Cameroon
-
Posts
889 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Cameroon
-
-
Keep in mind that the map's plan doesn't influence the Tac AI at all, just the goals that the computer opponent tries to achieve. Also, the Tac AI is active for both the computer opponent AND the human player.
TheVulture has a good description of the various parts of the AI.
[Edit] Kieme, I posted in your AI thread in the tech support forum. There's definitely something that - at least some times - is very wrong for QBs and setup.
[ August 01, 2007, 07:25 AM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]
-
Well, as you say, it's the map designer's plan that the AI is stuck with and the plan just is not so greatOriginally posted by Kieme(ITA):Ok first: I'm very fond of static defences, I live in one of the world's regions with the most bunker concentration ever (North-eastern Italy). I've studied fixed defences myself during the past years and I can tell you that in any case 3 tanks in fixed position would never be placed in that way, some tens meters from each other...
So much for the extreme realism which prevented the possibility to choose single units...
The problem you people have recognized regards wrong basic programming by the map designer, letting so little space for the defending force, so that I'm asking you: isn't this a problem big enought to talk about?
What I'd like to understand here is about what AI could do apart from the basic instructions the map designer can apply....
That infantry in trench is ok, for sure.
But what about any other situation, did you ever see the AI acting jut after having the basic plan executed? What can you tell me about that thread I created in tech issues forum, about this matter?
Finally, let me put this straight: if I play a scenario a second time I'll face an enemy who will apply the very same tactic. Is this right? Since now I've seen this kind of situation only. In QB battles IA doesn't even exist, is this true? Since now I've seen this only.
I don't know that I'll get an opportunity to try it out this evening, but I want to take that map and see what can be done to give the AI a better plan to work with. At least in this case we, I think, all agree that the AI needs more setup space.With the QBs and scenarios, the AI is given a plan that includes the objectives that it has. In the case of the map above, it's sitting on those objectives. In all the versions of CM so far, if the AI (or human, really) is in control of the objectives then basically it's a matter of sitting and waiting. If you want the AI to move around, you'd have to play a QB where the AI is not supposed to defend.
I also wouldn't be surprised if some of the AI's behavior has to do with the chain of command that's in CMx2. Perhaps it's "playing" at Elite and so maybe forces that we as humans would use to counter an attack don't even know that there's a threat yet. That'd be an interesting tidbit to find out.
I've seen people mention that the AI troops rarely returned fire or don't move if they're supposed to be attacking, and that is definitely something else entirely and I have no idea what's going on there.
Hopefully some enterprising individuals will go out and create some QBs that give the AI a better chance. I plan on trying my hand at it, at least to see what's possible.
-
Because it have to fear of Heavy Artillery Support? Because they have to do a HIt&Run Gurilla Tactic? </font>Originally posted by Taki:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Why would defending infantry move out of perfectly good trenches?
-
You don't, but the launch unit isn't really a weight problem I don't think. The heavy bit are the missiles themselves.
-
I think you missed the part where he said they were staticOriginally posted by Kieme(ITA):Try to play more QBs you'll see what this is about...
Defensive plan or not there's something wrong if 3 fized T-55 stay at 10 meters one from each other...
The AI has always had issues setting up static (or near static) defensive units in a way that humans would. Like I said above, I'm all for improvements to the AI being made, but figuring out where to place static defenses isn't easy.
[Edit] Sorry, missed the "fixed = fixed"
The rest stands though, the AI has never been good at that. I also think there might not have been enough room in the setup areas. It's something I want to play with in the editor, since I think his experience is a results of the AI having a poor plan to work with from the beginning. -
The CM AI - all versions - has been pretty weak at placing units in an optimal position. If you played any of the CMx1 titles, you'd find ATGs and anti-inf guns placed in good cover, but with no field of fire, etc. The static tanks that the AI was given fall into that category.Originally posted by Achim:@Kieme(ITA):
I though the same.
Seems like the AI puts the inf. in trenches and thats it.
No RPG inf. in the trench near the starting position of the US Player.
No cover for the tanks on the top of the hill.
No fire from the tank to help their inf. in the trenches.
Not to say that it shouldn't be improved, but it's definitely a hard problem.
Also, I think that QB map does not have a good AI plan at all. The setup zone should allow the defending AI to place units in a much greater area, but if you look at it, it's basically right on the trenches. So all the setup has to be within that space, and since it's a defense, the AI just sits tight.
I wonder how the AI would do if it had a better defensive plan for that map, and if I get the chance tonight I'm going to make some of those plan changes and see how it goes.
-
I dunno why Invader's AI opponent isn't returning fire, but in BigDork's QB the Syrian AI is on the defense with a static plan (I looked at the map in the editor).
Since the infantry are already set up in the best cover that they can be in, the not moving makes sense. For the life of me I can't recall how the AI in the CMx1 titles would have reacted, but I think it would have sat on its flags just like the AI sat in the objective zones.
Guess it's time for me to play a QB.
-
I have two thoughts:
1. Since the AT-5 is externally mounted, did you make sure that your BMP-2 was opened up (on the Special command pane)? If they were buttoned up then it might not have been able to fire the AT-5.
2. Was it under a minimum range for the AT-5? One unfortunate omission, it seems, is range information for the weapon systems. Someone on a different thread was talking about getting stuck with a bunch of AT-4s on a map that was too small for them to be used.
-
From what they've said pre-release, yes, the bullets are tracked and could impact a unit not directly in the line of fire. After all, if you watch the ricochets you'll see them impact the ground elsewhere (unless they go zipping off the map).
I can't see why they wouldn't as it is, technically, just Area Fire.
-
I can only speak for the MGS, since that's the only one I've used. I just target the wall directly, though a target right in front would probably work too.
I know the Blast movement command of Engineers will work on building walls, but I've never tried it on those that are free-standing. Could be a bug or something that should be made to work (a design decision rather than bug).
-
In a single turn, yes.
The Face command is disabled when there's a covered arc in place, which makes sense unless you have a turret.
Not such a big deal in RT, but it would definitely be sub-optimal in WEGO. It'd be nice if that could be changed to recognize turreted vehicles and allow the Face and Covered Arc commands to be active at the same time for them.
-
As promised, a Stryker driving through a breach:
No, that is not how I generally use them, just a convenient test
-
I'll put one up for you Skinnedpuppy, unless someone beats me to it
I'll have to wait until after work, so another 5 hours basically. -
I've been trying to avoid using the absolute edge of the map (for the barracks) as it feels gamey. Being exposed to fire from 3 angles sucks though, so I may have to settle for near the edge anyway.
This is one of those times I _really_ wish we could save in-game replays. Sigh. I understand the theory, but my execution just isn't acceptable to me and I'd love to see someone execute it properly.
-
I know what you're talking about Baron, and I think SGT_56M's suggestion is the best way to do it given that you can't change the facing now if there's a cover arc in place.
-
Did you make the breach more than one 'tile' wide? I have no problem driving through breaches, but I also have always made them at least two spaces wide.
-
I know exactly what you're talking about and I'm not sure what the "fix" is. I, too, want them to simply stop where they are and return fire, not regroup.
I guess you could try the button to the left of the "cancel orders" button. I think that's what I'll be trying next time.
Definitely falls into the "Look, the order came down to STOP WHERE YOU ARE, THERE ARE BAD THINGS OUT THERE" not "Hey, why don't you guys form up somewhere?"
-
rudel, any chance we could get a video of how that works in practice?
-
See, if I try that Invader, I get my Stryker whacked by an RPG. Never seems to fail. Maybe it's a difference of QB vs Campaign?
I dunno, but if I don't lay down loads of suppressing fire with the .50 cals before moving in, I get pummeled.
-
They'll fire those things quite a long way at area building targets too. I was trying to figure out what noise I was hearing, then saw the grenade tracer.
-
I'm in exactly the same position as you, except that I do make my own breaches with the MGS. I can take the first two objectives, but I can't really get close to the SF HQ. Artillery just doesn't knock 'em down.
Going in the front gate for the Airport HQ with the 1st platoon has actually worked ok for me (now). I ran through the final training mission until I got a better idea of how much fire (and for how long the fire must be sustained) it takes to suppress units so that you can actually move infantry forward.
Now I put fire on suspected locations, move the fire about a bit and then pull in (_just_ inside the gate) with a Stryker and unload. It's worked pretty well.
The barracks, on the other hand, have been much worse. I use an MGS to punch a hole in the wall (target it, or right in front of) and it should work. I think if I unload infantry on the safe side of the wall, then back up with the Strykers and lay down suppressing fire on the buildings, I should have a better chance.
I've also had an epiphany about the buildings (in particular the SF HQ). Unfortunately it came too late in my latest attempt, but use my artillery and then continue to lay waste with my Javelins.
It's definitely a difficult, brutal fight and I'd love a detailed AAR (pics too?) from someone who has it mastered.
-
I've got a Nvidia 7950 GT with 512 MB of RAM and WinXP and I'm having a grand ol' time, working just fine
For Nvidia 79xx cards, it seems that the 94.24 drivers are a good version to use.
Dunno if you're joking about the fog, but they all will display fog unless ATI/Nvidia break their drivers (which would never happen, no.....)
-
That's just level of detail kicking in, get closer (zoom in, for instance) and the detail will build.
-
There are two things complicating taking builds, beyond the regular MOUT problems.
The first is that squads are not (at least for a bunch of us - there's a thread in the general forum) going through openings blown in walls. Too many doors are in exposed (duh
), so using an MGS or the "Blast" movement order should remedy that. Except that it doesn't right now. Rune (and through him Charles) should have a test scenario and save game showing that, so fingers crossed that its fixed soon.The second has to do with squad pathing. Picture the "row of buildings" below with doors on top and bottom. Dismount your squad below R and give them a movement command to M. In my experience so far, they decide to go in through the bottom of R, out the top of R, in the top of M. WHY?!
|L||M||R|
So, be extra careful with your move orders. I am now very specific, which sucks.
Also, since dismounting (no matter the move order used) seems ponderously slow, use LOTS of suppressive fire. Thankfully Strykers have tons of MG ammo, so use it.
I don't know that I'll get an opportunity to try it out this evening, but I want to take that map and see what can be done to give the AI a better plan to work with. At least in this case we, I think, all agree that the AI needs more setup space.
Question about missing AI...
in Combat Mission: Shock Force Tech Support
Posted
Hi Kieme, just wanted to back up some of the things you've seen in QBs with a screenshot:
Ok, there's obviously something wrong with that.
(sorry for the wide image, leaving for work and didn't have time to resize)
I don't know if it's related to the discussion we've been having over in the QB AAR thread, but it's absolutely something wrong with the computer opponent's setup.