Nabla
-
Posts
367 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Nabla
-
-
Just ran a test with 3DMark2000 in order to create a lockup with another program. Ran the test for over an hour: processor red-hot and the fan on all the time, but no lockups.
Now guys, I can't take the machine to service and say: "Well, there's this one program that makes the machine lock up. Just click here, then select Quick Battle, take 1500 points, Allied defender..."
Any other suggestions for a (freely available) program that I might use to try to get a lockup. -
Bupumpiduh...
Bumping for BTS's opinion.
-
BTS: could you please throw us a bone concerning processor load with the startup screen (see messages above).
My own examinations about heating are still continuing...
-
Hi again!
Could someone tell me where I could find some 3D DirectX test program that I can use to really torture the processor for a long time? I have to check if I can replicate the lockup problem with another program (in addition to CM).
Thank you very much in advance.
-
Good morning everyone. Thank you very, very much for your replies and for replicating my experiment.
I think (hope?
) that we can agree on three things now.1) The CM start-up screen does cause the processor to run at full load when it is in the foreground, at least for some persons. We don't know whether this is true for all machines. No counterexamples have been reported so far in this thread.
2) The background load problem seems to be the prerogative of only a few persons (so far only myself).
3) The systems should not lock up even if CM is making them run on full load. However, the machines people have are not perfect and the full load seems to be causing problems for some of us.
Ok, on my behalf I will start to work on notes 2 and 3 above. I'll continue experiments with the background load and the heating, and when I have enough information I'll try to contact HP (the notebook I'm using is Omnibook 6000).
BTS: could you please give some kind of statement on point 1. That is, should the system be running on full load in the startup screen, or is this a bug? I would also be very pleased if more people who have lockup problems could replicate what I've seen here, so that we can gather more information about the relationship between overheating and lockups.
Thank you very much.
[This message has been edited by Nabla (edited 03-27-2001).]
-
Friendlyfire, you may be right, but with a 700 MHz Pentium III the processor has a full load in the totally idle startup screen. How much more loaded can it get?
[This message has been edited by Nabla (edited 03-26-2001).]
-
Had to add one more thing before I myself crash.
The full load might not be a problem otherwise, but the computer is overheating only when playing CM and locking up only when playing CM, and this has been happening a lot. It really reduces the gaming experience, having to reboot every 15-30 minutes. 
-
I've been suspecting for a long time that at least on my machine CM is making the processor run on full load even when it should be totally idle. The evidence has been clear: the fan of the laptop is on all the time when running CM, even when CM should be doing nothing (like when I'm just viewing the startup screen with the main menu).
Now I've proved that this is the case on my machine, and the little voices have gone away.
I'd like someone to try to replicate the situation so that I know where to start looking for a solution.Ok, this is what I did. I downloaded a CPU load monitor from Idyle software (works in Windows 98, if you have win 2000 I'm not sure which monitor works there). The address is http://www.idyle.com/download/index.html I started the monitor. Then I started CM so that the startup menu popped up, and did absolutely nothing for quite a while. The fan started running again, as usual. Then I went back to the desktop (pressed ESC), and looked at the monitor, and, surprise surprise, the processor had been running on full load all the time I was just looking at the startup screen. Furthermore, when I put CM on background again and did nothing on the computer, the load dropped to only 50%, showing that CM was still very active in the background. I replicated the situation a couple of times on my computer.
Now I don't have to go and see the doctor.
Pretty please with sugar on top, please replicate this so that I'll know what to do.I'm going to go to sleep now. See you tomorrow.
[This message has been edited by Nabla (edited 03-26-2001).]
-
I have an arty question that may be a bit out of topic, but the right people - the historians - seem to be right here.
The question is: how effective was the real 81mm mortar in creating smoke covers? I mean, in my opinion in CM the 81 mm off-map mtr is a cheap überweapon for the attacker, because you can practically turn a bright day into a foggy night with a couple of those. Was it really as good as in CM?
[This message has been edited by Nabla (edited 03-26-2001).]
-
I can very much relate with all that's been said here (concerning the heavy load that CM puts on your computer when in 3D mode), but I don't think I've been fully able to make you understand my point.
For me CM gets the computer heated even when not in 3D mode, for example when in the unit selection screen, or even the startup screen with just the few buttons. Now do you see what I mean when I'm saying that this really makes no sense.
[This message has been edited by Nabla (edited 03-23-2001).]
-
I've playing CM on a laptop in which it is very easy to note if the processor has a high load. In ordinary use (such as editing or surfing) the fan is never on. When copying high amounts of data, running intensive floating-point calculations or showing 3D-graphics the fan turns on.
The really weird thing is this: when running CM the the processor is always running hot and the fan is on. Even when I'm choosing forces in a PBEM game (in which case there certainly is near to nothing to compute the fan is on. If I minimize CM, the computer cools and the fan turns off, when I resume it, the fan turns on again. And this really happens always, no exceptions! This makes absolutely no sense.
Now am I the only one with such a weird behaviour or has someone else experienced something like this?
-
Originally posted by killmore:
I was amazed how well the following combination works for Germans:
15% points - 75mm Inf guns
40% points - Pupchen (best AT gun!?!)
45% points - Light Mg42
Give the enemy off-map 81 mm mortars (200 rounds of smoke each) and close-assault infantry. He'll smoke the whole terrain so that visibility will be reduced to something like 20-30 meters. Then he'll be able to walk over your long range infantry (MGs, inf guns) and AT guns in no time.
I'd be really interested to know how the AI would be able to attack with the forces I just described. If you have the time and energy to try, please let me know the results.
-
Originally posted by Jarmo:
I think the leadership structure is one thing that will differ from other nationalities. Maybe just having a company HQ, but not platoon HQ's. Or even having just the battallion HQ.
Soviets had a huge shortage of officers, at least in the beginning stages of war.
I believe trying to use conscripts without HQ's in any "intelligent" manner would lead to even greater disaster than what follows from a massed charge.
Sounds like a very intelligent solution, my fellow namesake.
Nabla aka Jarmo
-
Originally posted by nijis:
BTS implemented assault boats. If the AI can't handle sewer movement or trench systems or armored car dismounts or whatever, I wouldn't think that would automatically mean excluding them for use by human players.
This is a very good point. Not knowing the inner logic of BTS it is impossible to say whether this particular example has been too difficult to implement or of too little value to deserve resources for implementation.
The addition of such features is in fact very much a question of customer acceptance. Let us for the moment assume that the strategic AI implementation of assault boats has been too difficult. For me it would be optimal if BTS could add features such as assault boats and leave the strategic AI implementation out if it is too hard.
However, if many such features would be added into the game, how would the players react? I mean, there would be more and more scenarios that would not be playable against AI. This would take the game towards the direction of a multiplayer game, although much more smoothly.
I admit I would very much like to hear the opinion of BTS about some of the stuff that's been discussed here. They have the real knowledge of stuff about which I can only speculate here. But I know that they are very busy at the moment with CM2 and have their priorities elsewhere. Well, on the other hand, this way I can probably speculate for a longer time.
-
Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:
Two bad ideas on this thread, and one on which I have less of an opinion.
Ok, let me try and address these one by one.
Scripts are a horrible idea.
I agree for the same reasons you do (as I already stated above): scripts a.k.a pre-programmed micromanagement might be needed in winning in the game, which would not be nice at all.
The second bad idea on the thread is one fellow expressing the sentiment that if he is "playing" the company commander, he "doesn't want" to "be" the platoon and squad commanders too. The reason military strategy games are good strategy games is because the players *do* command multiple levels.
...
We want a strategy game. At the moment we have one. People that want to neuter it into a mere sim do not understand what they are asking for. Good game design is a lot harder than sim design. If you get the level of aggregation just right, and the command span just right, and the degree of fog-of-war just right, you can get a good game out of it.
An interesting view, and at this point I think I agree with you on this.
The last idea on the thread, the one that started it, I have less of a definite opinion on. I see no strong need for the kinds of additions asked for. The game would be pretty useless to me without the strategic AI. (I use it e.g. to command defenders in scenarios I design for players in campaigns). Playability is a vastly more important feature than allowing either the best possible play or the most literal implimentation of every WW II action.
If I want to represent dismounting of scouts, I put extra teams on the vehicles. I don't give a tuppenny darn whether they were "really" there. If the game effect is right - Stuart pulls up to here, men proceed on foot, men spot target, side reacts to things seen - then I do not care a whit about the rest of the details, like whether 4 men or 5 were involved and whether one of them had a scoped rifle.
On the artillery missions, they actually used lifts not continuous walks. And fine-tuning fire missions to the last shell seems ridiculous to me. Buy another module. You can have all the in-game effects, it is only competitive resource stretching in the first place.
But all of that said, if the improvements this fellow wants, or anyone else wants, would *not* hurt the AI, then fine.
Ok, so these comments apply to my original idea that started the thread. First you say that "The game would be pretty useless to me without the strategic AI." This is a clear statement for the strategic AI and against my idea about a pure PBEM game. Then you examine some of my improvement ideas, and as a result you state that none of them are really that necessary in the game.
Since assessment of improvement ideas is really a matter of opinion we can freely disagree on those. However, I think that you are still dodging the main point here. Those were just examples. I did name some other improvements - trenches and complex sewer systems - in another post.
Since I know that you Jason are one of the most respected experts that write on this board let me challenge you.
I'm challenging you to write down (for example ten) most important game logic improvements (that have an effect on play strategy) you'd like to see. After you've listed them, please consider how difficult it will be to make the strategic AI use these features. Ok, I know this is very difficult to assess, but make an educated guess. After that, consider which of your improvements will in fact be made.Actually, knowing your vast knowledge base, your answer might change my own opinion on the subject.
-
Originally posted by Olle Petersson:
I'm not limiting my thinking to the one minute turns, but to the response of one order.
Take for example a platoon of tanks that I want to advance along some route, seeking enemies and when found engage in combat (without advancing further).
* As it is today I'd have to plot leapfrog Hunt commands for the tanks, trying to find hull down positions or other cover when possible.
Once an enemy is encountered they either stop immediately and keep shooting 'til the enemy is gone, or they continue moving along the plotted course.
* My whish is to give an order in style of; Platoon, along this route, engage in combat, then wait for further orders.
Then the AI line up the platoon in a suitable formation and start bounding movement with overwatch.
Once enemies are encountered all tanks fire one shot, go for covered fighting positions, fire another shot, change position, ..., until the enemy is down. One section might try flanking movement and so on.
Then they wait for further instructions.
I think you get the picture...
In short: If I'm to play the role as company or battalion commander I don't want to act like a platoon or squad leader.
I see that a number of people have joined the discussion while I've been away, which is of course very nice.
Let me address Olle's post first.I see your point here: you want to be able to give even higher-order commands than what is possible in CM at the moment. We are talking about the same problem here, although our objective is different. The difficulties that arise in your scenario are exactly the same that arise when designing the strategic AI. You just want the tactical AI to take care of some strategic aspects it does not cover now.
Would you agree?
With regards to your objective: I have no strong opinion on that.
[This message has been edited by Nabla (edited 03-17-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Olle Petersson:
WRT the title of this thread:
NO
It's not the strategic AI, but the tactical AI, that sets the limit.
I'd definately love to give more abstract platoon orders, and let the AI take it from there...
Unfortunately it's very difficult to implement suitable SOPs to be used by the AI for every situation that might come up.
Now we're getting to the subject. Thank you for your post
Ok, I gather that these standard operating procedures your talking about are the same thing as the trigger conditions and corresponding actions I mentioned above. In CM I'd say that the primary task of these procedures is to provide short-term intelligent action. That is, keep the unit alive and kicking for those nut-crunching one minute periods.
In CM you have to remember that we are talking about just one minute. If the time span is longer, then it's a whole different ballgame. The current SOPs the units are using are not that intelligent, are they. And they need not be.
Consider the current set of fallback conditions for a rifle squad that is targeting the enemy. I don't think that under heavy opposition the tactical AI would ever tell the rifle squad to try to get to the enemys flank, or to take a whole different attack avenue to a victory flag. Furthermore, I don't think it will tell another squad to come and help the unit that's facing the opposition. (Although I'm not entirely sure about this: friendly tanks do support infantry units in distress with smoke.) But the strategic AI has to make decisions like this, and the outcomes of such decisions are determined much later.
What the tactical AI currently probably does in the situation above is to keep firing, unless the unit takes too much damage. If it starts taking damage, try to take cover and perhaps retreat. If you compare these decisions with the larger decision above (flanking, different route, assistance from other units), which ones would you say are more difficult to program?
I hope the discussion continues now that we've had a good start
-
It seems that the micromanagement discussion which my original message created attracted a larger audience than the actual subject.
Well, in this implicit bump let me just remind that what I'm saying does not apply to just command and control features. The same argumentation can be used when adding other new concepts with strategic importance.
Consider, for example, the addition of trenches, or complex sewer systems. Once again, phase 1 and 2 implementations for existing units and actions in these terrains seem much easier than designing strategic AI so that it knows when to send troops into the sewer system, or when to create a defence outpost using trenches.
Also, after sleeping over this thing, I would myself like to add that of course I hope that BTS will be able to implement all these things with the strategic AI. I'm just wondering if this is going to be very likely.
-
Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:
Funny how 95% of the psots in this thread just completely missed the point.
Badly chosen examples in the opening message - my mistake
. -
Reading the first replies and rereading my opening message I see that I've directed the discussion to micromanagement which is not the point here. My examples were not as good as they could have been. Micromanagement is not what I want, and I don't even want it to be enabled, because then micromanagement might be required to win in the game. The examples I stated have been expressed on this board by gamers, so I used them as examples of command and control concepts that CM gamers might like. But I do think there are lots of things that are not micromanagement which I would like to see.
Ok, so let me state some examples of these things I'd like to see which I do not think are micromanagement.
1. The ability to dismount recon units (the example I described in the opening message).
2. The ability to call artillery fire for only a period of time (or number of rounds).
3. The ability to hold artillery fire at a given position, and release the hold (avoid delay when target is known in advance).
4. The ability to call for moving artillery fire barrages (hope this is the correct expression).
That is, I'm talking about things that are impossible with the current game system. By doing micromanagement you want to avoid certain things. I myself don't want to prevent light armor from attacking a tank (although some people do). But in the current system recon units will never dismount, arty will always fire the whole minute, and will never move its target during that minute.
Hope this clarifies things.
-
Any CM gamer can name a large number of new command and control concepts (s)he would like to see in CM. Consider, for example, the ability to dismount recon units from light vehichles; the ability to order an AFV to advance, fire one shot, create smoke cover, and retreat afterwards; option to order artillery fire for just 20 seconds; option to order a recon unit to pay special attention to a given battleground area; etc.
A lot of problems have to be solved when implementing such a new feature. I would imagine that once an order has been given in the game, if we discard data structure updating, graphics and other "straightforward" stuff, the game has to implement logic to do the following.
Phase 1. Determine the best set of actions to achieve the order - as in finding out a set of move commands to move an AFV to a given location if there are patches of wood between the start and end points.
Phase 2. Implement trigger conditions and actions which make the unit intelligence for 60 seconds - as in what to do when an AFV targeting an infantry unit has to do when it spots a tank.
The first, if I've understood correctly, is a small part of the operational AI, and the second is the gist of the tactical AI.
Now consider the new, suggested option of being able to dismount recon units from light vehichles. The phase 1 implementation of this feature is basically equivalent to ordinary embark / disembark logic. The phase 2 implementation is very close to ordinary infantry tactical AI, with perhaps some tweaks to prefer retreats and hiding.
That does not sound too bad, does it. If these were the only thing that would have to be considered in implementing a new C&C feature I bet we would see a lot more of them in CM. But my understanding is that the real work is elsewhere: the tweaking of the strategic AI. As I stated above, implementation of a new feature amounts roughly to the implementation of phases 1 and 2, assuming that the order has been given. However, if one side is played by the computer, the order has to be given by the strategic AI.
If I was working in BTS (just a dream
) and I was given the task of implementing the new recon feature, based on my nine years of experience in computer science I'd be glad to implement phases 1 and 2, but I'd be scared to implement the strategic AI part. Not because it could not be done in some way (and it would be very interesting), but because I'd be afraid of customer reaction. As BTS has stated over and over, it is very difficult to implement even simple human-like decisions, and the recon dismount decision is not simple.So what's the point? Because there's a real danger in saying these things I'm stating first that I understand that these are my opinions, and I understand that there are value judgements behind some of these opinions, so there is no right or wrong here. Please remember this before you hit me with a hammer.
The first point is the following: my understading is, that if there was no strategic AI we would see a lot more command and control options in CM. Ok, this is not a value question, but it's still an opinion. But the second point is even more controversial, so I state it explicitly as my own value: my current understanding is, that CM would become a better game for me if the strategic AI would be given up, and only PBEM and TCP/IP games were allowed. I estimate that this would result in many more advanced features, ones which will never be implemented as long as the game can be played against the computer. I estimate that the joy of having advanced C&C features in the game would greatly exceed the sorrow of having to give up games against AI, especially because the number of PBEM and TCP/IP players is so big that there is no trouble in finding an opponent nowadays. This might not have been possible when CM1 was introduced, but it would be possible now because a large gaming community has developed around CM. I might even go longer and state that some gaming company will do this if BTS will not, because of the popularity of human-human games over games against AI.
This is my opinion, and I'd like to know what the opinions of other members of the CM community are. After reading this message once on the board I came back to add that I do not want to steal a great game from those that have no network / email connection. I want everyone to be able to enjoy CM
, and the strategic AI works just great with the current set of actions. But that still does not change my gaming experience. Perhaps we would indeed get the best solution if some other gaming company would make a pure multiplayer CM clone. Who knows...[This message has been edited by Nabla (edited 03-15-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Croda:
You can accomplish uneven battles by giving one side a percentage increase in points. Just discuss it with your opponent before hand.
As for the victory calculations, they take this into account just fine.
Ok, thanks, didn't know this one. But I don't think that other people know it too well either, since in other threads this is pinpointed as one of the main faults of CM when reality is concerned. Hmm, perhaps there's still something I'm missing here...?
-
A topic that seems to pop up frequently in this message board is the "over-even" nature of battles in CM. That is, the fact that the forces are matched to provide an equal battle results in non-realistic games.
Now I have some questions and a suggestion concerning this problem. (Well, some people may not think that it is a problem but some definitely do.) First, has this already been discussed to death in another thread before
Second, how does the battle result calculation handle uneven forces at the moment?Third, as the question above hints, if there is a problem here it can be fixed by modifying the result calculation system. That is, it should be fairly easy (I think) to make the system such that it takes into account the original force sizes. If someone tells me what the current formula is, I can make a suggestion for the new one.
And finally, modification of the QB system to be able to produce uneven battles should be very straightforward.
What do you think?
[This message has been edited by Nabla (edited 03-14-2001).]
-
Originally posted by FriendlyFire:
I play CM on a Dell C600 laptop - 750MHz PIII, 256MB RAM, 8MB ATI Rage Mobility Pro.
I'll have to try that, but I have a million dollar question for you concerning another thing, because I have the same video card. Can you see fog? I can't, and I have not been able to find a "enable fog emulation table" setting anywhere, so I'm starting to think it's not even possible.
Your kindred spirit
Nabla
CM in total rest and full processor load: now I know I'm not insane, please replicate
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
Just got an email from BTS: the question has been passed on to someone who should know the answer. So the final word is on its way.