensive targets tend not to displace) (I do full screen, but cropped these so that they could be posted.) Comments?

Yes, I could win CMx1 70-75% of the time, but I feel like CMx2 are much harder ... simply good scouting and tactics will not win them ... perhaps 20% of the time, or put another way 20% of the scenarios. They remind me of Sub Command and Dangerous Water Scenarios where you had to know the riddle's answer to beat them. I, of course, prefer winnable on the first play if gross mistakes are not made. Of course, training does involve getting killed and repeating exercises, but the whole point is to avoid getting killed in real life. If a beta cannot beat a scenario from the get go, then what chance does a player have?

Kevin, You don't feel you are missing something by playing mainly QBs. Scenario designers do far better with their resources than the AI. Of course, the ultimate is PBEM where trick like triggering AI traps with just a couple of scouts won't work. A human will wait to they have something substantial in the kill zone.

Back in the CMx1 days ... I had CMBO, but mainly ended up play CMBB/CMAK, because the improved HMG modeling. Anyway, I had about 6,000 missions and ops someone shared with me after the original Scenario Depot went poof. I only played once (usually always the attacked; as it was was well known the AI could not attack). Once because the whole excitement was "what and where". Of course, I would say with 6,000 over 12 years, I played the collection 4 times, since I would forget the details and play it fresh. Now, CMx2, I see greater randomness than CMx1 with multiple plans and also, there are just far fewer missions. Finally, many missions are really hard to win with just good technique and the first run through. I find CMx2 missions more akin to puzzles than CMx1 which were "mystery novels". So, do you replay scenarios? Or just only once? Both sides? Any in house rules as to replaying and time between replays? (just curious how people play) Thanks.

Bufo, Thank you. I have taken screens of them to review later.

I thought these icons were an indication of who could call. (just by observation using the scenario editor) Like a red triangle seems to need an FO, and is denied to an officer. Like officers cannot call in very large caliber stuff or naval guns.