James

I agree 100% with capt wacky. One thing he forgot to mention though: Remember the enemy AI would be using the same C&C system - the same realistic coordination flexibity and caution seen by the enemy in AA would apply in CM too. No more grabbing the VLs and having a turkey shoot, no more predictable uncoordinated attacks by the AI in which platoons are scattered and only withdraw in rout. The AI in airbourne assault models real Command & Control at all levels and the results are realistic. Whats more its a real challenge just to hold your own let alone beat it! CM AI is just an abstraction - a strat & a Tac AI. CM is a great game which realisticaly portrays everything except how real battaleons, companies & platoons fight. I really belive the CM & AA teams should join up together. Not only would CMs AI problembs be sorted out - play the AA demo and imagine the possibilities of a full strategic-tactical operational game.

And think of the improvement of the enemy AI. We may see such things as successful coordination between the units of a formation at all levels, sensible realistic tactics and a lot more. If the command & control concepts in airbourne assault were to be used in CM in the future! For those of you wondering what Airbourne assault is go back to the main battlefront homepage and take it from there - you will be astounded and amazed at this new masterpiece!

CMBO is on the shelves at game and EB in my high street. So will CMBB apear there too? I hope so!

Yes im in the uk and it is called "combat mission" not missions. And another thing its not in EB's page, its in "Game" - appologies I always get those 2 mixed up! To see for yourselfs go to: game

Electronic Boutique.

I've just seen in EB's coming soon section a game called "combat mission" eta 15/03/02. There was no other information apart from the title. Does this mean I can just buy it down the road or will I have to wait for it to arrive in the post? [ February 01, 2002, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: James ]

Have you seen the two new up and comming games in development at Matrix games: Close Assault & Combat Leader? Check them out at: web page web page sorry havnt got the hang of posting links, just click on each "web page" link. [ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: James ]</p>

Been away from CM for ages and I was wondering where the best place was to quickly find opponants for multiplayer games, not PBEM the other type, TPC I think its called.

Been away from this forum for ages and was wondering about the release date of CM2. I may be the only one who doesnt know it!

Any changes on the drawing board in CM2 for infantry AI? I would like threat analysis for infantry, simler to the existing tac ai of the AFVs. A Stuart naturally backs off from a Tiger, a squad should not advance against a platoon. Infantry should aim to defeat the enemy by gaining advantages of cover & firepower in a firefight, not by blindly advanceing into incoming fire.

"The best AI fix: PBEM." No way! Its is a cop out to say it cant be done. Once upon a time what is being done now in CM would have seemed impossible. If they'd shrank from the challenge then we'd have no CM now. Truly realistic AI may seem impossible now but it is the next challenge to be met.

I recently started a topic called: Case for new type of chain of command AI. Those dreaming of a better AI may find find it interesting.

I beleve it would work. AI structured around the chain of command has worked very well in the past eg: the battleground serise and the simulations of Dr Turcan. Both gave challenging and realistic results.

Is there any chance steve & Charles will get to read and comment on all this?

Jason C: The main thrust of my proposal was that the AI SIDE uses the chain of command system to play a more challengeing coordinated and realistic game. I only added that the human player could use it as an OPTION if he wanted a different experience. The way a CM player uses the system as it stands is exellent. I dont want to do away with it! I just believe that an AI simulating the chain of command realistcally would give a better AI opponant to us players.

Just bumping this back up. Any thoughts on this subject, anyone?

At the moment we have the stratAI & OperationalAI which is a very rough abstracted chain of command with rough abstracted results: mixed up and scattered platoons, generalised inflexable attacks ect. I propose a new approach to the AI in CM one that realistically simulates the chain of command. Starting at the top the say Batalleon AI/CO views the battle from his perspective and gives orders to his companies useing the SOP of his force. Each company then interprets its orders according to the situation and gives orders to coordinate the moves of its platoons as a real company CO would useing SOP and intitative. Like wise the platoons act on their orders and coordinate the moves of their squads. As the situation changes each level of command fights the battle from its perspective. Each formation should also have the intitative to adapt its orders to the situation with a view to preserving its numbers and cohesion. The quality of the HQ unit also directly affects the intellegence and initative in its interpretration and giving of orders. This Chain of Command AI also gives the player the OPTION to give orders through any of its HQ units useful for those big senarios and those wishing to fight the battle from a different perspective. So instead of 2 generalised AIs taking on too much, you'll get lots of little AI's working together greater than the sum of its parts. I know this is a little late for a patch or its inculsion in CM2, but what about CM3? What do you all think of it? Has Steve & Charles thought of it, would they consider it? [ 05-05-2001: Message edited by: James ]

Heres some tips for getting the best out of the AI during meeting engagements: 1: remove all victory flags (this way theres no sudicidal attacks on useless patches of ground plus you dont know where AIs going to attack) 2: Split all the squads of both sides (this hightens the tac AI reactions of the split squads giving them more realistic self preservation. Lower global moral results so sides do not fight until distintigration. Also it gives less abstraction of infantry.) 3: put an exit zone frendly to you on the map edge thats behind where your side starts. (discovered by accident I found the AI actually advances and attacks with exellent good scense in its efforts to defend the exit zone behind you. Miles better than blindly attacking VLs or the general center of the map.) NB:USE ALL THREE These may seem rather weird ideas but believe me they work. I'm an experienced CM player who is lucky to get a draw against the attacking AI forces which are of axproximatly equal points to my own. The AI behavior overall is more real. No more turkey shoots. No more going "you fools(yawn)" now I go "You Bastards!"

All

Calling all bored winners: Go to the Tips forum and read my topic: "solo players, getting the best out of the AI" If you follow my tips you wont br bored for long!

Hey all you bored winners, go to the tips forum and read my post:"solo players: How to get the best out of the AI"

Here are some tips on senario design which give better AI performance from the infantry and more unpredicatble better fought meeting engagements. Here are the three steps. First: In map preview split all squads. This may seem strange but what happens is the split squads behave with more caution, a more sensitive TacAI - they react more sensibily without needless sacrifice. Also the global moral of both sides drops to 55-70% making the overall AI more cautious and less prone to giving you a turkey shoot. The infantryman in CM is abstrated into squads, by splitting the squads that abstraction is also half as less. Second: Remove all victory flags. What!? I hear you say! The trouble with VLs is that you know where the enemy will head for, even with dynamic ones, and all you have to do is get there first into cover to let the AI force his men relentlessly into your incoming until their all casulties or broken. Third: Place exit zones for each side opposite each other. ie Allies start in the west advance to exit zone in the east and the opposite for Axis. What it actually does is give the Strat AI a fine balence between attack and defence. It will utilse both strategies with flexibility according to the situation and use any part of the map. It even withdraws in a hot spot to a better position. Actual exiting by the AI hardly ever happens, and there is no need for you to exit if you are concentrating on defeating the enemy. The exit zones are there not there as an objective but as a modification to the behavior of the AI. These 3 steps may seem a bit strange but try designing a senario useing them all. Even an experienced CM player can actully be given a real challenge and be beaten by the AI without it having superior weight of numbers! I use forces of approximatly equal point strength all the time and the AI really gives as good as it gets. I have had some excellent battles and lost a number of times, drawn most times, won sometime. Not only does it feel more realistic it is a better game for useing these 3 steps. PS:Use an existing hand made map from another senario [ 04-19-2001: Message edited by: James ]

Definatly the Churchill AVRE for its novelty value!

Yes, a WW1 version would be somthing else. Imagine having cavalry in the early 1914 period! The latter period of the 1918 offensive would be good too with their huge monolithic tanks and fluid fronts. But for the most part battles in the trench war were a bit one sided! It would work best with that wars side-shows.

Robert, I am talking about the distant future after CM1 when BTS want to take CM further. Sure it'd take work but did'nt CM1 and were all glad of that.