CMplayer

SHADDAP! I'm trying to concentrate on the game fer chrissakes! Between you and the brat here keeps trying to grab the mouse...

There's a lot to discover in there. Now if you'll excuse me...

Losers should be sent here.

You're asking for a miracle. Basically, each unit would have to have an own internal 'map' of its surroundings, and make threat evaluations. This is how simulations are really done by consultancy firms, but to expect BFC to do it is a pipe dream. Unless they bring in outside help.

Thanks!

50 meter radius or diameter?

The problem with this, and the TacAI in general, is that we're talking about EXTREMELY ADVANCED algorithms. No matter how good of a programmer Charles might or might not be, no single person in a garage startup is going to solve all those problems. That's why I think the game should have a lot of SOPs to let the player tweak the TacAI. What the AI can't satisfactorily handle needs to be left up to the player. Covered arcs are a good example of this sort of command, but a full blown SOP screen, like in TacOps would be even better.

That's why soldiers train and have officers that give them orders. That's why there are little red heart icons on leaders in CM. That's why there should be a "!" tag for orders.

If the crews and their commanders had any sense they would train the maneuver. The driver backs up, jumps to the ground, they fire x-number of times, the driver gets back into his seat very quickly (having practiced it) and they drive away. Sure this is just speculation, but it's just as much speculation as the so called 'reasons' which Gorden related BFC as having given.

Yeah and both the germans and the brits told it.

BFC didn't think of that and allow for shoot n scoot etc to be executed in reverse? (at least for archers) Jeez what a clunky piece of code. It would have been better to leave the archer out altogether. </font>

You will loose the plot? What, as in let it loose?

I think you answered the question pretty well. If a scenario designer wants the game to be a training tool, then you need to just keep making effective decisions, in the face of being thwarted by circumstances. Confusion, mistakes and time-stress should be maxed out to see if you have the right stuff to hold a command position.

For the new engine, it would be great to be able to toggle between 'beautiful' and 'tactical' portrayals of the map.

Yes. That's how we all did shoot 'n scoot in CMBO.

Or morale penalties for other friendly unit in range would be applied - to simulate the troops not liking what they are seeing... </font>

BFC didn't think of that and allow for shoot n scoot etc to be executed in reverse? (at least for archers) Jeez what a clunky piece of code. It would have been better to leave the archer out altogether. [ December 19, 2003, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

I wouldn't. Just because you can picture someone doing one of the TacAIs many bizarre blunders, doesn't make it a feature or triumph of the code. It just shows that life is stranger than fiction.

In this case, each individual archer reacts with it's timid little archer tac-AI, unaware that together with its archer friends it gets 3-1 odds and its surivivability is much higher than if it were alone. That's why CM needs an "!" with which you can tag orders. This would increase the chance of the unit doing like you tell it to. It amounts to the commander shouting at the archer crews 'you will stand your ground and fight' or somesuch.

I can't promise, but I'm almost certain that if you put your case to Battlefront, that they will let you cancel your mail order. They've always seemed reasonable about things like that in the past.

To return to the topic: I can spend half an hour just watching the movie. Over and over from _exactly the same_ point of view, which is as close as possible to any of my opponent's tanks that die during the turn.

Nobody cares.

Yes, I agree that scripting should be permitted to make interesting scenarios. It's the only way to get a realistic battle going with the AI. Does anybody know why this is not included in CMAK? </font>

Yes you are right. I played the yanks in the 'another hill' and at the end of the battle there was the MG42 and the panzer duds still tucked away in their car at the top of the map, as well as another set of soldiers. I am quit disheartend with the AI, has it always been this way? </font>

This is not quite correct. It is not the kind of ammunition you fire but the kind of target. </font>